Seth

After my last IMC approach last weekend (hand flown, no autopilot - rental aircraft, cielings 400 on an ILS with decision height of 200) I remembered my first real IMC approach and popped out with the runway right in front of me. Great feeling - a close number two to your first solo. It then reminded me of a story I had read in the past so I searched online and found it about a pilot who three times flew below minimums. I never intend to fly below minimums, but this is a good read: Lionel Alford, Jr., "Military Aviation Adventures" Really Below Minimums by L. D. Alford I do not intend to brag about the first two landings, but I will take full credit for the third. The first two were entirely unintentional while last one was accomplished with foresight and planning. This account does not include the many approaches I have accomplished at minimums to successful landings nor approaches that were made in spite of what others thought were below minimum conditions but really were not. These were approaches made under weather conditions no-kidding lower than theoretically possible to make a successful approach and landing. The first two were under similar circumstances and to the same airfield. They happened while I was flying in West Germany during the cold war. I was a Forward Air Controller (FAC) flying an OV-10. The OV-10 is an awesome FAC aircraft that was designed for Vietnam, but it could have been used anywhere around the world for its primary purpose—to get fighter and bomber ordinance on target. The OV-10 was also a great LARA/COIN aircraft—Lightly Armed Reconnaissance Aircraft/Counter Insurgency. It carried two UHF radios, two VHF radios, an FM military band radio, and a 400 Watt HF radio. While flying over the German countryside in the OV-10, you possessed more broadcast power than radio free Europe. The OV-10 had twin turboprop engines with the engines connected to booms that extended back to form the two vertical tails. The horizontal stabilizer stretched between the vertical tails. It was an outstanding aircraft as long as it was not overloaded or the temperature was not too high. In case of difficulties, it was a jettisonable aircraft with near zero/zero ejection seats. Both of my lower than documented instrument minimum approaches occurred at Alhorn Air Base, Germany. Alhorn was a forward operating location where the USAF kept fighters based alongside German aircraft to protect West Germany from Soviet Pac aggression. When we were visiting, the F-4s were being moved out and the A-10s moving in. The OV-10s were there to provide FAC work and coordination with the ground attack A-10s and the F-4s. In reality, we just flew up from Sembach Air Base, flew around for a few days, had a great time with the German Air Force Officers every night, and flew home. The Germans really knew how to take care of their flying officers. They served breakfast in the squadron, provided fantastic wine, and had an O-Club with excellent food. If you needed it or not, they would give you a box lunch that included a small bottle of white wine. We really liked to visit Alhorn. Usually we deployed in groups, but many times, we went up as a single ship. I was alone, unarmed, and unafraid the day I flew out of Alhorn on a four hour FAC mission into northern and central West Germany. I messed around in the low fly areas for a while, but the weather really was getting bad, and there wasn’t anyone else out in the airspace to play with. All the fighters were sitting on the ground. They had decided early that the weather was too bad to launch. They were right. My fragged landing time was 1600 local. The FRAG is the joint document that includes the directed Air Tasking Order (ATO) for the day. The ATO is what your flight times, loads, and missions are based on. So at around 1530, I picked up an IFR (Instrument Flight Rules) clearance from the local controller and headed back to Alhorn RTB (Return to Base). Here’s what I learned about the West German base approach controllers. First, they are the best approach controllers in the world. Second, they get off at 1600 every day, and they are not willing to compromise those hours because of any aircraft flying anywhere. Alhorn did not have an ATIS (Automatic Terminal Information Service). An ATIS is a dedicated radio frequency you can dial up to get the current weather at the base. The only way to get the weather at that time was to ask approach. When I called up, the approach controller said the weather was 300 foot ceiling and one mile visibility and offered me the PAR (Precision Radar) approach. They weren’t grumpy about it, and the weather was bad enough, I was expecting the PAR. A PAR is a great approach that is hard to find now. In the United States, only the Navy keeps them up. They require a specially trained controller who watches your aircraft’s skinpaint on a special high performance radar and calls heading and glideslope information to you. They basically talk you down through the weather to landing. A PAR requires a well trained aviator and a well trained controller—these PAR controllers are the guys of legend: deep clear voice, practiced perfect cadence, quiet, calm, competent. That’s exactly the kind of controller I received going into Alhorn. I could hear the PAR final approach controller mentally crack his knuckles as I was passed to him. He again relayed the weather as 300 and one. His cool German accented voice came clearly over the radio. By the experience in his voice, he could have been one of the guys who called PAR approaches for the Luftwaffe in World War Two. The approach went great. I was right on course and slightly below glideslope all the way. In Europe, the frequent terrible weather taught us to fly PAR approaches “slightly below” and ILS (Instrument Landing System) approaches half a dot below because that gave you a better chance of seeing the runway environment and landing in really bad conditions. The OV-10 is a fantastic instrument aircraft once you get used to it. Like all overblown prop wings, it can give you problems if you are ham fisted with the throttles, but I’m pretty good at instruments. I was mesmerized by the controller. The way things work on a PAR