donkaye, MCFI

I have flight instructor insurance, but the insurance companies don't provide anywhere near the coverage required for the newer airplanes. I spent quite a bit of money late last year having my attorney draw up an Agreement of Waiver & Release of Liability for Flight Instruction for my Corporation and myself. I looked at the AOPA form, and it doesn't hold a candle to the one my attorney generated. I thought I would have use it to do an Acclaim Ultra training I did last month. It turned out her Insurance Company provided me a waiver of subrogation and added me on to her policy. Recently I have had several people ask me to be their instructor for their Instrument Rating. One is an RV-10 and the other is a DA40 NG. I don't have any time in either, so the likelihood of my getting added on to a policy with a waiver of subrogation is nil. Time to use the waiver. While I understand it may not stand up in court, at least it may be something of a deterrent to litigation. It is a horrible agreement---for the signor. After telling my first prospective student that I would be requiring the waiver and that it was a terrible agreement for him, I also said that I would understand, but would be unable to teach him if he didn't want to sign it. It will be interesting to see if it will be signed. I love teaching, but not at the expense of potentially losing what has taken decades to achieve...

The next time I go flying I'll try to video a IAS climb. It seems to hold +/- one or two knots for me in reasonably smooth conditions. Usually I engage it at the speed that I am going, but I will also try it from 10 to 20 knots different to see what happens. I'm actually quite happy with it. As an experiment, when the IAS starts oscillate hold the trim well to stop it. Then see if it starts to oscillate again.

My routing to KTUS has been: KRHV PMD BLH VICKO KTUS or to avoid Lemoore Airspace: KRHV AVE PMD BLH VICKO KTUS.

If you communicate with certainty, I've found controllers to be very accommodating in Socal. I always start with "If able" when I'm asking for something. Having said that, with family in San Diego I've made that trip countless times from KSJC. In fact, I just got back from KRNM a couple of days ago. Certainly it helps to have the instrument rating. Without it, for your trip, I'd take the high road and go relatively direct at 11,500 with O2 and come back at 12,500. I'd go KRHV-LHS-CA76-SAMOS-KSEE and come in the back way. This keeps you out of the Class B airspace. Have a good trip or call me to further discuss it. (408-499-9910)

That has absolutely NOT been my experience no matter what you read about sublimation. I had an inadvertent experience with ice many years ago before I really knew better. We were returning from a fly in at Coeur D'Alene, Idaho. Clouds were forecast at between 11,000 to tops at 15,000. I knew there was probably some ice in the clouds but figured with the power and climb rate of the M20M I'd only be in the clouds a few minutes before getting on top. Well, the bases were correct. Light rime ice started building slowly almost immediately upon entering the clouds. 12,000, 13,000, 14,000. I was looking up expecting to break out at 15,000; 16,000, the ice was getting worse, but it was getting lighter looking up. I considered descending, but knew I'd continue to build ice. 17,000, 18,000, 19,000. Finally, at 20,500 I broke out into bright sunshine. The right side of the airplane had more ice than the left. After leveling out, I tried to return the rudder trim to neutral. Not going to happen; it was frozen in place. I thought the ¼" of ice would sublimate off. After an hour, with a big "bang" the rudder broke free. The ice remained until we got above the freezing level, as we entered California. I learned my lesson those many years ago. Without ice protection, STAY OUT OF THE CLOUDS below the freezing level. Unless you are very near the freezing level, the ice isn't going to sublimate off.

I should mention that Barry Schiff in his Book "The Proficient Pilot, Volume1" describes another Landing method for large crosswinds. He describes landing a Cherokee 140 in a gusty 30 knot crosswind. While interesting and adaptable to a draggy airplane like the Cherokee with oleo struts, I think using it with an airplane such as the Mooney with rubber shock disks, is asking for big trouble.

Hi Victor, Yes, except per the over the fence speed in the attached file it would be 72+10+ ½ the gust factor. At those "fly on speeds" it is very important to fly the plane onto the runway with no descent rate that could cause a bounce. Throttle is then slowly withdrawn while adding aileron into the wind while maintaining directional control with the rudder. At any time during the slow down if full aileron has been applied, but more is needed to hold the runway, it's time to immediately go around. The most direct crosswind I have experienced in my plane was one time coming into San Jose as a front was approaching, landing runway was 12, and the steady wind was called out as 45 knots at 210°. I flew the plane on at 105 knots, no flaps, and used the procedure I just described. To date I have not had to go around using this procedure on a reasonable length runway. Oceano, L52, in central California was an exception. The runway is 2,360 feet at sea level. After doing my Landing Video we flew over there expecting to stay the night at a very nice rental Condo by the Beach. I didn't have the equipment I have today to give the wind on approach and there is no AWOS there, but at some point you have to commit to the landing. Once you do, there is no taking it back. I've seen a Bonanza stuck in the mud off the end of the runway in the past. At any rate, the first approach wasn't going to work so I went around. The second one also wasn't going to work, either, so I told Shirley that if it didn't look like it would work the 3rd time, we would go to Santa Barbara for the night. Somehow, the gusty crosswind let up just enough on the 3rd try that I was able to commit to the landing and landed successfully. However, short runways and large crosswinds usually don't work. You need the time and runway length to gradually slow down. Pages from Precision Flying With Don Kaye 8-11 .pdf

