Ibra

Yes that’s the usual case and I expect it this to be strict law on commercial flights (airliners, cropdusting and maybe instruction and ferry) Some countries seems to accept alternatives on their aircraft or their airspace on any papers, especially on “private small/vintage aircraft”, some have validations or mutual agreement (e.g. some foreign aircraft in exotic destinations can be flown with FAA papers worldwide, there is no runway and no flying school in Andorra or San Morino , EASA countries allow to fly EASA registrations) Another edge case is that some countries insist that their citizens or residents have to fly certain aircraft on domestic papers when in domestic trips, as they invoke ICAO Art32, someone residing in UK & France can’t fly some N tails on FAA papers alone, he needs to hold DGAC & CAA papers while in domestic trips, myself included, however FAA certificates for US visitors are accepted), sounds odd but it’s like car driving licence rules for residents vs tourists ! I am more curious on flying Canada registered aircraft in Canada & US? Sorry, ToC is Transport Canada (they are like their FAA) Yes N tail can be flown with FAA certificate worldwide,

I will see what TOC will say on this, I am used to EASA and UKCAA, let's hope they are easy (UKCAA asks for certified copy of licences that are issued by them and if you are overseas you only choice is British consular service or getting hang on a foeign judge or doctor to sign, bizzarly, they do not accept dentists )

Thanks for the pirep, was that standalone papers (e.g. new CASA medical)? or temporary validation based on your FAA certs? I had a validation for flying in New Zeland, it's as easy as one can get on quick vacation and it was a fun trip (gliding in Omarama and flying C172 around), I have not had the chance to fly in Australia, I gather it's fun and unique !

Not Mooney specific question but looking for some wisdom here, maybe from those who fly in US or Canada, from looking at the FAR it seems: 1) Fly N-reg in Canada using TOC papers (FAR seems ok, anything from TOC?) 2) Fly N-reg in US using TOC papers, will TOC certificate need validation by FAA? 3) Fly C-reg in US using FAA papers (FAR seems ok, anything from TOC?) 4) Fly C-reg in Canada using FAA papers, will FAA certificate need validation by TOC? For 2), it seems that FAA61.75 that is foreign based does the job (it’s valid worldwide) what about 4), has anyone got their FAA private validated to fly C-reg in Canada? is it valid worldwide? I am talking about private flying where ICAO recommends automatic validation (no commercial or airliners operator flying) Edit: I changed “licence” to “certificate” (FAR calls it “pilot licence” when it’s not from FAA ) Anyone familiar with similar regs in Canada?

I have been in few partnerships (Currie Wot, Astir Glider, and two Mooneys), the best partnerships comes from having max 2-3 co-owners with same mission and similar level of aspirations, experiences, finances with different flying schedules I also flew other people aircraft (Skylane, Arrow), I would not call it renting as I only paid for fuel (always left lot of extra) and helped with annuals, ferry flights or joined some trips…

Congrats for the PPL ! Sounds like you have picked the right place to base it? I fly in France (Normandie) and UK (Essex), I am happy to help with M20J transition if your aircraft is registered in EASA or UKCAA

Yes flying IFR or VFR from altiports is tricky, that is why we have “VFR mountain rating” (to land on 500m/1500ft with 15deg slope) and “special crew/aircraft IFR certification” (to operate Iunder instruments on short non-instrument runways like Samedan, Sion, LaMole) One detail that is worth mentioning is that all instrument procedures (RNP, ILS, SID RNAV or CONV) flown by GA under IFR in Switzerland are actually “cloud break” or “cloud punch” rather than full IFR procedures, if you look at all Switzerland IFR airports (except two big ones: Geneva and Zurich) they have physical runways that don’t qualify for instrument runway under ICAO Annex 14 due to obvious topography, as such they can’t support full IFR procedure design as per PANS-OPS or TERPS for an instrument touchdown (on runway TDZ) or an instrument liftoff (from runway DER), as such the decision hight (OCH) is always high than 500ft, the takeoff segment is always visual and may have ceiling restriction and the required visibility is always high than 5000m or 1500m…this basically means while it’s IFR, you are supposed to behave similar to visual flying while near the ground The majority of those IFR procedures in Austria, France, Italy or Swiss Alps seems to require PC12 operated under NCO (sort of Part91), while other aircraft struggle: private pistons, don’t have the required performance and private jets are out of their league as they apply NCC/CAT (sort of part121) In US, you have mountain IFR airports above 6kft with long runway (6000ft and 0% slope) where someone under Part91 can operate VFR with no specific pilot rating or aircraft permission, even IFR up to zero/zero departure and land up to 200ft DH and 1600ft RVR (550m), given this one can get lot of IFR utility in say turbo/fiki K vs clean/na J I don’t think similar logic apply to operate turbo and de-iced Mooney under IFR in Switzerland? you will have to learn how to enter or exit via the valleys under VFR (unless you have PC12 and you get pilot & aircraft signed off for all airports), away from Alps the only concern is cruising: FL80-FL120 will do in J (K will get there quicker) and there is rarely any need to go above except weather and winds

Only, if it saves me one billion dollar Thanks for the background, I guess it depends on the applications? I rarely get the breaks that hot in Mooney I am sure RyanAir will be interested in synthetic based instead of petroleum based https://community.infiniteflight.com/t/ryanairs-bad-landings-explanation/269067

Any reason why you went for this replacement?

