jlunseth

@pinecone The G5, which I do not have, apparently has a much longer backup life than the 275. The backup life of the 275, according to my AFMS is as short as 30 minutes. I know from experience that once the alternator fails you will get about a half hour out of the single, 12 volt, house battery even if you switch the master off. When you switch off the master to save power you lose everything except the 275 (or dual redundant 275's). You will now have no more than 30 minutes to find an airport and land, and if you are going to have to shoot an approach you need find that airport in about half your 30 minutes, the rest will be the approach. You are also going to want some of your non-backed up instruments such as your radios and your GPS in order to shoot a safe approach. Everyone would think immediately that they could use the iPad for some functions, and that would be true. Except in some terrain it is not enough. E.g. doing from Flagstaff to Bullhead to Barstow to Palmdale it is necessary to cross several high ridges and then drop several thousand into a valley to find and shoot an approach. Your best defense, actually, is to have so much fuel on board that you can fly out of the weather system you are currently in and get VFR. Why not just have some gear on board that will work as long as the engine is running. If you only think as an East Coast or midwest flyer would think, sure, most places you can find an airport right away quick. Out west or doing a water crossing, no.

When you get the AFSM for the 275 and read it, you find, among other things, that the advertised 60 minutes is actually as little as 30 minutes. I can give you multiple courses where that would not be enough. I can also tell you from actual experience that the aircraft battery, which is supposedly rated for multiple amp hours, may actually give you about a half hour. If you suffer loss of the single alternator you need to drop the gear, because the battery will continue to drain during flight and when you get to your destination, there may not be enough left to lower the gear. You also need to switch the master off, because you may need instruments and radios when you get to your destination, but the single battery will still drain during flight, just not as bad. Now let's say, you are flying from Great Falls over the Rockies to land at KGPI. Or across the route from ABQ to SoCal. Or across the Atlantic from the Bahamas. And you are over a cloud deck, which makes you VFR for now, but you are going to have to shoot some kind of approach in order to safely land. You are going to need time to shoot your approach. Let's say 10 minutes, which is really short for something like an RNAV approach, but maybe you can get vectors and help. That leaves you roughly 20 minutes to get to an airport and the airports are all further than that. Or if you can get to one, you are shooting an approach with no instruments except you manage to get your 275's going. Now what are you going to use for the RNAV or an ILS? Well, that's your GPS that doesn't have a backup battery, so you are glad you remembered to switch off the master and save some power so you can put the approach up and shoot it. Now it is a contest between the life of the remaining batteries and the time it takes you to get through that approach. What would keep you alive is an AI that operates as long as the engine is going, whether the alternator is working or not, and that relies on a technology other than electricity, of which you may not have enough. That would be a vacuum operated AI, which you took out in your last avionics refit because it was "steam" and you wanted the 7 lbs. of useful load. This isn't a hypothetical I am giving you. I have flown all these routes. I have had the alternator fail several times, when we (my A&P and me) were installing an aftermarket coupler out of what must have been a defective lot. I have had the alternator fall off into the running engine because of improper installation. None of this has happened in years now, but having actually had it happen it very much affects my decision making. There must be redundant, non-single point of failure instruments that will continue to operate no matter what, particularly the AI. Sure, electronic tech is nifty, I love my GTN750 and my 275's. But I am not giving up my steam, vacuum operated AI.

Because removing the vacuum in some models results in a single point of failure. All becomes dependent on the single alternator and also the single battery. @PeteMc If you install the correct version of the GI275 it includes a Turn Coordinator function certified as primary, in other words, as a replacement for your original TC. The TC shows up as two small aircraft symbols at the top of the 275, one on each side of center. There is also a slip/skid. I believe this version of the 275 requires an OAT sensor to be installed with the 275 as I recall. It then computes standard rate turn for the conditions and displays as the two symbols. However, you need to think about a backup AI, which is the other function of the TC. Personally, I would not rely on a TC for AI function in IMC with turbulence, you would not stand a chance.