approach is you just follow the controller’s directions. The controller tells you everything—including when to go around. You are supposed to watch the altimeter and back up the controller, but many PARs go down to 100 and one quarter of a mile visibility. You barely have any time to make a decision by yourself. I should have realized something was wrong when I arrived at 300 feet AGL on the altimeter, and I had no runway lights in sight. By that time, things are happening pretty fast, and the controller didn’t wave me off, so I continued down the approach. Although I was technically limited by TAC (Tactical Air Command) and USAFE (United States Air Forces Europe) regulations to 300 and one, the approach was legal down to 200 and one half. At minimums, 200 and one half, you are supposed to go around. The controller is supposed to declare minimums, and you go. The controller did not and I was starting to see something—I wasn’t sure what. Your altimeter can be up to 75 feet off and still be good for flight. The PAR track is 100 times better than that. I arrived at 100 feet and I was thinking hard about a missed approach, then I caught the white runway lights rushing by. I never saw the end lights or the sequenced flashers. I couldn’t read any distance markers, but I was just a hair below the glideslope and right on course. I landed between the lights and came to a halt. I couldn’t see the next set of lights. I couldn’t taxi. When I was flying at 120 knots, the lights came by quickly enough that I could see them during flight, on the ground, they were spaced far enough apart that I was sitting between two and I could not see the next set ahead or behind. Theoretically, NATO standard lights are set at 60 meter increments, that’s about 200 feet apart. That meant I landed when the visibility was less than about 200 feet—total W0CS0F (Weather zero ceiling, surface zero feet). I didn’t do anything for a few minutes and tried to think of how I was going to safely taxi off the runway. The approach controllers knew I was down—they had already gone home. The tower called me, “What are your intentions, Antar 21?” As calmly as possible, I asked, “Alhorn tower, Could you please send a trust-me truck to lead me off the runway? I can’t see to taxi.” The Germans didn’t even laugh. I learned that evening from the German officers that it is always a little bit of a problem coming in near 1600 because that is when the German controllers get off work. They don’t get paid for overtime, and they do not want to have to stick around while they coordinate your divert to another base. Therefore you get “Hans.” Hans was the approach supervisor and only came out of his office to do any control work in just these situations. Just like I thought, he supposedly talked down German aviators during the Second World War. He was a great PAR controller. They fooled me again a week later. You would think I would have learned. I just was taken in by the audacity of the whole thing. They again called the weather at 300 and one. I believed it, and I received Hans again. That should have clued me in. The second approach went just like the first. By the book, I know I should have gone around, but I trusted Hans, and I liked the club at Alhorn. That was the second time I had to ask for a trust-me truck to lead me off an active runway. To my and the Germans’ credit, the weather was a little better this time. Chalk the whole episode to a young aviator’s inexperience colliding with a very experienced ground controller, and a lot of WOM (Word of Mouth) that you can only learn by experience. You know what? I’d do the same thing today—given the same quality of controller. When you risk your life with a trained PAR controller like that, the risk is the same whether you are at 300 or 100 feet. Now days we mostly just trust the instrument systems. They can’t make human errors by themselves, but they sure can kill you just as quickly—they just don’t experience any remorse. The third time I had the opportunity to fly an approach below minimums it was done quite legally and intentionally. In the Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC) the same rules apply as they did to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). At the time, if the weather went below minimums and you were beyond the Final Approach Fix (FAF), you could continue the approach to minimums. If you picked up the runway environment and were able to land safely, you could land. These were not the rules the rest of the Air Force played by. In all the other Air Force commands, the moment the weather went below minimums, you were required to go missed approach and divert. My good friend and test pilot buddy Jeff B. and I were taking the Sabrecross CT-39A out to Edwards AFB for some flight testing. I can’t tell you everything about the Sabrecross, but I can tell you that at the time, it was the most advanced EMCM (Electromagnetic Counter Measures) testbed in the world. It could do stuff that would rock your socks off. It was also the least aerodynamic T-39 in the world. One inch square Radar guides ran from wingtip pod antennas to the fuselage. A six inch wide by one inch high radar guide ran from the nosecone to the first passenger window on the copilot side. The aircraft was a pig. It could barely make half the range of a normal T-39 with a full tank of gas. Since the Air Force kept threatening to put it in the bone yard, we never upgraded the copilot’s instrument cluster. Now, here is a beautiful thing that was lost when we put the Air Force T-39s in the bone yard. When I flew them, the T-39s had a T-38 instrument cluster on the pilot’s side. The T-38 instrument cluster is likely the best steam-gauge IFR (instrument flight rules) flight cluster ever designed. Steam-gauge means a non-electronic display. A great flight cluster is designed in a cross-T with a big Attitude indicator (ADI) at the top in the middle. An ADI tells you the pitch and roll position and rates of the aircraft and allows you to keep the dirty side down in weather. Below the ADI is a Horizontal Situation Indicator (HIS) that shows your corrected gyro magnetic heading—heading indicator. To the left of the ADI is the