During the time of the training we did 48 full stop landings, which is par for the course.

I flew to Dallas this past week to do a transition training in an Acclaim Ultra. After the last few weeks in California with our deluge of rain, it was nice to get some clear weather for a change. The first 2 days went well with smooth air and calm winds. We got through most of what I like to do with regards to flying the airplane, including the necessary ground instruction. This prepared my student well for the 3rd day. A cold front moved through the previous night, and Wednesday dawned with strong winds. We got off to a late morning start due to lingering rains and the lack of any approaches to this Airpark, but that provided time to review the G1000NXi. Most of the smaller airports around the Dallas area where we were have single runways aligned North and South. The wind was strong out of the West. We first flew over to Bridgeport where we had worked in smooth air the previous 2 days and where, at 5,000ft long we could practice all the various types of landings I like to practice. It didn't hurt that the fuel prices at $4.95 were cheaper than I have seen in several years. With a single runway that was aligned 18-36, the AWOS called out the winds as 270° at 9G26. I had the student line up on final for 36 with full flaps just to see what the crab angle would be to hold the runway. It was close to 45°. My rule of thumb is anything greater than a 15° crab angle means reducing the flaps to either approach or no flaps and increasing speed by at least 10 knots plus ½ the gust factor. At 75 knots nominal approach speed that meant 75+10+9 or 94 knots. It was VERY bumpy and gusty on the approach, but at 95 there was enough rudder to be able to align the airplane with the runway in the transition from crab to wing low. The airplane needed to be flown onto the runway with touchdown at nearly 95. This obviously requires a reasonably long runway. The gusts were so bad that I needed to help with the landing. The one thing nice about partial or no flaps is that the stall speed is increased so the airplane is done flying at higher speed. At touchdown the power is gradually reduced as the plane slows. If at any time during the power reduction there was not enough rudder and aileron combination to hold the runway as the plane slowed, we could have immediately gone around. The landing was both challenging and exciting. In fact it was exciting enough that time would have been wasted doing any more "practicing" there. While fueling up I watched a C172 bounce down the runway, not able to make the landing and depart the field to who knows where. We looked for more desirable airports, but the best we could find was Mineral Wells aligned at 13-31. The takeoff from Bridgeport was by the book and we bounced on over to KMWL. The winds were still strong, but the crosswind component was more like gusty 20 knots. We were able to get in 17 full stop landings over the next few hours, and the student improved. We then went back over to Bridgeport for fuel. The winds were as bad a before, but this time favored runway 18. We came over the threshold at over 95 knots, touched down, bled off the speed gradually, and were able to complete the landing. This time I had the student fill up to get the airplane heavier for both a better ride and to have more options should we not be able to make the landing on the home airport of Propwash (16X) with its white fence just about on the threshold and 60x3000 foot dimensions. Frankly, with those winds I wasn't sure a landing could be made there, but close by Alliance with its 11,010 foot runway would surely work as a backup. It would be a short Uber ride back to the house. We lined up on final for runway 17. It was gusty, but nowhere near as bad as Bridgeport. Watching the crosswind and headwind component on the PFD was very helpful. There was a slight headwind component to help and we crossed the threshold at between 85 and 90 knots. The touchdown was smooth and I committed to the landing as we slowed, as there was enough rudder and aileron to complete the landing. I told the student that she got to see the full capability of the Mooney that day, but that she should not be going out on days like that until a lot more hours were under her belt. She thanked me for the opportunity of being able to fly that day and said how much she got out of the day. The Mooney is one great airplane.

