Marc_B

G500TXi with integrated AHRS/ADC.

I have it linked to GTN 750Xi; no flags on GTN or on LRU page. Software 8.04 in the GTX330ES, and 3.42 in the GDL88.

@donkaye, MCFI It’s interesting that the shop in Greeley said it should have single out (1090ES) and dual in. So when they did the upgrade they turned off UAT out.

Have GTX330ES and GDL88, and I’ve recently been getting notified that my Mode C is intermittent. The GTX is the oldest avionics piece in my panel but I’ve never had an issue and all the cockpit checks are good. Software most recent, LRU page on GTN shows all green. No errors logged. I've checked antennas, connections and having trouble getting into my avionics shop as they’re backed up. Went to another shop and went through basics and nothing obvious. Garmin said it’s rare to have the CL105 antennas go bad and the intermittent faults are usually software, terrain/antenna masking, or potentially frequency drift. Shop was going to use another GTX330ES off the shelf to switch out as a step but unit needed to be sent to Garmin due to malfunction. Anything I can or should check? Can GTX units be bench checked? Send to Garmin for repair vs change out equipment with newer model…seems more involved than just change unit as a change would likely be trade GDL/GTX for a 345 which would need wiring and install time. What’s the typical lifespan of a GTX 330ES? PAPR usually has shown SDA fail and reports similar to below.

I guess the song is right...maybe you can always go around...even after a gear up!

I've had issues with the threaded rod within the static wick being "welded" in place over time and then making it difficult to remove, break off and then require an entirely new static wick base to be riveted. Any recommendations or benefit for using some type of corrosion preventative when installing wicks? i.e. ACF50 or Super Lube or some other grease/corrosion preventative?

It's a catch 22...if you're just after ability to log & count towards currency, the existing FAA BATDs work fine. But my thought was from the standpoint of using simulation to do the things that you wouldn't or couldn't do in real life (or couldn't do as easily/rapidly. i.e. equipment failures, partial panel, GPS outages, quirky approaches, planned malfunctions, etc. You could set up scenarios to get multiple repetitions and alter minor changes in a way that wouldn't be as easily done in the cockpit. The more realistic training scenarios I'm referring to may not count towards "log time" but would absolutely contribute to building proficiency. Here is where I feel that there is a HUGE opportunity for aviation training that could be filled with existing technology, but leveraged towards more than just a single pilot purchasing $5-7k of equipment and only using self guided practice.

I think we can all agree that single pilot IFR in IMC is a challenge, and it takes more than a casual approach to be actually proficient. Given the equipment can vary from one aircraft to another, proficiency definitely isn't universal either. I know that the CFII's on the forum have their typical flow, and an IPC has criteria. But curious to see everyone's "list" of the tasks and proficiency items they routinely train... Hand flying: if you're not good at handflying, then IFR (especially without an autopilot) will be difficult even on a good day. Exercising your ability to hold heading and altitudes with precision is a foundation of flight and basic requirement of IFR. Automation: knobology and fluid use of the equipment in your aircraft using GPS with autopilot; understanding "gotchas" and quick recognition of issues; understanding failure points and what those do/look like. Navigation: knobology and fluid use of the GPS to load approaches, sequence flight director, and ensure your GPS is directing what you think it should. Communication: frequent flights utilizing ATC efficiently; filing IFR routinely, getting flight following; following ATC direction quickly and efficiently, and developing the language/vocabulary to communicate effectively. Approaches: not all approaches are the same and it's easy to be lulled into a common flow that doesn't reflect approaches seen IRL. HILPT, procedure turns, short FAF segments, high angles of descent required, TAAs...lots of "quirks" that may not be found at your 'home drome'. Weather: HUGE aspect of IFR is the potential for icing, convection, unforecast deterioration, delays, etc. all the way to the big "Go-No Go" question at the beginning of the flight; how to effectively use inflight resources for weather, ABS-b, XM, ATC input; formulating contingency plans and strategies for success. Emergency procedures: having a firm grasp of what systems can fail, what that effects, and how it appears to the pilot; having effective contingency plans when equipment fails or issues arise. Safety practices: learning from the mistakes of others; rehearsing procedures (both routine and emergency) frequently to minimize hesitation, maximize outcome, and work effectively. Deliberate practice: excellence in aviation isn't a mistake and doesn't occur casually. Flight "muscles" atrophy with disuse, whether this is a maintenance downtime vs you've flown enough you don't "train" with the same intent and intensity that you once did... I don't think you can even come close to "working" all of these with just a simple IPC, and we all could probably benefit from working the groups that we don't work routinely. It also makes me realize the HUGE potential for working these through SIMULATION that emulates real world flying. ESPECIALLY when it comes to emergency procedures. There are many failures that you shouldn't perform in a real aircraft that would be super helpful to perform with simulation! I'd love to see a simulation center for GA that could be set up to mirror different aircraft both in flight profile as well as equipment, that would allow a more realistic experience for sim training. I'm surprised that some of the companies like Real Sim Gear don't have a demo center where they can set up modular examples of your aircraft, sell you training and sim time, and offer a discount to encourage you to take their equipment home with you. Garmin has their own OnSite training as well as online modules. For me, this is one of the "fun" aspects of flying...training the mental just as much as the tactile.

