donkaye, MCFI

It's said that IAS would be preferable in climb to prevent possible stall and V/S should be used in descent. Mine works pretty well, but I think it is touchy and requires attention. In fact it requires so much attention that you might as well use V/S because with that much attention you are unlikely to get in an attitude where the airplane will stall. V/S just seems more stable. However, if IAS is used, then I think it should be used carefully. By that I mean, as mentioned either on Beechtalk or here earlier, establish the IAS desired, then and only then, engage IAS. If an oscillation should start, I would "lock" the pitch trim servo with the trim wheel, so pitch oscillation wouldn't occur. When the excessive pitch tries to engage the servo, the force of hold on the wheel momentarily disengages the trim servo and effectively damps the oscillation. Not a good solution, but it works. You're basically simulating changing the gain on the servo manually. I haven't heard of that to be illegal, yet.

If Garmin is monitoring this thread, and they have been known to do so, they are in big trouble. Before i knew that it was illegal to change the settings on the G5 for a certified installation, I changed mine and was raked over the coals by Trek. I quickly changed mine back. These systems are significantly tested through all sort of tests, and, although it might seem to correct the problem under a certain set of circumstances, that doesn't mean it couldn't be unsafe under another untested set. Bottom line, if you value your license, your insurance, and maybe your life, I wouldn't make ANY changes to your system that is not approved under the STC.

While it shouldn't hunt, it definitely should change altitude if the altimeter setting has changed. That is one of the benefits of the GFC 500 over the KFC 150. It modifies the altitude automatically to account for altimeter setting changes.

I recommend my Landing Video where I do a number of demonstrations of bounced landings and recoveries. https://donkaye.com/landing-video I also have a lot of other good articles on the site.

You didn't ask, but from an instructor's point of view and with almost 30 years of Bravo ownership... The Bravo has a short field no wind speed range depending on weight of between 75 knots and 65 knots. The 65 knots applies with 1 person on board and 1 hour of fuel. With 2 people and no headwind component the approach speed should have been no faster than 75 knots. Without very gusty conditions 80 knots is waaaaay too fast. The flare should start gently at about 5 feet with the nose being raised slowly at a rate such that an 8° nose up position is achieved with at least 2 centerline stripes visible over the nose just as the plane touches down with the stall warning horn going off. Remember, every knot over the nominal speed for weight will carry you an additional 100 feet. If you start the flare correctly, but at 80 knots, you will float an eye opening 1000 extra feet down the runway if you hold the plane off for a "normal" landing. It's pretty hard to bounce at a slow speed. There just isn't enough energy. So, my guess is that you touched down too fast and with too great a rate of descent before the plane was ready to land. With enough runway in that condition and not ballooning too high, it is still possible to complete a good landing using the extra energy to hold the landing attitude and not releasing back pressure. If that is uncomfortable due to the runway length remaing, then certainly, a go around is a safe choice. Great aids in preventing this type of situation are both an AOA and the LHS System. Hope to see many of you at the PPP in Santa Maria next weekend.

I did just that last October. After having an issue with 4 broken inner gear door rods on my airplane over a two year period of time and never knowing where, when, or if it would break again, maybe in the middle of nowhere, I headed down to Kerrville to see if they might be able to find the problem. They found the problem pretty quickly, and I can't fault my excellent local MSC for not being able to locate it. It turns out it was a 30 year old issue associated with the brake upgrade kit I had purchased several years earlier, and had the person working on my plane in Kerrville not remembered the problem from 30 years ago, I'm not sure I ever would have been able to get it fixed. They even still had the repair part on hand. With the fix, to date knock on wood, I have not had another broken rod.

One other thing; in the almost 3 years that I have had my GFC 500, there has never been a time when it failed during an ILS approach. Even if it had, the approach could have been completed by flying the approach by hand.

For even more clarity from my posting above, if you have an IFR GPS, then it can be used as the primary Navigation source from the FAF to the Missed Approach Point, if the underlying navaid is operational and monitored, even if a Bearing pointer is the monitored source.

