redbaron1982

I tried, without success (with a lawyer). I'm open to anyone that would like to help me with that.

One thing I cannot stress enough is to do a good prebuy. My suggestion is to use an the inspection side of an annual inspection as template. I had a very (like 40k) bad experience due to a lousy prebuy. Don't think that a official Mooney Service Center guarantees you anything.

Yeah, for 200k you should get very nice M20J or M20K. I think whether J or K depends if you want to fly in the low tenths (12k) or in the mid twenties (FL250).

I assume that as you're not specifying any capital constraint you have infinite money. In that case I think I would go with either an Ovation (no turbo) or an Acclaim (turbo). The newest you can find, the better. I think the best would be a Garmin G1000, I'm not sure the NXi is certified for Mooney. FIKI is a nice addon if you're flying a lot of IMC in low temps. You would be looking north of 500k.

14 CFR § 91.175 (c) Operation below DA/DH or MDA. Except as provided in § 91.176 of this chapter, where a DA/DH or MDA is applicable, no pilot may operate an aircraft, except a military aircraft of the United States, below the authorized MDA or continue an approach below the authorized DA/DH unless: (1) The aircraft is continuously in a position from which a descent to a landing on the intended runway can be made at a normal rate of descent using normal maneuvers, and for operations conducted under part 121 or part 135 unless that descent rate will allow touchdown to occur within the touchdown zone of the runway of intended landing; (2) The flight visibility is not less than the visibility prescribed in the standard instrument approach being used; and (3) Except for a Category II or Category III approach where any necessary visual reference requirements are specified by the Administrator, at least one of the following visual references for the intended runway is distinctly visible and identifiable to the pilot: Busting a MDA without the three requirements is ilegal, I think that's quite clear. Now, regarding DA/DH, I have my doubts also, the reg says: "...or continue an approach below the authorized DA/DH unless..." So, I can interpret that I can descend down to DH, at that point I must make the call wether to land or not. If the three requirements are not met I must chose not to land. So I abort the approach and go missed, at the DH. Again, I'm taking the decision and interrupting (i.e. no continuing) the approach at the DA/DH, not lower than that. But as I set the power, arrest the descend and start to climb I will go below DA/DH. Is that ilegal? From the reg perpsective, doesn't sound like it is. Now, is it smart? Probably not. Anyway, I think the guy that originated this thread (meaning not the OP but the guy that tangled his Mooney in the power lines) was not in this technicalities, but doing thing much worse than this. If you will, the reg starts by saying: (b) Authorized DA/DH or MDA. For the purpose of this section, when the approach procedure being used provides for and requires the use of a DA/DH or MDA, the authorized DA/DH or MDA is the highest of the following: (1) The DA/DH or MDA prescribed by the approach procedure. (2) The DA/DH or MDA prescribed for the pilot in command. (3) The DA/DH or MDA appropriate for the aircraft equipment available and used during the approach. I would argue that the pilot in command was proficient enough to even start the approach, as he was not familiar with the waypoints of the approach (get confused between BEGKA and BECKA), was not able to follow a heading, and sound to be far behind the airplane.

I don't need excuses if I want to buy one, I just wanted to know if this would be a good addon to the toolbox I'm trying to put together. So far I think I'm going to focus on getting some good quality manual tools, taking into consideration not getting a traditional screwdriver set but having a set of bits from say Wera. Eventually I can add a gyro screwdriver to my set for things like inspection panels, cowling, etc.

Hey offtopic but related, I assumed that most of nuts, bolts, etc in a Mooney are SAE no? No or few metric stuff, right?

Hey all, thanks a lot for the reply's. I was more concerned about if the tool would fit in the tight spaces, but I totally agree that power tools tend to strip up screws, so maybe better to avoid them at least in the aircraft. I liked the idea of the gyro screwdriver, I have seen that and was curious about how "natural" it feld. That my be an option, although it still breaks the "romantic" idea of not using manual tools in an aircraft that was assembled with manual tools and lot's of dedication.

It was not one year, it was 6 months. One year was from the moment until I did the prebuy and immediately the annual after it until now. The part it the aft stub wing spar. The factory is already finishing it, so shouldn't take much longer.

I'm trying to put together a set of tools to keep in the hangar for when I get my airplane back from the shop. I was looking at Makita's ratchet wrench and the 90° screwdriver as well. Are they good? I'm not asking much about the brand but if they are useful for work in tight spaces in a Mooney. PS: I was sure there was a post about tools, I search for it but couldn't find it. If there is one and any of you has the link at hand please share it. Thanks.