J will do that slalom as well, however, if regularly flying IFR in mountains, the K would be nice but lot of tiny places in Switzerland & southern France have short paved runways or grass where 4 cylinders tend to do better than 6 cylinders… AFAIK, one rarely takeoff IFR with 6kft DA in Europe? unlike US we don’t have steep IFR SID from 9kft airports? so the lack of turbo on takeoff to maintain climb gradient is not that problematic (we are not talking IFR from Denver where K and usual VFR from peaks like Megeve, valley mids in Barcelonette or valley floors like Sion, Lausanne…is very doable in J), then when away from Alps most airways flying can be done in J, slowly but surely: the only reasons why you would climb above 12kft are weather (clouds, winds) or efficiency on say 500nm trip non stop Overall, K is better for regular +10kft or +400nm missions in terms of capability and efficiency, the turbo also shines if one is operating above IMC in winter: you can’t beat these with J…for anything else, I personally don’t think there is much differences J or K? even for maintenance the difference is still tiny compared to other variables as you budget on 1000h-2000h time horizons If you get older K models make sure you get upgrades from new models(reducing throttle on every takeoff is not intuitive ) Between the two, I would go would for the one with clean airframe and sensible price !

Thanks Skip, seems hidden there

Hi all, I guess red fluide leaking here is break fluid (MIL-PRF-5606) anyone know how the leak can be located or fixed? The break fluid reservoir is not empty and I never had issues with pilot & co-pilot breaks, I am not sure if it’s caused by parking break? Thanks,

Cessnas, Bonanzas, Pipers cascaded some Garmin/FAA costs down from similar work on jets or turboprop, I imagine Mooney would be sort of start from scratch like Diamond did, in any case, 33k$ is lot of money…

If the factory 1/ still make and sell aircraft and 2/ have interest in supporting legacy units Even if those conditions apply (altough they are mutually exclusive as there is an incentive to ditch old products and customers rather than fix and upgrade), the G1000 path to WAAS/NXI upgrades are still pricey are in 6 digits ranges as you still need airframe manufacturer to order appropriate software development from Garmin which can take years for delivery, especially for "weak manufacturers", a friend was quoted 180k$ (or €?) by Diamonds to get NXI in DA42 which is 30% of aircraft price, even after he agreed on that they dropped the case as not worth it... I think powerful manufacturers (KigAir, TBM, Citation, Phenom) have more leverage on Garmin, I think they quote 6months time frame to sort on case by case basis, obviously pricing is not even discussed: it's whatever you have ! I don't think Mooney aircraft or owners would bother with this, it's a lost battle and time have moved on G1000 Ovation There is lesson about keeping things modular when it comes to "future aircraft pannel"

I have rechecked the IRA exam syllabus, only landing with one engine in twins from procedure is required, there is nothing about landing singles from procedure or taxi after landing, maybe on purpose for convenience? especially in some European countries: lot of GA IFR tests for private pilots (ones who operate IFR singles) involve flying missed following 2D/3D procedures instead of landing in big IFR airports (3-4 digits landing fee) before landing at some VFR home-base along the visual pattern (affordable landing), having IFR training base in an ATC airport with instrument runway is a luxury On checklists, I gather when wheels on the ground (before takeoff & after landing) using memory flow followed by paper checklist is healthy: one has plenty of time, especially on pre-takeoff in challenging instrument conditions where missing some items increase the risk profile dramatically While flying mono-pilot, the expectations on checklists goes down: * Critical time actions are done by memory (e.g. failure in twins or singles) * Non-critical time actions one can skip checklist but the burden on them to do it correctly (missing an item line while reading checklist is probably tolerated on check-ride? missing an item from memory without using checklist is likely a show stopper?) * Emergencies with complex systems usually require checklists “after the facts” I fully agree on changing type (172 to 182R), yes, one need checklist (even V-speed card) on his first flights, I personally, can’t see how one can do without?