Me too. Different problem. About four or five months ago there was an update to the Aviation Database Manager. When I did the update and then loaded my cards (I have a GTN750 and a GNS430AW) the 430 would not boot up when the cards were installed. I got a text message saying some kind of pre-check was being performed and then just the Garmin screen. It had been awhile since I had flown the aircraft so I thought maybe I had put the cards in the wrong slot. I switched them. When I did that, the 430 would boot up and be usable but no data at all. At least I could change frequencies on the radio. Talked to Garmin, they sent a new nav data card (thank you by the way). When I tried that the unit still would not boot up. Went to my local avionics shop. They said maybe it’s not the nav card, maybe it’s the terrain card. Tried booting it with the nav card in and the terrain card out. That worked, except no terrain data. There have been two updates of the Aviation Database Manager recently, the first of which said it addressed a degraded card issue. Updated the terrain card yet again, no joy. The second said it repaired an issue of communication between the Manager and the GNS card reader. I have reloaded the database with the recent update and will try it in a day or two. Learned along the way that a repair utility was created to fix corrupted terrain cards, but that terminated in about Feb. Apparently there were a bunch of terrain cards corrupted and with more than one version of the Manager. I am guessing the utility made its way into the Database Manager. That did me no good. I hold my breath each time I update the Manager, every update seems to create a new and different problem.

@wombat, et al. The problem with interpreting regs the way the pilot wants to, or even based on what the language of the regulation appears to plainly say, is that it does not work that way. There is a doctrine called "Chevron deference" (named after a Supreme Court case) that says that whatever understanding or interpretation the regulating body (here, the FAA) applies to the regulation is the correct interpretation unless it is arbitrary or capricious. "Arbitrary and capricious" is a very high bar. In short, if a regulatory body such as the FAA issues a regulation, it gets to say what the regulation means, not you and me, or other pilots who may have to operate under the regulation, or even the Federal courts. The result has been some really crazy interpretations of regulations as regulatory bodies seek to expand their authority and jurisdiction, and the Courts have felt bound not to interfere. There has been speculation that Chevron deference will be limited by the Supreme Court and that perhaps Chevron itself will be overturned, but today that is not the case. In other words, if you were in an accident because you failed to use a mask above 18k it would not matter much what neat arguments you could come up with about the language and structure of the regulations, or how a reasonable pilots would understand them, the FAA's understanding of them would apply. Thus, for example, if the agency said that, to be airworthy under 23.1441 et seq,, the aircraft must have a functioning O2 mask for the pilot, and therefore to fly such an aircraft above 18k the pilot must use the approved equipment, then that interpretation would be the governing interpretation. The FAA brochure pretty much says that is the case. And the FAA could reasonably conclude that 1441 is not limited to aircraft "certified" under part 23 because 1441 is broader than that, it covers an "airplane [that is] is approved for operations at or above altitudes where oxygen is required to be used by the operating rules... ." Don't get mad at me, I am just the messenger. When I first looked at those regs I had the same thought, that nothing in the regs requires the pilot to use a mask above 18k, the regs simply require that one be on board. But it is likely that the FAA would not see it that way. If you have a concern you could write a letter to the FAA's Office of General Counsel and request a formal interpretation.

I was interested in this. How many hours on the new engine? Asking because during break-in the temps will come down eventually, and won't always do so evenly. If the engine is still breaking in, then give it some time. Temps don't look bad to me.

Happened to me when I purchased the aircraft and my CFI and I took off from Scottsdale. Turned out the door was out of adjustment and would open readily. It is a nothing. More noise, but the door opens only about an inch and then won't open further because of the slipstream around the aircraft. Unfortunately won't close in the air either, the slipstream holds it very securely partially ajar. Just cold if you are at higher altitudes. Requires keeping focus if you want to land, but nothing about it requires effort by the pilot to secure the door. Mine was fixed more than a decade ago and has not been a problem since. I have it in my checklist to check the passenger door before takeoff. Passengers don't normally know how to close that door. Have to hold it closed with the leather handle while pushing the door handle into the locked position. I always hold it closed and let them push the handle, then give the door a big push to see if it is secure. It is possible for one latch to lock but not the other, usually the one at the top. If it is a baggage door that would be a completely different issue, usually departs the aircraft with damage according to past reports and events.