I'm following the advice of the best Mooney shop in the US.

I totally understand the OP feeling. I have owned a Mooney M20J for 1 year now and haven't got to fly it yet, annual of hell, Mooney taking 6 months to produce a spare part, MSC that are a complete ripoff, etc. The GA ecosystem seems broken. I'm not saying that everything is bad, but there is a lot of things that are messed up. Some I think are fixable, many others no, unless the industry really turns around, what I don't think is going to happen. I sometimes think that we should come up with a system that could help us stay as "safe" (not only physically but financially as well) as possible. What are your thoughts in having a crowd source system for: Reviewing/evaluating GA shops and part sellers. Having helpful resources in a organized/centralized way for pre buy inspections, general maintenance, etc. Many times I think of starting myself something like that, just for the fun of it, but I don't know if it would gain traction. Also, something I would really like is to be able to be able to get certified as a AP+IA. Being able to maintain our airplanes would be a huge benefit for saving money and time, not always, but in a lot of cases.

Just wondering who's going to pay for al the mess he did. Insurance goes so far for liability. I doubt that his insurance had a limit so high to cover all the expenses out of this. Has to be multimillion dollar damage we're are talking about here. How this works out?

Not even load the approach in the 430, because he would have had the waypoints right there if he would have loaded the approach. It's really very strange, it would really insightful for the guy to show up and explain what happened. In the 911 audio, near the end you can hear him saying "I'm sorry. I shouldn't have descent that low" or something along those lines.

Was the guy even IFR rated? Or was he incapacitated? It's shocking how sloppy he was even with simple indications from ATC.

A 3 degree GS (as it's shown in the approach plate) is around 300ft per nm. That makes around 320ft at 1.22sm. Considering that this path cross the threshold at 40ft, you're talking about 520 (TDZE) + 40 (TCH) + 320 (GS) = 880 MSL at 1.22sm. That's if your are right in the center. I understand that LPV has same sensitivity when close to the runway as ILS. A full scape deviation is 0.7. In that case, right at full scale deviation below GS, we are talking about 520 (TDZE) + 40 (TCH) + 230 (GS@2.3 degrees) = 790MSL.

This story is amazing, I heard about it a couple of year ago, when I didn't know what a Mooney was. Is truly amazing. A lot of luck, but also a great airplane!

Yes, that could be, but a few things to have in mind: 1) If you cross the FAF at the indicate altitude and your glideslope is indicating you're below, like full scale deflection below, you should climb to intercept it or even better, go around. 2) Even if flying at 1600 MSL all the way until intercepting the GS, he should have cleared the power line.

The alt setting had a spread of .13 on a period spanning 6 hours before and after the accident. That equate to 130ft, no? I don't think there was any strange phenomenon. Also, as stated earlier, LPV doesn't rely on the BARO for vertical guidance. This assuming that the pilot was flying it with a WAAS GPS, which supposedly he had in the AC.

I agree with this. First of all, good that they are alive. We need to do better. Better preflights, better planning, better ADM, etc. I'm quite new to the GA world, but really, even with 10k hours flying LIFR at night, in a single engine, it's pushing it. Anything goes wrong and you have very small room to have a successful outcome. I'm not a fan of more regulations, I think the GA should self impose on them higher standards. The main beneficiaries is ourselves: we stay alive, we pay less insurance, etc.

I did post about this some time ago, the pictures specifically can be found here:

Waiting on a wing spar from Mooney. Not sure when it's going to be ready. Hopefully before end of year. In my case the horror story was corrosion on the wing spar. What was your case?

Yep, I'm planning on renew it that way if there is no certain date for the airplane to be airworthy again.

Thanks guys for the responses. It seems that insurance goes between 2k and 4k for more "normal" conditions. That some way comforting because this will be a temporary situation for me. As soon as I get the airplane I expect to put around 150 hours per year. So after first (second) year it should go down at least a half with IR + ~150 hours in make/model.

Yeah, regarding being safe, I am quite aware of the risks and my limitations, so I will go very slowly, have been practicing for a year in a PC simulator just to get used to importance of checklist (i.e. not landing gear up) and also I'm getting my instrument rating as way of add another layer of safety (not much planning of using the extra flexibility to fly in weather conditions). So I'm quite confident that I will approach this the right way. Maybe reducing the hull value is a good idea, as may main concern for the insurance at the beginning is not losing the aircraft but being broke because of the property damage I can inflict in others).