donkaye, MCFI

I have 27-0106. They changed to the dual puck system on 27-0107. I missed it by one. Initially, the cost to replace the pucks made the change to the dual puck system not really cost effective, but as time went on that changed dramatically. I bought the plane in 1992. Initially, the upgrade cost of materials was about $4,500. I finally had had enough of the poor braking and the cost of replacing the pucks about every 70 hours. In 2016 I did the upgrade. By that time the cost had grown to $8,500. It was not a trivial upgrade. It involved new axels, beefier disks, new gear doors, and a lot of labor. The difference in braking is significant. Care, however, needs to be exercised in braking or the brakes will lock up. Today, I'm not even sure you would be able to get an upgrade kit made.

You probably remember that Garmin came out with the GPS 90 before any other moving map. That was the first map in the cockpit albeit a portable that I used when ferrying Mooneys in the early 90s. What a difference in situational awareness, although you needed a magnifying glass to see the waypoints.

From my experience if you are in your mid 70's, you're a young'n. If you're using a landing checklist, will you forget to put the gear down? Are you flying at least 10 hours per month?, Are you doing the Wings Program several times per year to have someone else you respect and will be honest with you, evaluate your aeronautical competency? If you're flying instruments, are you constantly looking for benign weather (fog and low ceiling with nearby VFR) to keep more than current, but proficient, with your approaches? And from a personal comfort point of view, what has been your family history of longevity? For example, suppose you are in your eighties and your parents lived into their late nineties? You know your health better than anyone. Do you feel fit to fly? Of course there are unknowns that could only be known with diagnostics such as full body CT scans, full body MRIs and maybe even PET Scans, but, unfortunately, even with Medicare or maybe because of Medicare, they are unlikely to be proactively approved. I'd ask at least these questions before I stepped down to a kitty car with no retractable gear or gave up flying all together. Personally, I'll cross the insurance bridge when I come to it. Unless there is an absolute age where providing an overwhelming backup package of currency and family history doesn't make a difference, I'll continue to provide backup each year. So far my premiums have gone up several hundred dollars per year each year. I've been with the same insurance agency (and they've placed me usually with the same company ((USAIG)) since I bought my plane 33 years ago.

I'm flying the avionics with the Aera 760 on the yoke being used as primary for the approach chart. Easily switched between North up and Track up. However, with the advent of Smartcharts, I find myself prebriefing with it and even monitoring the profile with the iPad in my lap. So many valuable things all in one place and so easy to use. I particularly appreciate the airport details such as slope, and the "Show Minimums" tab that shows minimums of all approaches without having to swipe through all of them. Being able to easily switch between the Smartchart and the traditional chart is also nice.

Some people have great memories. I just reread that thread. I even had posted in it. This issue has been around long time. I think it should have been an AD to get it fixed, then everyone would have known about it. It is easy to Monday morning quarterback. And it's often helpful. I'm going to check it out on my airplane, but the manual was not clear to me that disabling ESP with the AP on also disables it with the AP off. Had I tried it before, I don't think I would have turned it off, and the issue would have resolved itself with an immediate down trim. But that would have just masked the problem. The fact is that a servo can cause the trim jackscrew to lock up if the SB has not been implemented and that is a major issue that should be addressed before an accident happens. Even knowing the issue was discussed 9 years ago here didn't help because I had forgotten about it. Regarding other solutions such as bank angles; We were configured for slow flight with gear and full flaps. I'd be a little reluctant to go into a bank of greater than about 20° due to stall speed increase. That being the case 20° is not going to help much because the wing isn't loaded enough. At 45° where it would help, the plane would already have gone into a spin, having stalled earlier.

Yes, the student should have checked it. We did check it after the fact. The switch checked good, the module has been sent in for overhaul.

The ESP was disabled on the G5, but, while I may be wrong, that doesn't prevent the GFC 500 from turning back on after 10 seconds of being out of the envelope in slow flight.