Same in Euro-land, the IRA examiner report require “Use of checklist, airmanship, anti-icing/de-icing procedures, etc. apply in all sections.”, however, there is no landing section in IR exam, the test stops after you finish approach at DA/MDA (land or missed), the taxi/park after landing is not explicitly tested, only taxi checks & briefing before takeoff are explicitly tested… Nonetheless, there is no requirement for approved checklist or paper format in NCO/91, in the example above, I am guessing it’s failure to stop after landing to do “after landing checks” rather than failure to show a “paper checklist”

YES it’s legal to fly IFR in Golf (if you can find some) and Echo (plenty out there) but it will be a tough flight plan (you can’t file GPS waypoints) and tough execution (you can’t take directs) and planning in IMC is a nightmare due to limited backup with secondary navigation I had the impression IFR in Charlie, Bravo, Alpha in US now require PBN/RNAV1 (DME-DME or GPS) with up to date database of waypoints, even KNS80 with RHO - THETA RNAV5 is not enough in busy terminal areas ! Also my understanding, you can’t plan PAR/SRA or Contact/Visual again low aerodrome minima, weather has to be good very ceiling >> airway/radar otherwise you need raw data with instruments from your cockpit Getting MVA/MIA charts for your whole route outside terminal area would be a challenge, some are not even published and getting them would probably cost as much as new TSO’ed 146 GPS

We arranged with one (I am still curious about FSDO coverage question for aircraft, for FAA licences, it seems any FSDO can deal with them)

On most TKS retrofit, no practical difference while flying, the differences are legal ones during dispatch…in Mooneys, at best it’s 14V vs 28V I don’t think there is any point comparing performance, I have flown turbo C182 (clean wing) and DA42 (FIKI) in similar winter forecasts, I was surprised that I had to turn and land back on FIKI wing while the other time a naked wing made it (maybe by luck) Just to put the lid on practical performance, in FAR25 (FAA) or CS25 (EASA), “maximum continuous icing for FIKI certification purposes is 17.4nm in a stratus cloud and maximum intermittent ice corresponds to a 2.6nm in a cumulus cloud”. In other words, flying FIKI in ice more than 5min-10min in stratus or 2min in convective icing is not necessarily tested and it would not be legal according to certification limits, yet anyone flying FIKI has probably spent more than that (even before noticing or warming up their system), the heavy part of FIKI certification cost is not about flying performance, it’s rather about system redundancy, detection, annunciations…the main benefit is legalities of dispatch and planning ! https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2014/11/04/2014-25789/airplane-and-engine-certification-requirements-in-supercooled-large-drop-mixed-phase-and-ice-crystal https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/document-library/easy-access-rules/online-publications/easy-access-rules-large-aeroplanes-cs-25?page=5

Indeed, on the legalities you need FIKI to file your level on some forecast, however, if you have TKS and solid exit no one will enforce it, one can deals with it: like they deal with icing like they deal with convective weather, crosswinds… In practice, the exit strategy depends on terrain and airspace, for departure in low frozen weather in busy terminal airspace with hardcore terrain, one can easily see the difference in legalities between FIKI vs TKS and why such distinction exist (*), however, in empty airspace over flat lands, there is likely no practical difference: no one bothers, notices or even care (you can file 14kft and ask 4kft) (*) They both fly in same airspace and ATC/FAA want to have that FIKI vs non-FIKI distinction as it prevents those not equipped getting in way of those who are not in busy environments, just like: IFR, LVO, PBN, WX radar, RVSM, Approche Ban…either you have the label or you don’t?

In practice, Flying into “actual icing” is prohibited without FIKI (TKS is not enough unless you are going left/right or up/down) Flying into “forecasted icing” is prohibited without an exit strategy Flying into “reported icing” is prohibited without re-planing or cancelling

Thanks for the offer, I should book next year for mine then I am asking for an aircraft that is stinging idle in Italy as of now…

Thanks for the PIREP, that sounds like ping-pong, I am imagine the plan to get permit and overfly 3 countries is a strike-out

Hello, Has any follow mooniac went the hassle to get an FAA flying permit with expiring annual while outside US? I looked at the online form, it require an FSDO, does anyone know which ones cover permit issuance for US aircraft based overseas (Oklahoma?) Thanks !

It would be good to have tried it in well equipped aircraft with an instructor or rated pilot in actual conditions, there are plenty of nice ideas and brilliant toys out there, however, one can’t know the limitations of a backup method without “testing it in safe environment” An iPad could be useful to go as low as LNAV minima, however, that will not work the first time in bumpy clouds when human factors kick in… It’s also a shame why lot of equipment in aircraft are not used, I was flying with someone in G1000 C182, he was used iPad all the time and DCT button, he can’t load a procedure, hook to autopilot or even set an OBS, his argument was that he was “VFR only for now” and “getting IFR rating is too demanding”, I suggested he gets lot of instrument time (even without counting it toward rating), it has to be up to the point that he should be able to fly safe approach in real conditions (they may not be legal but there should be no doubt that he can land safely)