airspeed indicator and to the right the altimeter. On our T-39Bs, the co-pilot instrument cluster was an updated T-37 set up. This was a cross-T with a small old ADI above a simple non-correcting gyro compass. At the left of the gyro compass was a Course Direction Indicator (CDI). In the T-37s we called the CDI the toilet bowl. When that’s all you have, that’s all you have—it sucks. Unfortunately, our T-39As possessed the original T-39A copilot instrument cluster. The original T-39 instrument cluster was the same as the old T-37 instrument cluster which was similar to the original new USAF style World War II cluster. This instrument cluster was the best example of a badly designed instrument setup since the original World War II ones that killed so many aviators. The original T-39A instrument setup had six instruments all of the same size in two rows. The top row included airspeed indicator, gyro compass, and ADI. The bottom row had an altimeter, CDI, and Vertical Velocity Indicator (VVI). So we had three different instrument setups in our aircraft. The reason this was so great is that on the same day, I could take you out flying and let you experience three improving flight instrument clusters. When you flew the original T-39A copilot cluster, you would say—this sucks, but it was generally intuitive and pretty basic. It is the kind of display most aviators had to put up with until the early 1960s. When I put you in the T-39B copilot cluster, you would say—this is much better. It is a basic cross-T so it is very reasonable to fly. When I put you in front of the pilot’s instruments, you would say—now, this is really great. You’d never want to fly the other instrument setups ever again. From a test standpoint, when I let you fly any of the modern non-steam gauge e-displays most of them actually have a higher measured workload and are harder to fly than the T-38 standard display set. What has this got to do with flying below minimums? Well, the Sabrecross CT-39A Jeff and I were flying had the great pilot instrument display and the terrible copilot instrument display. I was logging instructor time from the right copilot seat, and I was flying the leg. When you fly in a crewed aircraft with a pilot and a copilot, you take turns flying each leg. On each leg, one guy completes the pilot duties and the other guy completes the copilot duties. That’s the way it works. I was acting as the pilot for this leg. We were flying our first leg from Wright-Patterson AFB in Dayton, Ohio to Scott AFB, near St Louis, Missouri. That’s how bad this T-39 was; it could barely make 1.5 hours in the air, and I was flying with the worst instrument cluster left in the Air Force. The weather at Scott was scoshe—that means it was really bad. It was near minimums all day with high cross winds, rain, and fog. We didn’t have many options because of our gas load and the gas-guzzler we were flying. When we descended into the airspace, I chose the ILS to runway 32L and there was still a 15 knot crosswind. The minimums were 200 foot ceiling and 2400 Runway Visual Range (RVR) (one half mile), and that was the reported weather. Technically, if you have the gas, you don’t have to worry about the ceiling and you can fly a visibility only (only visual weather requirements) approach. We had enough gas to complete an approach, missed approach, and go to our alternate, so we were good for vis only. As we hit the FAF, the controller called the weather below minimums at 100 and 1600 RVR (1/4 mile visibility) and asked, “Swift 61, what are your intentions?” I nodded to Jeff, and Jeff told them, “We will continue our approach.” “Sir, the field is below minimums.” “We will continue the approach.” I was flying on the poor instruments using a CDI sitting on the toilet bowl as we called it in Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT). Jeff was watching everything carefully on his side and searching out the windshield for the runway. I used the techniques many years and many hours taught me. I flew one half a dot low, and put the course about a quarter dot to my side. That would let me see the runway and lights first. Jeff was making the radio and altitude calls. Right when he called minimums, I caught sight of the sequenced flashers on my side. I centered the aircraft and made a perfect landing. It was really beautiful. Jeff looked over and smiled—he thought it was a pretty slick approach. The problems started after we shut down engines and entered base operations. I received a call from the base commander and the wing commander. Since this was Military Air Command (MAC) headquarters, I was surprised I didn’t get a call from CINCMAC. The base commander and the wing commander wanted to know how we landed when the field was below minimums. I had to explain to each of them about AFMC regulations. The real problems continued when I had to call our Wing Operations Officer and ask him to give us a waiver to take off with the weather below takeoff minimums. Although MAC let its crews takeoff using dual alternates under these conditions, AFMC did not. We told our Wing Operations Officer what we were planning, and he approved the waiver right away. After we were refueled and had lunch, we took off uneventfully for our next destination out to Edwards. So I really did land three times below instrument minimums and lived to tell about it. I suggest that if you ever get the opportunity, unless you are trained, very experienced, have a great crew, and follow all the rules, don’t even think about it. I was lucky as a young aviator to have the help of a fantastic ground controller. Admittedly, a controller that was more interested in going home than my safety, but remember, if I had a difficulty that would have really delayed his time off. In the other case, I had a test pilot on my left, and I am a test pilot. We followed the rules to the tea, and we knew what we were doing. Except in an emergency, even contemplating an approach when the weather is below minimums can lead you to a very risky situation. My advice—forget about it. - The End - The author is a retired Air Force test pilot. His other aviation, technical, and fiction writing can be referenced at www.ldalford.com.

