donkaye, MCFI

Let's put it this way, I have 10½ thousand hours in smaller GA airplane (mostly Mooneys) of which 5,800 is teaching in them, consider myself an expert in landings (even made a landing video to teach them), and I'm not going to practice simulate emergency landings into Palo Alto--way too risky. For example, there is a 5 foot berm leading to the threshold, which is slightly displaced. Misjudge and hit the berm and it's all over. Interestingly Tom Hornak was at Squadron 2 at Reid Hillview for many years. He was instrumental in setting up the airplane keying system there. He was one of the first to get the Master Flight Instructor Designation many years ago--since let it lapse. When I was working on my first one seven designations ago he willingly spent some time with me going over what was required for his portfolio. It made it easier to see what was required. Mine ended up like a dissertation with over 250 pages. Over time both CFIs and DPEs seem to get burned out. When that happens they need to take a break.

Maximum manifold pressure is a function of the temperature, and the density controller controls it. 36"-37" is way too high and is generating more than 100% power. Not good for engine longevity, although your engine is pretty much run out anyway at 1918 hours. I wouldn't trust it in IMC with that time on it. The red line at 38" doesn't mean it should be set to that. From my 24 years experience and 2 engines 35" is where it should be nominally set.

I haven't read this whole thread so I don't know what plane you are taking the test in, but I would terminate any connection with that DPE and report him to the FAA as being dangerous. There is no way I would do a no flap landing in a Mooney at Palo Alto, let alone a no power emergency landing. The risks are too great. The place to do those safely is San Jose, just a short distance away. As far as the airplane is concerned, I also wouldn't use an airplane that has any problems associated with it. Clubs that don't maintain their airplanes also should not be used, and this one seems like one of those. Who was the DPE and what is the name of the Club so I can call the FSDO and report him and not recommend anyone join that club. I don't teach Private so I don't care if the DPE knows who I am or not. The guy is a danger to the public.

Yes, and I bet your landing attitude was level as you touched down. If you're not at about 8° nose up you're not at the landing attitude and you still have too much speed. When you get good, you should be at the landing attitude with just enough energy to be able to "feel" for the ground and "roll" the wheels on rather than "chirp" them on.

I'm not sure why most flight instructors (how about ANY flight instructors) don't stress slope when teaching landings. Descent rate is most important to preventing bounced landings. Assuming no major obstacles, burning the 3° slope into a pilot's mind would prevent most bounced landings. At 3° and 75 knots the descent rate will be (rule of thumb: 5 X GS) 5 X 75 = 375 ft/min. This converts to a little over 6 ft/sec. With some experience and a lot of landing practice using that slope, it becomes easy to see when your descent rate becomes excessive and make the appropriate adjustments. To prevent the "slam down" in gusty conditions, it is necessary to carry extra speed into the flare. so runway length become an important consideration in that situation. I can't stress enough how practice makes perfect. Most pilots get their license and except for their flight review don't actually go out and practice a lot. I'm really lucky to be teaching because I get a lot of continuous practice.

I posted this to the other Mooney lists, but thought it was interesting enough to post here, too. Although I’ve been in aviation a long time, every once in awhile something comes up that makes me do a double take. Such was the case last night, as I was reading “Flying Magazine” for September. Since many have the misconception that the Mooney is somewhat difficult to land, a few years ago I talked with a friend of mine, Ted Saylor, who lives in the Phoenix area, and we agreed to meet halfway in Porterville to do a landing video. He would set up a camera on the ground and I would set up one behind the pilot’s seat. I would do a number of different types of landings and then we would put the video together in a unique way that would show both the cockpit view and the profile view of the landings at the same time. Since that time, I hope a lot of people have benefitted from it, and that it has helped our insurance rates remain relatively stable. So it was that last week, I got an email from Dave Thurston asking to purchase the video. I shipped it out like I had done so many times before. With the busy summer I got behind on reading a few months of “Flying Magazine”. A few days ago I decided get caught up. I got to July and read Martha Lunken’s "Unusual Attitudes" column. In it she discussed her incident with her Cub where she accidentally ran into a Cessna 150. The owner was a person by the name of David Thurston. At the time I thought, “What a coincidence that a person who just order my video would have the same name.” Last night I got up to the September issue of “Flying Magazine”. Martha wrote another article. In it she described a second incident more shocking than the first where the Cub got away from her on startup and started taxiing on its own and ran into, you guessed it, Dave Thurston’s Cessna 150 for the second time. She mentioned in the article that Dave got a Mooney out of that one. That did it. I emailed Dave and suggested that the probability of 2 Dave Thurstons being in the Cincinnati area and owning Mooneys was rather remote. This is what he wrote back: "Yep, Martha was writing about me. She did have a rough couple of months. When I received the phone call about the second incident, I said to my wife, “maybe I’ve won an airplane from AOPA and this is a ruse to get me to the airport because the odds of one plane taxiing into another plane twice in a little over two months….” But when I went through the gate and saw the caution tape, I knew it was not AOPA. It turned out that the Mooney that I purchased was tied down about 3 planes from mine and whenever I would fly the 150 I would think “that Mooney looks like it would fit my mission perfectly”. A few days later while searching Barnstormers (and widening my search from 20C to “Mooney Ohio” I found 6061Q - recognized the hangar behind it, then had an aha moment!” What a way to get a Mooney!

