Earl

I would also recommend Joey Cole as he has done a number of projects on my Mooney that have worked out well. I use H&L Aircraft at KRYY for my annual, oil changes and routine work but Joey for specialty work (i.e., he installed my EDM-730, fuel tank patches, did some troubleshooting for me on some issues that H&L did not want to tackle, etc.). As for William's experience described above it does not surprise me. Joey is a self described impatient perfectionist and you have to work closely with him to separate the wheat (real issues) from the chaffe (wouldn't it be nicer if...). There were times when I deferred something he wanted to do right away. Having said all that, he knows Mooneys and he knows where to get parts and at least for me has done what he promised to do when he promised to do it. And he has been a good sounding board for me when I was in transit and needed advice on a maintenance issue. I would also agree that engines are not his forte and he is pretty open about that issue. You just need to actively manage what he is doing and hopefully avoid William's experience. The only work I had done at Epps was a radio problem and they replaced an antenna when the real problem was the cable connection to the radio. Nothing other than that. Never used DLK although they claim to know Mooneys.

I have a manual system and it is definitely a big improvement when inflated. The few times I forgot to inflate them I noticed the noise and wondered what was going on until I realized they weren't inflated. They haven't been a maintenance problem in the least.

I have been an AOPA member for many years but what has been bugging me lately is that most of the AOPA magazine is mostly about, well, AOPA. It seems every year there is less about airplanes, pilots and owners and more about what the folks at AOPA are doing or saying or thinking. And the glorification of their new president seemed odd to me at best. As magazines go, EAA's is far superior and way more enjoyable to read if you love flying and airplanes. I will probably stick with it but I am not really sure why at this point other than habit.

OK, so it was a success. Now all that's left is to get out with my friendly CFII and fly some GPS approaches with vertical information. Am looking forward to seeing how it all works.

Well I'd be an optimist but I just know it would never work out.....

Well I finally did what was suggested and called Jepps and sure enough the reason JSUM didn't recognize my data card is it was looking for a non WAAS version. So I updated my subscription to WAAS, which costs a little more than the non WAAS, and will try to update tonight when I get home. Silly me to assume that the database was the same for WAAS and non WAAS and the vertical information was in there and just didn't display on a non WAAS 430. Should have asked the avionics shop when I picked the plane up but it had a current database in it so I didn't even think about it. Lesson learned........again....

The card is recognized by the PC. I went to Control Panel and Jepp shows up under the USB where it is plugged in. Got a PM from another MooneySpace member and I need a new subscription. That is probably the problem as the WAAS data card is different and with my current subscription it won't recognize the card.

OK, so I got my 430 upgraded to WAAS and I am trying to update my database the first time since and JSUM will not recognize the card. I have looked on control panel and it is installed and seems to be running properly in the USB slot. Any suggestions? Could Garmin have screwed something up when they had the unit. Did I screw up sending the data card in with the unit?

I actually think it does reduce the risk having another pilot. Its not about another set of eyes outside because most, if not all accidents happen because of what is going on inside the airplane. There is a reason airlines have two pilots on every flight and its not just in case one becomes incapacitated, its to avoid task saturation and help avoid mistakes. Not a perfect system but much better than with a single pilot. If in an emergency situation it seems pretty obvious having one person focused on flying the airplane while the other troubleshoots, communicates, etc. is better than the entire load being on a single pilot and the accident stats seem to bear that out. I am curious about the source of stats about Mooneys. Where can I find them? Do they compare the Mooney to other aircraft or are they just Mooney-specific stats? Thanks in advance for the info!

Not sure why but look at flight statistics and you will see the the accident rate for SPIFR at night is much higher than daytime (last report I saw it was over 35 accidents per 100,000 approaches at night versus about 5 per 100,000 approaches in the daytime). I suspect at night for some reason it is easier to become spatially disoriented and lose control although it frankly should not. But the accident record for night IFR is pretty compelling to me. But as I said in my post lots of pilots do it safely but my personal minimums say no SPIFR at night because the margin of safety is too thin for my tastes. Its never been a problem with my business travel and my wife is more than happy to have me safe and sound in a hotel room rather than flying night IFR, and she flies with me IFR on a regular basis.