I have a KFC 200 in my 1983 M20J 300 Missile. I love it. I have it coupled to a Garmin 430W and do not have GPSS. I make all the steering turns by manually directing the different heading bugs. At some point, I'll install some sort of GPSS device. No rudder control - Roll through the ailerons and pitch through both a pitch servo and a pitch/trim servo. -Seth

Yes - that unfortunately sounds like a prop governor failing. I didn't notice an issue with mine on my former M20F until I got a digital Tach. In climbs and decnets it started to increase or decrease (decrease on climb, increase on decent) by about 30 to 50 RPM. It technically was still in spec, but showed that an issue was brewing. It is actually amazing how far out of spec it has to be until replacement is requried. Question, and not to start a debate, what type of oil do you use? -Seth

Congrats on getting back in the air.

I'm sorry to hear that you need a Top OH, but at the same time, I'm gald you found out about the issue before it became an issue in the air. As you are aware, may Acclaims need TOP OHs early. Bruce Jager showed me a picture of the Accliam engine uncowled running with bring orange exaust pipes because it was being run too hot - which your aircraft shows evidnence of in the two cylinders. The exaust too hot blurns the valves and the heat has no where to go but to the cylinder - Top OH here we come. Most likely, it was run too hard or not kept cool enough. Back off a few knots or keep the engine a bit cooler and you'll get a much better run out of your engine after the Top. Good luck with the break in - and as you know - I love the paint job. Take care, -Seth

How was it? -Seth

I signed up tonight and will ready through the information once I'm "approved" by their modorator.