Here is a current article from Mike Busch (just a few days ago) and the link to a Wings seminar he is putting on. https://www.savvyaviation.com/ending-the-war-on-jugs/ Here is the FAASafety Seminar: "Ending the War on Jugs" Topic: Safety information to determine cylinder condition and tips to remedy issues prior to removal. On Wednesday, April 3, 2024 at 19:00 Central Daylight Time (17:00 PDT; 18:00 MDT; 20:00 EDT; 14:00 HST; 16:00 AKDT; 17:00 Arizona; Thursday, April 4, 2024 00:00 GMT) Select Number: GL13127672 Description: Historically, the rule A&Ps were taught about cylinders was simple: If the compression reading was less than 60/80, the cylinder had to come off for repair or replacement, period. This works well for mechanics, who are always happiest when they have clear-cut guidance to follow. But it was bad news for aircraft owners, who have to shell out several thousand dollars each time a jug gets yanked, and occasionally suffer catastrophic engine failure when the cylinder installation isn't done precisely right. In recent years, we've developed far more effective methods of assessing cylinder condition, catching problems early, and remediating them without the need for costly and risky cylinder removal. In this webinar, Mike Busch discusses these modern methods, techniques, and practices. To view further details and registration information for this webinar, click here: http://www.faasafety.gov/SPANS/event_details.aspx?eid=127672 The sponsor for this seminar is: FAASTeam

Mine has worked really well. The valve leaked years ago but that was fixed and it can sit for months without losing pressure. Understand that there is a change of the pressure reading by the gauge as OAT changes. Pressure goes up on a hot day and down when it is cold. Here in MN the difference can be substantial. But it does not mean there is a problem with the system.

Mine is a 430AW, it’s a WAAS unit. Haven’t had the problem you mentioned Fritz, but can tell you that the cards have changed since those original non-WAAS units came out. The label color on the nav data cards has changed, each change made for a larger storage capacity. You should check, your terrain card may just not be large enough for the current database and a new card (not cheap) might fix it.

Take Pinecone’s advice. Get TCM’s instructions on compression testing and make sure your mechanic, or preferably another mechanic, actually follows them. I am not an A&P, I am an owner of a K, so I track this whole issue just enough to understand what my A&P is telling me. As I understand it, TCM issued SB03-3 about 20 years ago. To my knowledge, it is still TCM’s current advice. Paul Kortopates or another A&P could tell you. TCM’s methodology is different from other engine manufacturers and places less reliance on straight-up compression testing to determine whether a cylinder needs to be replaced. Among other things, the SB says that a borescope should be performed. It also says that compression testing should not be done on a cold engine, the engine must be operated first, preferably flown at 65-75 percent power for about an hour before testing, so the compression test is done on an engine with full lubrication. If compressions are low, the SB says to recheck. There have been many instances where the first compression test is low, the engine is then flown and retested, and the readings are completely different. Last but not least, TCM’s minimum compressions for the K engines are much lower than other manufacturers’. Compression in the low to mid 40’s are acceptable. Testing has born this out, engines with intentionally low compressions (rings filed) put out the same horsepower as those with higher compressions. TCM’s advice on compression testing in the early 2000’s was controversial, you will actually find many articles online about it, and Mike Busch requested and got a legal opinion from the FAA about it. Lot’s of mechanics still don’t follow it. I have a new engine (TSIO360-LB). I replaced my old one when it approached 2300 hrs, which is nearly 500 over TBO. LOP operations were very good for that engine, and most of the time I was at 71% LOP, not 65 or in the 50’s. I replaced the engine because it was 22 years old and I thought getting a factory engine would result in the least down time for the aircraft. That did not turn out, but that is another story. In the last five years of the engine’s life (about 500 or 600 hrs) my number 2 was down in the 50s and eventually in the 40s. Borescoping made clear, however, that there was nothing fundamentally wrong with the cylinder. I never had any trouble with that cylinder. Bear in mind that at that point the engine was a few hundred hours past TBO. At about 1200 hrs on the engine, I had the engine IRAN’d because it had obviously been run very hot by the prior owner, and because I had to make an emergency descent to landing that caused some ring slap in the cylinders. I never got a statement that said what was done, whether cylinders were replaced or just rebuilt. It was quite awhile ago. So I can’t tell you if cylinders were replaced now 14 years ago on that engine. I can tell you that the shop did a great job, the engine was far better than before the IRAN. Before the IRAN the engine would use as much as a quart every two hours. After the IRAN, and until the engine was replaced, I could generally go from one oil change to another at 25 hrs and not have to put in oil. If I went to 35 or more hours between changes then I would need to add a quart. I sometimes went as much as 40 or 50 because I was flying frequently and there was no point in changing oil every two weeks in my view. Oil use increased only very slightly toward the end, sometimes I would need to put in one quart between 25 hr. oil changes on an engine way past TBO. Also, I have to say that from my own experience I do not agree with mechanics that try to fault LOP operations for problems in an engine. Just was not my experience at all. Honestly, I wouldn’t worry about the compressions unless borescoping says there is something wrong with the cylinder. Just my opinion.