If you're installing for the first time, I'd go ahead and do the full install with the extra 2 wires for GPS and Gear warning. I personally like the system as it was originally designed. I like to be reminded to check gear down. When the new unit came, I had it simply installed as before because the shop didn't have the time to install the other 2 wires. I have had the system call out altitude in rain, but I just flip a switch to disable the callouts. Maybe at Annual I'll have the other 2 wires attached. As far as using the system, the latest update is more accurate than the original and calls out system ready on startup. I look forward to hearing the callouts on approach, especially the last couple when very near the ground. I find it to be extremely accurate and makes it very easy to judge the rate of flare to "roll" the wheels on as the flying energy is fully dissipated. I think everyone should have one of these units.

Because LOP is dependent on FF, the Key Numbers approximation of power is not applicable. I have had a student get his Bravo to run LOP after spending a lot of money eliminating induction leaks and other things. After the fact, he has had a lot of engine maintenance. It's not supposed to be that way, but it is. I had issues with stabilizing TIT when I tried it after taking the in person APS Course put on by GAMI. I personally like the way the engine runs and the extra speed attained ROP even at the extra costs, so that is the way I'm flying my airplane.

I'm curious how many flight instructors on this list have and use a Waiver and Indemnification Agreement either in conjunction with being added on to a policy or separately?

I agree and won't teach instruments in actual conditions unless the plane is equipped with a backup AI. For the availability and cost nowadays, there's no reason to take the risk of flying needle, ball, and airspeed anymore.

That has not been my experience. I've been with the same company since I bought my plane 30 years ago. My insurance went up $350 over the previous year. Although not required, I do the Wings Basic and Advanced every year, and stay very current with flight instructing. I have found difficulty getting added on as an additional insured with waiver of subrogation. I do have flight instructor insurance. However, I have found it necessary to have my attorney of 40 years, one of the sharpest guys I have ever met, draw up an Agreement of Waiver and Release of Liability for Flight Instructing for those times when the add on is off the table. It pretty much covers everything under the sun. While it is no guarantee of not being sued, it would certainly be a discouragement for an attorney to try. Additionally, all my flight instruction is conducted within my C Corporation and I meticulously maintain its documentation. If you want to stay sharp both in life and in flying as you age, I find flying and teaching instruments to be highly beneficial.

I think it is time for a new instructor. There is NO WAY you should be anywhere near doing instrument approaches on your first lesson. The instrument rating is broken up into 4 major segments: 1 Attitude flying ((constant airspeed/rate climbs and descents with more complications (like adding turns to the climbs and descent) added as you become more proficient)). This should take about 8-10 hours. 2. Add the building blocks to instrument flying ( flying a course, compass turns using the magnetic compass, Understanding and using VORs in navigation, DME Arcs, and finally Holding Patterns, both using VOR and then GPS without the benefit of your GPS telling and flying the hold). This should take another 6+ hours. 3. Instrument Approaches. Approximately 15 hours. 4. Putting it all together by adding Communications to the workload. You should not move on to a new phase until you have the current phase down cold. If an instructor is experienced, they will keep the workload just on the edge of overload, but not go over it. By the time you're ready to take the test, it will be a non event. Flying actual alone after you have your rating, from a technical point of view, will be a lot easier than getting the rating because the work load will be so reduced. A good instructor will also have had you fly at least 4 hours of actual during the training. If you know the "Numbers" for each phase of flight (These should be determined at the very beginning of the training, as they differ slightly with each airplane), then it shouldn't make a difference which airplane you use. I've done trainings successfully in the C through the R models.

As a Mooney specific flight instructor, I've got extensive time in all models you are considering. While I like them all, and each has their strong points, I've owned my Bravo for 30 years, am on my 3rd engine, and went through the process of a major upgrade followed by additional relatively small ones as Garmin kept coming out with new "must have" equipment. Doing a major upgrade is really no fun, but the results make it all worth while. As I've said before, the Bravo is probably the best value out there, and once you've had a taste of a turbo, you'll not want to go without one whether you're East of the Mississippi or not. For example in the summertime on a hot muggy day, the sooner you get to 10,000 feet the better you and your passenger will like it. In the Southwest in the summertime around the Phoenix area, it's 12,500 feet before the thermal turbulence lets up. So, not surprisingly, I vote in favor of the Bravo for you.

So, if you have both, and have the extra benefit of not needing ADS-R, why would give it up for a lot of extra labor and equipment cost, and a few pounds of useful load?

You are probably aware of the following included in the Endorsement for the Commercial: "....has received and logged the training time within 2 months preceding the month of application..." You may need to get additional training if you haven't trained within that time limit.

In another word...Why? My answer would be a resounding...No.