Thanks for the suggestion. I had broken in the cylinders from the overhaul pretty well I thought until #2 acted up that caused this whole issue. I was burning very little oil (similar to your range, not quite as good - about one quart every 25 hours or so), and if I put in more than about 10.5 quarts, it would spit it out, the engine likes 10 to 10.75 quarts of oil). For all I know the other four cylinders are fine - as they have high 70s compression. However, it may make sense to just put the new cylinders in now as each cylinder if it was from the original run has about 1600 hours TT now (300 since cylinder overhaul, 100 since inspection and replacement of valves, etc . . ., when they overhaueld the engine). If they were not from my engine originally, then I don't know the TT hours on them but the 300 and 100 are the same. The two cylinders already removed are #2 and #4. If the right side of the engine, #1, #3, and #5 are not touched, then maybe I'll replace #6 whiile I'm at it, and then leave the other side for when an issue may occur in the future, and then take care of that side at that time - which may or may not occur for a long period of time. If #2 is a covered warrenty cost since the cylinder blew less than a year a 100 hours since overhaul, they'll probably give me the cost of an overhauled cylinder (since that what it was) and the labor for replacement (that's what I'm thinking - we'll find out). However, I'm replacing the #4 cylnider as well (maybe selling the curren #4 since it is okay with compressions in the 60s) and maybe #6 since it's the same side as long as all the equipment is stripped and off at this time. It just kills me that for a few thousand more I could have had new cylinders last year vs thinking the cylinders were pretty fresh. Again, my fault for not digging deep enough. To replace two cylinders will cost me between probably $2,000 and $4,000 once I figure out which cylinders I'm installing and what the warrenty will cover. For the other four, I'm probably looking at $5000 to $7000 for a total of $7000 to $11000 for the entire job (guestimates added in my mind, not hard facts yet). Not what I wanted 11 months since paying for a full overhaul. But I don't want to spend less now to pay more again so quickly. What in your opinion is the useful life of a cylinder after it is has been overhauled at 1300 hours and then checked at 1500 hours (200 since cylinder overhaul)? I'll speak with multiple mechanics and offers from Bolduc on the warrenty work, my MSC, the people at GAI working on the plane, and ECI tomorrow and will have more information as to their reccomendations and will discuss where I'm leaning (and I don't mean LOP or ROP). Take care, -Seth

Scott- None of the cylinders were in the AD range. These were continental cylinders overhauled by ECI and treated with the nickel finish. I am not sure if these were the original cylinders that came with the engine or were simply overhaueld cyliners purchased. These were installed on the engine in 2007. -Seth

Jim - Not Shabby at all - I was looking at the PA-28-180 when I originally purchased my former M20F. Great plane, but I still prefer the Mooney. I would have probably purchased the PA-28-180 over a C-172. My flight this weekend to NC went well. The PA-28R Aarow IV I flew did not have an autopilot, so it reminded me of flying my former M20F. However, my F could be trimmed to be much more hands off. You had to watch the Aarow the entire time. However, I felt comfortable and did shoot the ILS into RDU breaking out of about 400 foot cielings. Light to moderate rain but a smooth ride through the rain. Once I landed however, the heavy rain moved in. I made the wedding just fine and the flight home today was smooth as well. I was vectored nearly on top of IAD (Dulles) on the way home - usually they bring us north and west around the DC area east of IAD and west of the FRZ. However today, I was taken just to the North and nearly on top of Dulles at 5000. This was not an issue because when you pull power on the Arrow, as you know, it drops like a rock. I'm glad to know I have a backup aircraft if needed now at my home base, but I want to get my Mooney up and flying again. Thank you again to the collective wisdom of MooneySpace for the tips with the Aarow IV. -Seth