Per AIM Section 1-2-3 you can fly the final approach segment of a VOR approach with GPS under the following conditions summarized by John Collins, one of the most knowledgeable avionics persons in the Country. "To fly a VOR approach that does not include (or GPS) in the title using a GPS for navigation, the VOR must be in service, the approach must not be NOTAM out of service, the VOR must be tuned on a working and installed VOR receiver in the aircraft, the course set and the VOR CDI indications must be monitored for course guidance". This would include a Bearing Pointer as well for the monitored indicator. Vor approach with Gps.pdf

Tackle the install? Any competent Avionics' person or for that matter A&P can do the installation. Cut a hole in an inspection plate and mount the unit, run the wires to your audio panel, install a switch to turn the audio on/off, and include a circuit breaker if you wish. That's it. Here are some pictures from my installation. https://donkaye.com/landing-height-system

The fact that they have indicates the relevance of the thread. There's more to it than meets the eye. I haven't done another Gleim Module for the FIRC since I got so irritated with the word. Unless I can change my attitude (unlikely), I'll renew my CFI through the Wings Program, having already more than met the requirements.

My avionics would not update with database concierge this time. I'm going to download to the cards and go back out to the plane and update with the cards. Database Concierge just isn't worth the trouble. It's too flaky.

Obviously, it's more than just the word but that's about as far into the political realm that I want to go.

Obviously, my anger at such a trivial word change runs deeper than the word itself.

I asked Gleim to unlock their FIRC to me so I could go in and uniformly change all "learner" references back to "students". They refused. Every time I see the word "learner" it makes me angry. It takes away from the "learning" process.

Good opposing argument. I just disagree. A little change here, a little change there. It isn't going to matter. Oh, it's not? We're headed down a rabbit hole, and you're willingly jumping in.

Thanks for the link. It's just starting to show up in all publications. For thousands of years we got along just fine with the word "student". Just think of all the other things that could have been done in the time that these idiots spent discussing changing a word.

From the NAFI Live weekly Newsletter today: "The Class C airport where I instructed offered only full service fueling. One day I joined a learner on the ramp after he had pre-flighted the aircraft. It was only a few days prior to his private pilot exam. Noting the fuel truck nearby, I asked if the tanks had been topped off. He responded yes. I asked if he had checked the fuel caps. He responded yes. After working in the pattern, we landed to discover that one of the fuel caps was missing, along with several gallons of avgas. It was a toss-up regarding who felt worse—the learner who neglected to verify fuel cap security, or the lineman who had serviced the aircraft. Although learner pilots were taught to always check fuel cap security after service and this check had been demonstrated by instructors, the pilot still felt a sense of embarrassment checking for security in view of the line staff, thinking that it implied a lack of trust." From the Gleim FIRC changed this year: "For example, on a day with widely scattered thunderstorms, use a series of radar images or METAR observations to show learners that a local airport can rapidly alternate several times between clear skies and heavy rain over the course of a few hours. a) Explain to learners that if they fail to consider the possibility of rapidly changing weather and closely monitor the weather during each circuit around the traffic pattern, they could be caught beneath or inside a thunderstorm." I'm sure many would say that I'm making a mountain out of a molehill, but I am thoroughly disgusted with meaningless political correctness that is now infiltrating into flying and flight instruction in particular. It just seems too phony to me. Apparently the FAA has "cancelled" the word "student" in favor of "learner". I had planned on donating large amounts of money to both EAA and AOPA when my time on earth has ended. If I see the word "learner" turn up in any documentation coming from either of those organizations relating to "students", they will get nothing. I'm thinking of terminating my studies of the Gleim FIRC in favor of renewing my CFI through the Wings Program and never buying a Gleim Course again. I've been a member of NAFI since 1992 and have participated in their Master CFI Program for 20 years. I'm probably going to terminate my membership when it comes up for renewal. Everyone seems to be turning into sheep...