Last week we were at 4500' off the California coast by Santa Cruz. We were just starting Commercial training. Before doing any of the new Commercial maneuvers, I start by doing slow flight, then Power off and Power on Stalls. The airplane, a 231, has been upgraded to 2 G5s, and the GFC 500 autopilot. As such, when operating outside of the ESP (Electronic Stability Protection) envelope the ESP needs to be disabled in the G5. Additionally, the AP circuit breaker needs to be pulled because, if the airplane is operated outside the envelope with the AP off for more than 10 seconds, the AP will automatically turn on and engage the servos in LVL mode. I hadn't pulled the circuit breaker, but we had slowed to just above the stall and, unbeknownst to me, my student had used the electric trim to trim up fully. Pulling the CB disabled the electric trim. First, we found that the stall warning switch was inoperative, but continued the exercise anyway. Power was added to maintain altitude on the backside of the power curve and the nose was lowered to increase speed and lower the AOA. To relieve yoke pressure trim needed to be adjusted down. With the electric trim off the student tried to trim down with the trim wheel. It wouldn't budge. The student said that he couldn't control the pitch with the yoke, the force was too strong. At that point I added my control input to the yoke. The force was so strong that with both of us locking our arms straight out we couldn't overcome the pitch up force. I tried to unlock the trim wheel with both hands--unsuccessfully. In all of my flying I have never had a flight where the outcome was in doubt. But for a few seconds that's exactly what I thought. Knowing that the 231 is somewhat nose heavy and on final at 75 knots with low power setting on a 3° slope the plane was controllable, I pulled the power. That did relieve some of the control pressure. I tried to unlock the trim again with the trim wheel. No dice. It was totally locked up. We were on flight following with NORCAL, and I was about to declare an emergency, when I decided to turn the AP on and see if the power of the trim servo would unlock the trim. I pushed in the CB and waited while the system went through its PFT. It took a few seconds, but ultimately finished successfully. I had the student try the electric trim---and it worked. The trim became unlocked. We had dodged a bullet. I said, "Let's head back to San Jose. We're done for the day". I got no argument. Epilogue: I told the student that until we found out the reason for our issue, we wouldn't be flying the plane. The maintenance shop was able to recreate the problem. I called Paul Kortopates and related the issue. He told me that a Service Instruction had been issued on December 14, 2016, SIM20-88A Stabilizer trim stop screw Modification. I've attached it here. It applys to the M20J, M20K, M20L, and M20M. It was to be done within 100 hours. On this airplane it apparently had not been done, so the force of the electric trim on trimming up for slow flight had pushed the trim wheel past the stop and locked it up. I'm posting this because for those owning aircraft to which it applies, you should confirm that it has been complied with. Otherwise, you might be put into an unrecoverable situation the likes of which we were lucky enough to have overcome. SIM20-88A Stabilizer trim stop screw Modification.pdf

Can any of the Logbook Apps do the below and much more? Total Flight Hours by Aircraft.pdf Total Flight Instruction By Aircraft Model .pdf Total Flight Instructing MCFI 2024.pdf

After some "birthing" issues, the WiFi updates have worked perfectly for me for many months. I let the update process proceed as I do my preflight. By the time I've finished the preflight the updates have completed.

I appreciated the 33% discount for FF and bought it even though I didn't use it much. At 15% not so much. I'll probably terminate my subscription at the next renewal. We'll see.

Recently GP added Graphical NOTAMS to the Airport Smart Chart Page. Just tap the button in the lower right hand corner. I like to manipulate my data in numerous ways including sorts and selections, so many years ago designed a flight log through a database management program called 4D. I, therefore use both a physical log and electronic one. I pay for both FF and GP. As a flight instructor, FF has previously given a 33% discount. I don't know what the future holds in that regard, though. FF is so immense that I don't know half of what it can do. I do like the 3D functionality that it provides. But overall I do like the interface of GP, since it mimics all of my other avionics. And I REALLY like Smart Charts and use it all the time now. While FF flight planning might be more comprehensive, GP provides adequate information and makes it very easy to file as opposed to the extra steps required to file in FF. If weather get complicated enough, whether it's FF or GP, I call Flight Service for an in depth analysis. Since I've be using GP since the beginning and it's the one I'm most familiar with, it's my program of choice. Probably those who use FF would say the same.

Bottom line, an Acclaim is not an airplane that should be in a flight club, especially at an airport with a 2,400 foot runway and with transition instructors who are not Mooney Specific Instructors.

That is an understatement. The owner put it on the flight line at a flying club at Palo Alto. That turned out to be a bad idea. The field is 2,441 feet long. As an independent instructor I was the exception for doing transition training, as the club wanted their own instructors for checkouts. Robert wanted me only, but the club wouldn't acquiesce to that. That REALLY turned out to be a VERY bad idea. None were experienced in Mooneys. The plane had 3 prop strikes involving a teardown. None were my students. Robert was a conscientious pilot. I related a contrasting safety story about a flight he asked me to accompany him on. He was uncomfortable doing the flight on his own. The very same day another former student of mine who was not instrument current tried to go into an airport that was IFR and that even Clay Lacey that evening had diverted from to go to Modesto. On his 3rd attempt at a visual approach he became disoriented, crashed and killed both himself and his fiancé. I'm sorry Robert lost the plane.