The ESI 500 supports 1 VOR/ILS input and 1 GPS input. You can switch between the two on the unit. I put a switch in my plane so I can get 2 VOR/ILSs and 2 GPSs, of course one at a time.

JIm Keeth is traveling, but I got this back from one of their senior field service engineers: "Mr. Kaye - Jim Keeth is travelling out of the country and asked me to respond to your question. I do not see any reason why you could not use it for the application you are describing. The ESI-500 meets TSO C34e (VHF Glideslope), TSO C36e (VHF Localizer), and TSO C40c (VHF VOR), amoung others. In our GH3XXX ESIS products we meet these same TSOs and I know in the Boeing BBJ with the GH-3000 ESIS, that ESIS NAV function is used for the NAV display when they add the 3rd NAV system option. Regards, Russ Myers Sr. Field Service Engineer L-3 Aviation Products russ.myers@L-3com.com"

I'm not sure of the answer, but I have emailed Jim Keeth from L-3 and expect an answer shortly.

"Its driving me nuts because I can see exactly what I want and its clear they can make it, but not for me yet. I like the L3 EHIS 3000 and 4000 but can't find the price. I think that means "If you have to ask you can't afford it." You're right about that. These are for jet aircraft. The best you are going to do right now is the L3 ESI 500 and that starts around $5,300. That's what I have and I love it. http://sarasotaavionics.com/avionics/esi500

Not really. Add power and the nose will rise, slowing the plane further. IMHO the thought process for safety should be to lower the nose while adding power. Look, Bob, no problem with what you are saying. Because of the simultaneity, it will work. But I want my students to recognize the forces at work here. So I want them unconsciously to think nose down first as they add power simultaneously. Look, the discussion is good. It is good to have your experience on board.

Definitely not. I assumed I had broken out earlier. Most times you will know even before you run the approach what the ceiling is.

If I'm coming into San Jose in IMC conditions and there is a string of airliners lined up and I want to get in in some reasonable time frame, I let the controller know that I can maintain 160 knots on final and they will usually fit me in with the comment to maintain best forward speed until 5 miles from the airport. I know from experience that I can slow from 160 knots to 75 knots within that distance. In this situation I will pitch for slope and power for airspeed, since slope is most important on the ILS and as long as I can maintain in excess of 160 knots speed is secondary. At 5 miles the speed brakes get popped, the speed slows to 140 knots and the gear gets dropped all the while trimming (pitch) to maintain the slope with the variable airspeed decreasing. At 110 knots all the flaps are deployed, slope is maintained with pitch until the speed slows to 75 knots. At 75 knots that constant speed transitions to being maintained with elevator and power transitions to control rate of descent until the flare at the 1,000 foot marker. This transition of thought process becomes automatic with experience and I don't give it a second thought so to speak. The above is what I mean when I say pitch controls whatever is most important in any phase of flight with power controlling the other. This was drilled into me by my mentor instructor and aeronautical engineer, Robert Goldin. I have taught this for the past 22 years and I haven't had a student disagree with the process by the time we were finished with their training. Of course by that time all of their landings were perfect. ;-)

If low AND slow, counter-intuitive as it might seem, the thought process and actions should be: Lower the nose to increase speed while simultaneously adding power to increase altitude.