Today was a fairly windy and gusty day in Tracy, California. Not unusual after passage of a cold front yesterday. I had two brothers who bought a C model last week and were looking forward to their first day of transition training. Based out of San Jose, I flew my plane over there. It was a little bumpy, but not bad in my plane. I saw their plane in person for the first time. It had not been well taken care of. I checked for an Annual and it was confirmed. It wasn't done by a Mooney Service Center. While doing the preflight the sump valve couldn't be completely stopped from leaking on the left tank. There were no brakes on the right side. Given the conditions I told them it was not a good day to start the training. Instead, I took each of them up in my plane for a couple of times around the pattern and demonstrated handling such conditions. Even with my experience I didn't feel comfortable taking an unfamiliar airplane with people who had never flown a Mooney before up today. I think I was reasonably uncomfortable flying any airplane for my first 1,000 hours. I was uncomfortable flying my airplane for the first 100 hours. But I really wanted to get over that. My skillset really improved with the CFI and CFII ratings, and was honed when I got my ATP in my airplane. I kept learning about the weather by ferrying airplanes between Mooney Sales people. Each flight and enroute weather was different. I flew to most Homecomings in Kerrville and to Oshkosh 22 times so far. And then there has been all the learning that has taken place in my to date 6,603 hours of teaching over the past 28 years. Clarity, I think, comes from experience. You begin to know more about what you didn't know you didn't know. I've been flying 55 years and it never gets boring. In addition to the CFI, CFII, MEI, ATP, Basic and Advanced ground instructor, and CE525S Type rating, I got the Wright Brothers Master Pilot award a few years ago. To further increase my knowledge, I've done the requirements for the Master CFI for the past 20 years (going on 22 this year). Participating in these challenges has brought me better understanding and improved comfort level. The new technology has accelerated that process because it's so much easier to decide when it is safe to go and when it's best to stay on the ground in addition to being just plain fun to use. From my perspective, even if near middle age, you are just at the beginning of your flying adventures. You have more perspective to properly guide your decisions. With that added perspective you are in a position to make better decisions that lead to a higher level of comfort in your flying. Carry on my friend.

I've owned my Bravo for nearly 30 years, so have a good understanding of maintenance costs. I'm now on my 3rd engine. The 1st one made it to 2295 hours, but it had the Bravo upgrade at 1300 hours. The second one made it to 1600 hours and would have gone all the way to TBO had it not been for an unfortunate screwup by the maintenance facility during an annual. I chose to replace the engine and get credit for the remove and replace rather than do the required teardown. Until there is a change in petroleum philosophy, (not likely with the present unleadership) there will be a significant increase in costs of ownership due to fuel costs. Actual engine exchange for a zero time reman at present is about $80,000 all in. The turbo and waste gate from experience should be overhauled proactively around 1300 hours and cost about $2500 several years ago. Once again I expect inflation to be going strong for at least the next 3 years so everything is going to go up dramatically. My recommendation is the best time to buy anything you think you want is now, specifically for this thread the most airplane you can afford. Thinking you should buy a J now and upgrade to a Bravo later, in my opinion doesn't make sense. Except for the known turbo and waste gate overhaul at 1300 hours, at least as relates to my experience, both turbo and NA Mooneys should have close to the same maintenance costs. Assuming 17.5 gal/hr and 120 hours/yr flying, the fuel cost used to be 4 x 17.5 x 120 = 8,400/yr. Currently that has increased to 6.5 x 17.5 x 120 = 13,650 or a 5,250 increase. So, annual fuel costs are up 62.5% so far. While that's a lot, in the overall cost of Mooney ownership it's just a little significant. My philosophy has always been that the cost of the toys (things you want but don't have to have) should be no more than 10% of your financial net worth. If that philosophy is followed, then the increase in cost of ownership as the result of what we're seeing now, while disappointing, should not have a large impact on their use. The benefits of the turbo are so large in terms of greater capability that I personally wouldn't buy an airplane without it.

Yes, for experimental the audio callouts are permitted with the MVP 50. Didn't and doesn't make sense to me.

Audio alerts are not permitted for certified aircraft with the MVP-50. I had numerous discussions with EI about that and they said the FAA would not permit it. That has never been an issue for me. For example, if the gear is not in the down position when the throttle is pulled back, you get a blinking red light in the top center of the main display page that gets your attention in addition to the Mooney "Beep, Beep, Beep,...." Of course, with the addition of the LHS you get a "Check gear down" audio alert passing through 200' agl.

Don, I assume you set the volume to maximum in the setup? If so, have you spoken to Nidal about increasing the volume with the software. If all of those things were done, then it is a wiring issue to your audio panel. I have no problem with volume in my plane.

A little over 3 hours to remove and cut the inspection plate to attach the device and run the wires to the front panel. The balance of the time to run the wires to the audio panel and wire the circuit breaker and on/off switch. I have a deluxe installation. If you don't want the circuit breaker, the install time would be less. You should have the on/off switch because you will want the unit off when flying in moisture because the lidar will reflect the rain and give a false reading.

I've had mine since it first came out. I'd recommend it to everyone. I used the old trim circuit breaker from the KFC 150 for the breaker and an on/off switch. Install time about 7 hours.