I too now use Phillilps XC 20w50 and plan to use camguard. At my next change since I hit 100 hours since overhaul I was going to start using it. However, now that I have they cylinder issue (separate thread) I'll not use Camguard until they are broken in and I'm sure the Camguard won't cause blow-by. So, I plan to use camguard in the future with my XC 20w50 but at this time do not. In my previous F model, I used Aeroshell 15w50 and had not big issues in 500 hours. However after conducting a lot of reserach I decided to make th switch when stepping up to my current Mooney Missile. Take care, -Seth

Update: I should have been even more diligent in learning about the Top Overhaul that was performed prior to ownership and insisted on new cylinders when I performed my overhaul. My cylidners were not new as of the time of the Top Overhaul. In 2007, ECI overhaueld Continental Cylinders with the nickel finish and Wilmar in Minnesota installed them as part of the Top Overhaul on my aircraft's engine. I will go back into the log books to figure out if these were the original continental cylinders or if they were separately overhaueld continental cylinders. In 2011, I had the entire engine overhaueld and we had Bolduc, also located in Minnesota, conduct the overhaul, replace the necessary parts, and inspect the cylidners to be reused in the new run of the engine. They say they stand behind their work and will cover a certain portion of the costs. Still, one cylinder cracked and another has low compression less than 300 hours after it was overhauled (200 since the top and then 100 since the full engine overhaul), but not new. The ECI warrenty is only for one year on overhauled cylinders. They are wiling to give me a price break on their new cylinders both steel and nickel plated. These cylinders are not part of the AD. I am not yet sure what Buldoc is willing to offer, but they do understand that it was their work that went bad 11 months and 100 hours after overhaul, and as stated, they will stand behind their work. I'll find out Monday their offer. I hope they'll cover the one cylinder and the labor for that cylidner. The "okay" cylinder that I'm also replaicing I'm guessing they will not cover but will give me a large disocunt on. One cylinder is cracked, the other is off. Buldoc reccomends that I simply replace the two cylinders with new cylinders since it's already off (the one that had lower compression but was still "fine"). Buldoc does not reccomend ECI at this time for the two new cylidners I am going to install. They are a Superior dealer and suggest either Millenium or Continental Cylinders. They of course reccomend Millenium. If I were to install Continental Cylinders - they would look exactly like the others. I do not plan to sell the Mooney Missile (really ever at this point - I may own a share of another aircraft in the future, but I plan to always keep the Missile - seriously - 60+ year hold) but should I sell it, it would look awefully weird to the buyer with four ECI Overhauled Continental Cylinders and two Millenium Cylinders, though at this point I do not expect the other Cylinders to last the full TBO - maybe they would all slowly switch to Millenium in time. I hate that my confidence is not in the engine anymore. That being said, the other four all have high 70s compression and may very well make it a long time into this engine run. ECI is going to give me a price break on new cylinders should I purchase through them and Bolduc is going to give me their warrenty offer (to an extent) on Monday. I'm not sure what to expect, but I know I'll be out of pocket to a certain extent. Options: I am going to install two new cylinders regardless at this point. I can also sell the "used" cylinder for a small recoup cost. 1. Install Contiental Cylidners - (2 steel vs 4 ECI Nickel) - Most expensive option - Engine looks uniform 2. Install Millenium (at a better price) (2 steel vs 4 ECI Nickel but a better chance of lasting accoring to Bolduc (and mismatched visuallly looking) 3. ECI at a lower price as they are willing to work with me - but they are ECI and I am not thrilled at this point (even though they say they have conducted a lot or R&D and their new cylinders are much better). I could go Nickel on all cylinders or just get two steel anyway. Cylinder heads may or may not match - I'd have to check on that. So, you get what you pay for, unfortunatly sometimes, but in this case, I'd love to hear your thoughts. If I could do it again all over, I would have paid the money up front during the overhaul for new Millenium Cylinders (at the time). That's where I stand right now. It'll be my guess between $3,000 and $4,000 before all is said and done with cylinder cost plus labor. Thanks again, -Seth

Mike- I'd love to join but I've got a wedding in NC and my Mooney is down for maintenance. I promise to get to a NJ Mooney Pilots Group event soon. Good job, -Seth

I flew the Aarow yesterday evening at dusk, but oh my goodness does she drop like a rock when you pull power. My first landing was FIRM, but the rest I was ready for the drop. The Aarow is not a bad plane but makes me appreciate my Mooney more. -Seth