While I agree with you that remaining current (which I am assuming you really mean proficient) should qualify you to fly an approach to minimums. But having personal minimums above approach minimums is really all about risk management. Being proficient enough to fly an approach to minimums doesn't mean that from a risk management perspective you should not decide to do otherwise. Approaches to minimums provides a very thin margin of error and while you may be proficient you still take on more risk by choosing to do so and it is not a bad idea to have higher personal minimums. As for your severe weather scare, I am 100% in agreement with you. On the night IFR to minimums I have no doubt it is a great feeling to fly an approach to minimums and break out seeing the lights. I just choose not to fly SPIFR at night as a purely risk management decision. In my business travel there is always a hotel to be had and I have the ability to manage my business travel accordingly. When it doesn't work out and I need to be somewhere I fly commercial.....and I hate it.

When I got my IFR rating my personal minimums were 2x approach minimums, no night IFR, no departure unless the departure airport is above approach minimums for the wind conditions and of course no t-storms or icing. As I have gained more experience in the system I have allowed my personal minimums to be adjusted based on my proficiency. I am back to my initial IFR personal minimums when I haven't flown recently and if I have recently gone through an IPC with a CFII or have been flying a lot I will adjust the minimums appropriately. There are however some that are not changed. I don't fly SPIFR at night, period. I know a lot that do this safely and I have no problem with the concept, I just don't plan to do it. So I guess I would say with more experience I have changed some of my personal minimums from hard and fast all the time to being more dependent on my current proficiency.

I had recently heard the same thing about adding MP and RPM and if it equals 47 you are about 65% power. In my 252 if you go to the POH and add MP plus RPM at the various 65% settings it actually adds up to 48. I have started to use the 47 number so I am sure I stay out of the red box. What I have not figured out is how to determine 65% with WOT and then adjusting RPM. Seems like I would need to really dial back the RPM to have both add up to 47 or 48. Or does WOT only apply to normally aspirated planes?

As much as I love my Mooney I don't consider it much of a family plane, but then again, I have three kids that range in age from 17 to 23. But even before that, I never really had a trip where it made sense to put four in the plane with luggage and have left much in the way of fuel payload. Of course mine is a 252 which doesn't have the useful load of some other models. I have at times considered switching the Mooney for a A36TN but could never get the money to make sense for me. I like my turbo and the ability to fly high, fast and economical. Last trip I got 22mpg, better than my Sequoia for sure......and way more fun! As for the ingress and egress, all it takes is a little planning to fill those back seats. Pilot in first and moves their seat forward. Rear passenger pilot side next followed by the next rear passenger and the right seater last. No problem. Put in the right seat person first and it is now officially impossible to get the rest on board without gymnastics.

I use Aeroshell 10W50 plus Camguard. Started using Camguard when I had a sticky valve that had to be reset at the annual and ever since then my compressions have remained good and no valve issues at all. Oil burn has also stabilized to one quart every 8-10 hours. Resolved by the Camguard? Maybe, maybe not. But for the relatively small incremental cost increase it seems worth it to me. I would say I have been considering switching to the 100W in the summer but had not considered the 20W50 for winter. Will ask my A&P about it next week.

OK, finally picked up the Mooney from Georgia Avionics yesterday and all is joyful. Turns out the shielding around the antenna cable from my #2 navcomm was frayed which caused the spike in volts when I transmitted. Was a painful project to run new cabling but I needed the cabling for the 430 redone anyway to make the WAAS switch. So nice to have a fully functioning #2 again and one that doesn't kick off the autopilot when I transmit, not to mention being heard loud and clear. As for the WAAS upgrade it too went without a hitch. Now I will need to go back to my IFR magazines and read all those WAAS articles that I have skipped over the last several years. Plan to fly next week with my CFII to shoot some WAAS approaches and get familiar with the new capability. Looking forward to it!

Classic! There is so much great humor in this movie that I have memorized.

I agree with the other posters that the first flying I did when I started my IR involved developing all the power settings for every configuration (climb, cruise, cruise descent, approach decent for precision and non-precision, approach level, etc.) along with what to expect to see on the AH (half dot above or below, etc.). Develop them for your own airplane and not from others. PIC has a nice label that I filled in and put on my flight binder although I now have the key ones memorized. Flying by the numbers in SPIFR is key to managing workload and every plane is different.

