Ned Gravel

Well done Chris: The day after I ground looped our Arrow some 120 nm from home, I spent an hour with each of four instructors at my home drome the following day for the same reason. I still spent a year and a half blaming myself for the loss and I hope you do not do this. It turns out the insurance company determined a gear failure but still my fault for flying it at colder than minus 25 Celsius. One of the reasons I bought a J-bar Mooney.

Well a Screamin' Eagle may even be a step up from Marvin K Mooney.

Mimi bought an Ultra?

Voice recording indicates he was at 1700' and still five miles out. That is at least three and one half miles too far to make it to Burbank airport (based on what my E model can do with a windmilling prop). Good work in a bad situation.

Bob: The POH for the E model describes the T/O configuration to be exactly the same as the approach configuration that I use for instrument approaches. No difference. The Mooney Caravan procedure is to allow all a/c in the element to be identically configured for both T/O and landing, because we only fly it in VFR conditions and we want to be concentrating on flying the aircraft to maintain position (including both T/O and landing) without the need to touch anything other than control column, throttle, and rudder pedals.

I replied in one of the previous discussions on this topic, but I will do so again here. I do them. I create and maintain the muscle memory of what is needed in a go-round and it is very close to a touch-and-go (although I will agree with Bennett that they are not exactly the same). For me, the most significant difference between a go-round and a touch-and-go is the DH/DA. Rejecting an instrument approach after the FAF because DH/DA is reached and the runway environment has not been acquired visually, or for some other reason, is one scenario. Putting it down on the runway to stable roll out and then immediately configuring to T/O because the aircraft is already rolling is the other scenario. There are lots of ways to make a touch-and-go safe. Set T/O flaps (as in an instrument approach) or no flaps for the approach. Either condition does not require touching the flap switch until after climbing back through 1000' AGL (or not at all in the case of a no-flap landing). [We practice no flap take offs and landings for the Mooney Caravan.]. 3 GUMPS checks before crossing the threshold. Know the "must be airborne by" point on that runway. Do not attempt them on unfamiliar runways. Do not attempt them on runways less than twice your minimum comfortable landing (and T/O) length criteria. For me that is 2500' (normally) unless something has allowed me to become familiar with a runway less than that. So, for me, twice 2500' is 5000'. My home drome is 3300' and I will do that one very, very rarely. Too much traffic and too many students in the circuit ("pattern" for y'all). The one I normally use is 6000' long and 5 nm away (Gatineau Executive Airport - CYND). When I get home from an overseas deployment, the second back-in-the-saddle training includes three non-precision and one precision approach. That involves a possible total of five runways (2 at 4000', one at 5000', one at 8000' and one at 10,000') and I have done touch-and-goes on all of them. I can complete two such sets of approaches in a day fairly easily and get my 6-6-6 in for IFR currency. However, the first flying I do after I get back home is 6 or 7 touch-and-goes at Gatineau. Confirms the cockpit flows and re-animates the muscle memory that will save my life in a bad situation. Wax on, wax off. My personal criteria and more than 800 hours on my own Mooney makes them both manageable and safe. Doing them is a safety issue.

If you have ever worn a uniform, parts of it will get to you. If you have ever worn a uniform, thank you for your service.

So Brad: Any comparison to the Chicago controller approach you see as significant? Other than the traffic volume of course.

Saw that one some time ago as well. It is one of the data points that convinced me, until the technology allows more precision, that wx is a strategic decision, not a tactical one.

Oscar: I will try. Putting the file on Youtube makes it much smaller than the original but it is still 13 Mb. If our e-mail servers restrict attachments to 10 Mb (as many do) then may I recommend https://www.onlinevideoconverter.com/video-converter as the download mechanism for you to use from the Youtube URL shown above? Wish us luck.

Oscar: I put our Quebec Element landing on Youtube at https://youtu.be/urwPuBxCjE4. My own landing sucked, but we got there safely - although we should have touched down after the purple dot. Take what you need. .

This is what Clarence did to rebuild mine when the overhaul was done in 2009. CHTs never go above 320 on climbout.

I used it for the first time today and I was not looking for a squawk code in the message. It may have been included, but Clnc Del gave me one, as expected, although I am not certain it was the one that would have been included in the message, if I had noted it. I was just so happy to see my route accepted as filed and within about one minute of transmitting it.

Rathar

Bobby: You are more than welcome. Yves has the list and he will update it this weekend. As it is now 08:05 am our time, Yves is about 5 minutes from departure for the 3hr 27 min flight to Customs Clearance in Sault-Ste-Marie, Michigan (see http://flightaware.com/live/flight/CFQKM) before heading to Madison, WI for the gathering of the Mooney Caravan . As a result, he may not have had the opportunity to print the cute name tags shown above for the two of you, but we will have something to stick on and identify you to the crowd. This OK?

The gear was up??

NOT ME!!!!!!! When I saw this on AVWeb today, I called Clarence. He pulled the logs and I am not on the list. YAY!!!

+1 for Tri Flow

Oh Grasshopper - this may take some time.......

Because we are the organisers?????

Mike: Aren't you sort of married now? She may need more notice and perhaps a bit more stuff..... Just sayin'.....

I wasn't going to say that. But since you did, we Canadians do sound like folks from Minnesota or northern Michigan sometimes, but no one confuses us with folks from Maine or New York.

Hmmm.

Hank: I have been through Atlanta Bravo a few times without any problem. I always file IFR and that might be different. Was it because you were flying VFR, or without a flight plan?

I do not remember where I heard this too, but that appears to be the same number. "Demonstrated" by someone like Bill Wheat to the FAA certification guy during the certification flight. If a person flying an E model with such knowledge attempts to land it in conditions where the crosswind component is greater than 11 kts, they are a "test pilot." I have done it in mine up to 17 kts of crosswind component (and added to my checklist as max demonstrated on 15 Aug 2007) and I enjoy crosswind landings. This one was a conscious decision to try it before going to the big international airport and put it down directly into the wind on 8000' of wide runway. Apparently it worked and a go-round was not needed. My checklist also has me add 5 mph to final approach speed for every 10 kts of crosswind component and subtract 5 mph for every 300 lb under max gross. TO flaps are only for 5 kts of crosswind. 1 pump of flaps for 10 kts of crosswind. Zero flaps for more than 10 kts of crosswind. Flaps cause over-reaction of the wing to gusts. I tend to slip it on final. Upwind wing down enough to keep the trajectory on the extended centerline and enough opposite rudder to keep the nose on the centerline. Works great in a short body. However, as someone has said, it does not appear to work so well on the long body Mooneys.