I'll check the S/N - that's a good piece of advice. -Seth

I'm on at all times of day too. I would have clicked yest to all of those. -Seth

I am replacing the two cylinders. I do have a question however. If the other four cylinders are nickel plated, does it matter if I replace the two problematic cylinders with non-nickel alternatives? Such as a new steel cylinder or even a differenet brand, such as non-ECI? Thoughts. -Seth

Thank you for the feedback. Mooney Space as usual gave good collective wisdom. I do have 10 hours in an Aarrow IV and will ensure I know the gear operation and emergency procedures. Thanks again, -Seth P.S. Bill - I'm heading to Raleigh.

My Mooney is down with two damaged cylinders (different thread) and I was planning to fly to a wedding on Saturday. Exactly one year ago, September 2011, I was between aircraft (I had delivered my M20F to the new owner and my M20J Missile 300 was having it's engine overhauled as part of the purchase) and rented a Piper Arrow for a wedding. I flew from Maryland to Knoxville, TN) So, excatly one year later, I find myself renting another Piper Arrow IV (same type of aircraft, just a different airplane and flight school) for another wedding, this time in North Carolina. I've got about 10 hours in an Arrow at this point, but I haven't flown one for a year now. I'm going up for a checkout flight on Thursday (I would have gone tonight but over the weekend a student burned out the starter), and then will take it on Saturday for the trip. I'm sure it will be a fine flight, and like I said, I've got 10 hours in an Arrow IV (T-Tail, just like this one) but are there any gotchas? Thanks, -Seth

I saw this on Red Board and figured I'd bring it here. The Internet Movie PLANE Database. Like IMDB, but for airplaines, IMPDB!! www.impdb.org We all be lost there for hours, and yes, there are some Mooney aircraft in the moives. Some in the background, some identified - is your aircraft there? Airwolf the TV Series - M20K N5808B Gargoyles - M20C - N9291V Live and Let Die - M20F - N9519M RED - being worked on in the hanger Salt - M20J - N2201 (I personally like the actress in the movie - she gets to fly on an P180) Silencio Asesino - M20E - I think it's an E as it has the ram air door in a close up and it's a short body Enjoy the website! -Seth

Well that is the same setup I have. The 550. I just found out about the AD myself and will bring this to the attention of both shops - that being said, I'm sure they knwo about it. As I have more informaiton, I'll post it. -Seth

I landed at BCT a few years ago, 2009, and since I was to be staying for a week for a conference, I spoke with one of the managers in advance on the phone of the FBO and arranged for a fuel discount and lowered parking rate. The lady I spoke with was very understanding and happy to work with me. It was still relatively expensive but many of the fees that drive away piston singles were dropped. I'll look it up but I think it was Boca Aviation that worked with me. I tend to call in advance before I head somewhere for an overnight stay or if I'm worried about handling charges or fees. For instance, I went to Linden in NJ despite warnings as I had a wedding in NYC, and it made sense for me to go there. Their line people were very friendly, but the policies and charges I understand are just not simple and make it difficult for business. I simply paid for one night of parking and the landing/airport fee and departed without paying for fuel. So, BCT, still expensive but very good experience in 2009. LDJ - Nice line people, odd fueling rules, bad tie down ropes, easy access to the city for the price. -Seth

It may be time for me to join MAPA. I have not been a member in the past, but should be. I'll sign up this weekend. -Seth

I flew my former 67F model in the summer of 2010 out of Bozeman, MT (4473 MSL) as part of a cross country tour (east coast to west coast and back). It was hot day with Density Altitude in effect and I took off in the mid afternoon. I don't remember the calculation but I wouldn't be suprised if DA was over 7000. I was under gross (full fuel, just me on board), had a lot of runway, and made it just fine - climb was not steller as usual near sea level on the east coast, but was sufficient. Most of that trip during that leg was in the 10,000 to 12,400 range cruise wise. That was a fun trip. I planned to go to reno this year, but that didn't happen - maybe next year. -Seth

Cylinders are ECI Nickel