My CHTs in cruise typically have a difference of around 40-50 degF and the coolest is usually just under 300 degF. No idea if this is a problem but I can't imagine it would be since I have good compressions and oil usage of about 1 quart every 8-10 hours of flight.

I read the letter and it struck me as a mixed bag. The first page was pretty obnoxious and the second page seemed more conciliatory and asked for voluntary compliance. Frankly I can understand their concern with all the NIMBY's that buy a house close to an airport and then complain about the noise. They are probably trying to avoid an effort to close the airport, albeit in a ham handed way. Naples is a big retirement community and I am sure the number of folks up after 10pm is pretty small. I agree with others that a letter educating them on the potential errors using something like Flightaware would be helpful and kindly asking them to remove your plane from the list of offenders would be appropriate. Boycotting Naples because of this, maybe not so much......but that's just me, I am not a big boycott fan. As for the one about NJ, boy is that true and it's even worse. I spent the night there and got fuel and the fee was included with my charges. Then a month later I got a bill from the airport authority for the same charge. I sent them a nasty gram with a copy of my FBO bill and haven't heard from them since. No idea whether it resolved the issue but I will avoid that airport like the plague just in case. What an anti business approach but then again, we are talking New Jersey.

No worries and your apology was above and beyond the call of duty. I think I overreacted to the tone because I really hate it on AOPA's forum where I actually have several prolific posters on ignore because they are so obnoxious. Just got me going out of fear that it was creeping into mooneyspace but I could have done it without my dripping sarcasm. I hate when that happens. I share your gratitude to be able to own a Mooney and I have to admit there are times when I want to pinch myself because I never thought I could own a plane. If you ever get to Atlanta let me know and I'll buy you lunch.

Agree with all this although I would add a 3rd category: "Sometimes when ATC asks me to do something that is easier with speed brakes." I too would never pay to add them to an airplane that doesn't have them but I would and did pay more for a 252 that had them. Interestingly though I didn't buy that model of Mooney because it had speed brakes, I bought it based on the research I did on the best model of Mooney I could afford at the time. Sadly I bought at the peak of the market but I don't plan to sell anytime soon so I am OK.

Don't know about the Pilot Pack but I do envy your GTN-750/650 avionics. I do have a 430 and 696 and wonder if there is a package for that combination. Both are expensive to keep current but a small price to pay for the capability and safety factor.

OK, I think we get your opinion that those that use speed brakes are poor planners. I simply disagree that every plan you have flying in the IFR system will happen to your satisfaction and having an additional tool in the toolbox to work around those pesky ATC errors gives me much more flexibility. I suppose absent having speed brakes I too would ask for vectors to avoid a more rapid descent or simply say unable and force them to work everyone else around me. Thankfully I have them and when I need them I use them, which isn't very often but often enough to be glad I have them. I guess in your mind that makes for poor planning and we will just have to agree to disagree. Since I almost always travel alone on business I am not all that concerned about a quick descent but I can see how some passengers might find that uncomfortable. I suppose in that case I might ask for an alternative. But absent passengers and with my speed brakes out I can keep power in and descend rapidly without going too fast........its a beautiful thing and I thank the good folks at Mooney for installing them and I will continue to use them guilt free.

Gee, it sounds like you took it personal. Jumping down your throat....really??? I think I was responding to your "spears" about those that actually lack your piloting skills because they use speed brakes. You stated that anyone that uses them doesn't plan their descent and arrival or is a result of an ATC error. Sorry but that is exactly the kind of comments that I see all the time on the red board and rarely here on Mooneyspace. Yes ATC works for us but given all your experience with your Mooney and your jet you surely realize that you are not the only plane out there using their services, right? Is it their job to clear everyone out of your way simply because you had a plan for your descent and arrival? That doesn't seem very constructive to me and you sounds a bit defensive. Frankly, if I have to tools to accommodate ATC and their need to work with other traffic I am glad to use them. Happens to me on a semi-regular basis flying into Atlanta's class B. Could I say unable all the time if it doesn't fit my desires? Sure, but why do that if in fact I can help them out?