Posting again in case anyone with the 430/530 is having a card problem. The history is that I updated my Garmin Aviation Database Manager a month or two ago, loaded the db on my navdata and terrain card, and the 430 would not work. I would get the Garmin screen with “No Copyright Info” underneath and that is as far as the unit would go in booting up. Talked to Garmin, got a replacement navdata card, saw that Garmin had created a new version of the Database Manager, installed that, and then reloaded the new card. Same result, the 430 would not boot past the Garmin screen, the only difference was that the small print showed copyright information existed. In fiddling around to test the unit, I pulled the navdata card and switched the terrain card into its place. The unit then booted normally except had no navdata. At least I could use the radios. I went to my avionics shop and they suggested that there had been problems like this in the past, and that they were caused by a corrupted terrain card, not the navdata card I was chasing. So I took the navdata card to the plane, inserted it, pulled the terrain card, and voila! the unit booted except now no terrain or obstacle data. Not a big deal because my main GPS is a 750 that works fine and the 430 is just backup. But at least I know what the source of the problem is. The first step was to reload the terrain card, so I have done that and now need to test it to see if the reload will work. If not, it will be back to Garmin.

I know I have carried the pump type hairspray in my aircraft because it is just always in my travel toiletry kit, but I can't say I have ever noticed a problem with hairspray. Never thought about it. I get the small sample sized bottles for travel. I would put them in a plastic bag just in case, I do that with all my liquids and tubes of stuff even when I am going by commercial airline. Most of them won't leak but it only takes one....

TCM wants the CHT to be between 300 and 380 and to limit cold and low power operations. Heat and pressure to prevent deposits and to seat the rings hard against the walls.

I am also breaking in my engine. I don't hesitate to keep the speed brakes out to slow the airframe. They are rated for the Vne speed of the aircraft. I would not want to exceed the gear speed though, with the gear deployed. Mine is 132 kts. The leading edges of the gear doors are unsupported sheet metal, I have had pieces of the leading edges of the gear doors, especially the starboard one, sheer off several times, to the point where I don't even try to repair them anymore. Wasn't exceeding gear speed, they are just vulnerable. TCM recommends dialing the RPMs way down in order to keep the cylinders warm. For engine break-in, I routinely dial the RPMs down to 1800 on final in order to be able to keep the power up. Don't know that I would go that low for a sustained cruise though, but maybe look at your POH tables and use the lowest cruise RPM in the tables. Probably 2200. You might try the kitchen sink, i.e. leave the gear deployed, speed brakes out, and full flaps. Obviously, if the airframe starts to exceed the V speed for one of them you would need to slow and take that appendage in, probably the flaps first. But it might keep the airframe from exceeding any of the V speeds to begin with. I am nearing 50 hours and the engine is probably pretty much broken in at this point.