Your airplane has a lot of history. I have 158 Hours in it including both ferrying and teaching from 2008 through 2015.

First off, after I had a problem renewing my subscription to Garmin Pilot last week, customer service informed me that they were no longer including the Premium Upgrade as a part of the OnePak. Disappointing, but not surprising. When Garmin does a System Update to the products that I have, they usually put out an Upgrade Supplement that I review. Usually I don't miss anything that can be useful to me, but this time I did. For those that have the G500 TXi and GTN X50 Xi and missed them here are a couple of items that might prove useful. 1. On the G500 TXi there is a toggle to see Density Altitude on the PFD instead of Temperature. Once in the air the toggle could be switched back to temperature. Of course if you have a G5 they added this data field when on the ground many software iterations ago. 2. On the GTNs when on the Flight Plan page, each waypoint can be configured to have 2 data fields per column instead of 1. 3. This is more for information, but on the Flight Plan Page for the GTNs, not only is the active waypoint magenta, but everything on the line including the Altitude Constraint is now magenta (the Altitude Constraint used to be Cyan). This was important to me because after updating my TXi System to 3.8 the update failed and I lost all of my configuration settings. (Note: that won't happen again because I downloaded the settings to an SD Card as I should have in the past). The next few times I flew I couldn't get VNAV to work. I thought I had done everything right; Set the VNAV altitude on the GTN, Preselected the lowest VNAV altitude, Enabled VNAV on the GFC 500. I thought somehow the Upgrades to the TXi and GTNs were still screwed up and that the Magenta Color on the active waypoint confirmed it. I had plenty of time to review the issue on our trip to San Diego for Thanksgiving. I hadn't given any thought to Navigation source, since I was navigating on GPS on the PFD. I was stumped until I looked at the navigation indicator on the GTN 750 Xi. As you might have guessed it was on VLOC. After switching it to GPS, VNAV became functional. My sources are not sync'd together and I am going to check with my avionics shop to find out why not. So if your VNAV is not working verify that the 4th required item, source is in GPS, is selected. Anyway, that's what led me to the new magenta coloring. Edit: After checking with my avionics tech, there is a setting that we changed to sync both the GTN and the TXi Nav source.

I'm glad, Tim, you were happy with Norcal. I've had several students go there for their Annuals. However, I don't see how an Annual can be done in 2 days. I'm not sure about the J Model, but for the M model the book says 31 hours for the inspection alone, not including fixing the called out items.

Thanks, Lance, you are correct. He definitely has been questioning my competence, but I knew that from the beginning. Remember he was the one who upon getting his Bravo said it only took him a few times around the pattern to be making great landings. This from a pilot who says, "Low time VFR only pilot, so what the hell do I know". I engaged because I thought there might be some value to others in my answers. And then there's new member JackK, apparently a commercial pilot who appears not to even own a Mooney, maybe has never flown one, but apparently based on flying many other model airplanes, thinks he knows how to fly a Mooney. To him my approach to teaching is all wrong. My problem with him is that some people on this forum might actually believe what he says. As if I don't know that putting the gear down early requires higher engine power around the pattern. I do it for a number of reasons I've already discussed. And doing only power off approaches is ridiculous. You are not going to run a 3° slope power off. Descent rates are greater making learning how to flare more difficult. In my 58 years of flying GA in 57 different models of airplanes, I have found that if you have mastered the precision required to fly the Mooney well, it is reasonably easy to fly other types of airplanes, but the reverse is not true.

It's for both. The smart a** answer to the 2nd question is "You know it when you see it". The CFI answer is: A stabilized approach on final, on speed, on slope with the aim point remaining stationary, and with the flare started at a point such that with a constant increase in back pressure on the yoke the rate of descent goes to zero at touchdown with the main wheels rolling on with not even a squeak and enough energy remaining to control the lowering of the nose wheel after touchdown of the mains.