We had the Colorado Springs Caravan Clinic 2 weeks ago and wound up with more experienced pilots than newbies. Plus we had Lu and Dusty as our visiting photographers that got to capture a lot of the cool flights we had over the weekend. Regardless if you would never fly formation, you have to agree that Mooneys in flight are just amazing! Figured I'd post a few cool photos from the weekend. Thanks to Lu Chandler, luchandler097@gmail.com for the photo session!! Great clinic and thanks to SAR for organizing it!

I've had this happen a couple of times and I've never have seen a drop of water at any point in the sumped fuel. I always make an attempt to soak up as much as I can with a paper towel before opening the cap. Makes me wonder how much water, specifically, does it take to first begin to see water when you sump. vs. what concentration of water is "tolerable" and won't show engine issues. The second value likely has a temperature component as freezing water to clog screens/filters probably has a lower threshold than warm fuel in summer rains.

I don't think the answer is binary and I don't think there is "one" right way to solve this problem and so the FAR/AIM have guidelines that suggest standard solutions so that you have more PREDICTABLE responses for traffic "see and avoid" practices. Certainly there are some clearly "wrong" approaches. But few absolutes here, hence the variety and discussion. Flying home yesterday it was a gusty day with crosswinds and not the best weather. A Comanche in the pattern working on touch and goes. I had him on ADS-b, I had him on the radio, and as I got closer I had him visually. Approaching from the SE and planning to land Rwy 10. Initially I was planning a midfield crossover to a left downwind to join the pattern. But as I got closer it looked clear that the easiest and safest way was just to enter a crosswind behind him, keep him in sight, announce my intentions and that I had visual of "aircraft currently on crosswind" and following behind. I was flying faster and could have "cut in front" and not be a hazard...but I'd give up visual contact just to shave a minute or two off my flight time. Many times the safest way of deconfliction is to minimize your time in the area, not maximize it. But also important is the ability to SEE. So I think that the idea of a 45 to downwind just puts you enough outside the pattern to be able to SEE and hear traffic, gives you the most options if your spacing won't work, and gives you an easy "out" if things don't look good to just give it some time and try again later. The cross midfield at pattern altitude and turn downwind has similar ability to "see" the traffic in the pattern and plan your entry, it's on the opposite side of the pattern and can give you an "out" with a turn away if needed. BUT there are plenty of fields where it's not smart to cross midfield (i.e. parachute areas), and sometimes other runways in use make this "opposite pattern side" still an active flight area. But from a pure visual standpoint, flying over midfield likely gives the best "overview" of the field, the windsock, the traffic in the pattern. Even with a 2 mile long runway, glancing 1 mile each direction is likely better than 2 miles out on the 45 and perhaps you can't see the traffic on base/final (at 3-4 miles away) or just touching down. I think it's one thing to say "I chose this entry to landing because...it allowed me best visibility, allowed me to follow traffic I had visual on, allowed me to clear the area more quickly, was necessary for spacing, etc." It's completely different to have no reason and just tuck your head and barrel in because that's "how I've always done it." There are pilots/aircraft out there who don't have ADS-b, who don't have radios, who aren't paying attention, and who may be training/distracted/dealing with in flight issue. That's why it will ALWAYS be EVERYONE'S job to see and avoid.

I guess what I mean is that I agree that “pattern work” is a type of focused training but along with that is ATC coordination, atypical arrivals, crosswind landings, and the core of a stabilized approach to landing. They’re all related but different in their applications. But the idea of training for the real world and really having an understanding of what that is, to Vance’s point, as varied as the pilot and their mission. Certainly, it’s the astute pilot who knows where the holes in their training are and is smart enough to self train or seek out help from a mentor or instructor. But it’s easy to burn fuel with laps in the pattern. It takes more effort to work on all the other nuances. Perhaps a contributing factor to the number of accidents in the landing phase of flight and change of “flow” leading to gear ups.

I reached out to Frank at Mooney and he informed me: Hello Marc, That 630121-501 & -503 are made from Stainless Steel AMS5510. Go figure! So I guess some are stainless. Not sure which other models this applies to… BTW this PN effectivity applies to M20K SN 25-1000 thru 25-TBA.

There's always been a perennial divide on those who feel that touch and goes in a Mooney are taboo, and those who have practiced them safely. But a comment recently made me think of how we train landings and how we review landings. A significant amount of time with initial pilot training is focused on "pattern work" and skills you learn with sight picture, muscle memory, correlation of pitch/power/speed, etc. But for some, if you throw a curve ball and have a go around, balked landing, or something that "breaks the flow" it has the potential for short circuiting the "pattern" and results in mistakes...i.e. gear up. But then I think of my typical cross country IFR landing and it's almost never a "standard traffic pattern" unless I'm coming into an uncontrolled field and traffic flow suggests I have a standard pattern entry flow. In fact, when training IFR I pretty much never flew standard patterns, and my IFR flow is different than standard pattern work flow. Basically leaves me with the impression that while pattern work is valuable and is jam-packed with several valuable lessons...it's not "good enough" to encapsulate the variety of situations that a traveling pilot will face. Crosswinds, short approaches, I'll call your base way out in BFE, cleared straight in, go arounds and balked landings...these flows take more time and can't be repeated as quickly...but are invaluable to work on all the same. Just thinking out loud and wondering how frequently your standard traveling Mooney pilot feels that a standard traffic pattern is actually exactly what they arrive with?

I wonder if past a certain year Mooney made this area stainless steel? Mine is non-magnetic but not sure how to see if it’s stainless or aluminum otherwise.