Did you mean 978 Out? Then I ask you these questions: If there are so few people that have 978, then why did Garmin make the 345 dual band ADS-B In? And why did the Government modify their ADS-B system to accept dual band Out simultaneously? I personally like having the most flexibility when it comes to receiving traffic. Most people wouldn't have spent the money to get Active Traffic. I did by installing the GTS 800 as part of my upgrade. It works from the ground up and also in areas not served by ADS-B.

When I did my upgrade, the GTX 345 wasn't out. I got the GDL 88 and GTX 33ES. I chose to have the transponder in the panel because it provided some more functionality and I still had a transponder if the GTN failed. The transponder can still be controlled by the GTN 750 in addition to the transponder itself. While I lost a couple of data fields on the 750, they were more than made up for on the GTN 650. However, I did not like the green color of the 330ES at night, so when the 335 came out I sold the 330ES and bought the 335. It had some additional features that I liked in addition to the white characters. If you were to get rid of the GDL 88 you will lose functionality. Right now you have BOTH 1090 and 978 OUT. With the 345 you only have 1090 OUT. Also, some people have had issues with the AHRS in the 345. I have the FS 210 and it is rock solid. Bottom line, even if you gained a couple of pounds of useful load, I would NOT replace the 330ES with the 345. If you don't like the green color of the characters on the 330ES, then I would upgrade to the 335. After sale of my 330 ES I think the net upgrade cost was $500.

I'm looking at an A21 and an A6 that I've had for a number of years. They were not very intuitive, didn't show battery remaining, and I found them to be unreliable when it came to using them because of unknown battery remaining. They're going into the trash tomorrow. By the time you found someone to repair the A22, the cost would be more than a newer model that works and shows battery remaining. Last year I bought a PJ2 from Sporty's for about $200. It's easy to use, has a battery indicator, and uses AA batteries, so I don't have to worry about the battery discharging over time. It is Comm only. I never found the NAV/COMM handhelds were very good at navigation. I have a handheld GPS, the Aera 760, on the yoke for so many reasons, including importantly as a GPS backup to failure of the panel mounted units. So, I'd recommend getting a newer handheld such as the PJ2 and forgetting about the old A22. In the end, I think you would be better off both economically and practically.

It looks like I need a mneumonic for a mneumonic.

1. Mneumonic, "Relating to or assisting the memory". A pneumonic is not meant to be a checklist. "I for Instruments Set and operational" is meant as a memory helper. Your instrument instructor should aid you in what to do for each pneumonic. 2. Each airplane is a little different. The Mooney PPP discusses "Key Numbers" related to engine power. For the Bravo the Key Number for 75% power is 53. That means any combination of the sum of MP and the first two digits of RPM that equal 53 should give "approximately" 75% power. For experienced Bravo owners that is 29" MP and 2400 RPM. 3 of any combination of the above is approximately 10% power. So 26" and 2400 RPM should give 65% power. So the way to set power, for example 75% power, is to set the MP at 29" and the RPM at 2400 and begin leaning the engine. You could lean to 17.5 gal/hr and see what the TIT is. With my engine after an hour flying time, it will be between 1595 and 1605. The first hour, for reasons George Braly of GAMI, couldn't explain, it is higher. I don't want to run my engine with a TIT over about 1605, so I just let the full flow be higher during that first hour. So FF can vary somewhat from that stated in the PDF. I set my cruise power by setting the MP and RPM then adjusting the TIT to 1595 and confirming the FF close to what I expect. If for some reason it is far off from what I expect (it never has been), then I know the engine has an issue. Regarding the "theoretical", as the engine ages performance will change. If you want to have a more detailed discussion of the above, give me a call at 408-499-9910 and I'd be happy to go into more detail.

I disagree with pretty much all of your settings. I recommend using the document attached that I use when teaching the Bravo. I've owned my Bravo for 30 years and find these numbers to be the ones that work best. I'm on my 3rd engine. I recommend going to my website: www.donkaye.com for more information on flying your Mooney. Regarding the use of speed brakes for the NP approach in the document, they are not to be used in any icing temperatures, since they will freeze in the extended position. A few other pieces of advice: Max engine oil at oil change, 9 quarts if you don't want it blown out. Unless on approach near landing, MP never less than 15", since you want the engine running the prop and not vice versa. The only time I run the prop at less than 2400 RPM is on a rapid descent when I don't want the MP to be below 15". Remember. 3" of MP, or 300 RPM is approximately 10% of power. Also 1" MP or 100 RPM is about 3⅓ % Power. So any combination of MP and RPM that gives 10 power works. So, I will set the MP at 15" and RPM at 2000 on a slam dunk, since reducing RPM will decrease the power in that situation by about 13⅓ % without having the prop run the engine. SPEEDS & CHECK LISTS M20M.pdf