1. Not well. A different procedure is taught for the power off 180° for the Commercial. 2. Not if a student is training with me. 3. Agree if you're flying a jet. That's the speed I used to fly downwind in the Citation 525. No way for the average Mooney pilot. The procedure I discussed above is the best training procedure I have found to efficiently transition a pilot who hasn't flown a Mooney. Most of our brains are pretty smart at adapting over a period of time. After a significant number of hours in a particular type of airplane, a pilot can use his own experience to modify his flying. However, until that time, a good solid repetitive procedure will keep people safe. For example, I have over 11,000 hours flying Mooneys. I actually had a Controller at San Jose surprise me a couple of weeks ago by coming on frequency after I landed with a congratulations. He said they clocked me at 186 knots entering the downwind and were surprised I was able to slow the plane for landing. I know my plane's performance and know the rate at which I can comfortably slow it down. The absolute best complement I ever got, though, was a few years ago. I was out practicing touch and goes early in the morning at San Jose. Although a Class C airport, they are pretty cooperative when traffic is light. I was minding my own business doing my normal practicing on the left runway with all different types of approaches including a very short approach involving a turn onto final and touchdown right after the rollout. I had no idea that anyone was watching. As I was on downwind on the next circuit, a Southwest Airlines pilot who apparently had been awaiting his takeoff clearance for some time was cleared for takeoff on the right runway. As he powered up, he came on frequency and said, "Thanks for the show". I didn't say anything, but he made my day.

A pilot with many thousands of hours can adapt as they see fit. Believe it or not, though, many airline pilots I've transitioned into their new to them Mooney, had much to learn when it came to proficiently flying a Mooney.

Unless I am misunderstanding the question, a VFR Circuit approach and landing is the same as doing a pattern here in the US. Regarding an IFR approach, things are a little different with the variety of situations, and the complexity of that is better discussed with your flight instructor. Referenced to the Ovation, Bravo, and Acclaim.

When doing pattern work with full stop landings: 1. Take off with approach flaps. Apply about 5 pounds of back pressure on the yoke. (Bob Krommer's "The Mooney Pull". The plane will fly off the ground when it's ready to fly. 2. In the crosswind and 100 feet below pattern altitude put the gear down. This applies the "brakes" to keep the plane from accelerating once at pattern altitude. 3. Reduce power to maintain 90 knots on downwind (Gear and Approach Flaps). By putting the gear down first before power reduction saves having to do an additional power change to maintain speed had the power been reduce first. 90 knots is a comfortable speed to maintain an appropriate distance from the runway on downwind. Without putting the gear down first a very low power setting would be required to maintain a speed below flap speed below 110 knots. Also, using this speed keeps the airplane from getting ahead of the pilot and provides for easy transition to base leg. 4. At 3° from the aim point reduce power to about 12" nominally, turn base while trimming up and adding full flaps simultaneously. By setting the nose of the airplane at 3° down the addition of the flaps will automatically cause the plane to slow to 80 knots thereby simplifying pilot workload. 5. Turn final early enough to keep the bank angle at standard rate and adjust power to main 75 knots nominally at mid-weight. Control speed with elevator and altitude with power. This is antithetical to the Jacobson Flare method. Behind the power curve it is safer to do so because pitch provides an immediate response, while power provides a delayed response. While I appreciate Jacobson's attempt to mechanically fly the airplane to a landing, even though some may use it successfully, there is a reason it has not caught on in the 40 years he has been advocating for it. Even using his method there is still an art to his last 4 seconds to flare at the proper rate to touch down with the proper amount of energy remaining. The rate of simultaneous power reduction and flare is basically the same as taught conventionally. The bottom line to "Why not reduce power to slow down and then only add gear and flaps app when commencing the final descent for landing on downwind?" is to maintain a consistent and simplistic approach to landing without letting the airplane "get ahead" of the pilot.

I don't. I recognize that flying slowly means different control pressures, but I just smoothly use whatever control "Pressures" are required without thinking about any difference in "feel". Nor does that matter. Just do what it takes using whatever control "Pressures" are necessary, not using abrupt jerky movements I see so many people exhibit in the beginning of my training with them.

It's good to practice slow flight. That's one of the reasons it is part of a Wings Program Activity that I use: A070405-08. Having said that, a good landing requires the correct airspeed for the weight AND proper slope management. If you come in flat at 2° or less to your aim point, you are not going to have consistent good landings. There's not enough flare angle for the transition to the landing attitude.. If you come in at 4° or greater, the flare rate is too great to smoothly control the flare without possibly ballooning. The aim point should not move during the approach. Once you have the 3° site picture imprinted in your mind, combined with the proper approach speed, every landing should be a masterpiece. The proficient pilot feels comfortable flying through the complete dynamic range of the airplane. If you don't, then go up and fly the dynamic range until you do feel comfortable. You, your passengers, and your insurance company will appreciate it.