Not to be flip about it, but airspeed is most important when you want it to be important. For me it's most important during the landing phase of flight when we are behind the power curve. It would be important for constant airspeed climbs and descents. It is also be important as relates to Vne. In turbulence it is important only to the extent of being less than Va. For our airplanes, airspeed limits in Class C and B airspace really don't apply, since we can't get to those speeds. Airspeed really isn't important in level flight, as ATC cares more about our altitude than airspeed.

This isn't good. On landing BOTH airspeed and slope are important factors. In simple landings (not following a 737 in) I like to keep things simple. On downwind the airplane should be configured with gear and approach flaps. At the 3° slope point with the aim point, power should be reduced to a setting that will allow a rate of descent that will keep you on slope, base turn should be begun, and full flaps applied. The nose will want to go down, but it should be held at the 3° slope position. The drag of the flaps will then slow the plane to the base approach speed while the plane remains on slope. Trim the airplane. When on final, reduce power slightly and smoothly pitch to the correct final approach speed based on landing weight. Power is then used to manage the rate of descent down to the flare point where power is fully withdrawn and the roundout begun. The rate of flare should be such that the main wheels roll onto the runway without so much as a chirp.

I guess that we will have to agree to disagree on that one.

Also, with all due respect: Questions: 1. Suppose your flight instructor asked you to precisely maintain a climb rate of 500 ft/min (not 1 foot off) and an airspeed secondarily of 90 knots. What would you use to control the rate precisely? 2. Suppose your flight instructor asked to to maintain an airspeed of exactly 59 knots (not 1 foot off) and exactly 5,000 feet altitude. What would control the airspeed primarily?

No, just sitting on the runway pumping the yoke isn't flying, so pitch controlled by the yoke in that situation obviously won't work.

My comments referred to "Any phase of FLIGHT". This hardly qualifies.

Too Bad!! Something happened to the previous thread of this title. Craig McGregor who administers this list doesn't know what happened to it. At any rate I had one more thing to add so I started this thread. Here was that I intended to post to that thread. -------------------------- For many years I had a specific point of view regarding the Pitch/Power debate. The problem is that Pitch and Power are related when controlling the airplane. My point of view now is that there should be no debate. At any point in the flight just determine which is the most important factor related to what you want to control, airspeed or rate of climb or descent and choose pitch as the primary control for that factor (since it is immediate) and power to control the secondary factor. So, for example, when flying the ILS, slope is most important at airspeeds not near the stall, so pitch would control slope and power would control the airspeed. When on final approach and slowing to near stall, transition to control airspeed with pitch and rate of descent with power. Could you point the nose at the aim point and control airspeed with power? Yes, but because of the long chain of mechanical linkages used to control power, the speed at which the airspeed could be controlled lags considerably from the former approach. In the end either pitch or power can control airspeed or rate of climb or descent. The more elegant solution to a given situation is to use pitch as the primary control for whatever is most important to you in a given situation and power for the other.

All the above has been interesting reading--but-- My Lycoming start procedures that have worked for me for the past 24 years: First start of the day: 1. Throttle cracked 2. Mixture rich 3. Boost pump on for 7-8 seconds 4. Wait for about 10 seconds for fuel to atomize 5. Crank. Engine starts on 2nd or 3rd blade. Medium delay or delay of less than an hour: 1. Throttle cracked 2. Mixture rich 3. Boost pump on for 3 seconds to flood the engine 4. Mixture lean 5. Crank 6. Gradually push in the mixture control 7. Engine starts at midpoint when the fuel/ air mixture becomes just right. These procedures make sense to me without a whole lot of thought. Flood the engine. Engine starts when fuel/air mixture it just right.

In the Bravo I believe they are in SERIES.

Currently there are 4 products out there that are similar, only 3 of which could be installed on a Mooney at present: 1. L3 ESI 500 $5,289 for basis unit 2. Garmin G5 $2,149 3. Sandia Quatro $3,595 4. Dynon D10A N/A Not approved for Mooney The only "real" backup for everything is the L3 unit so I consider it top of the line, and the price reflects it. The Garmin unit would come next on my list. It has V/S that the Sandia and Dynon do not have. The lower 3 units don't have heading, nav or SVT options, and can be used as Primary for AI only. In the final analysis, if you ever think you are going to upgrade to glass and not have legacy instruments remain, the only option at present is the L3 ESI 500. None of them have an AP interface. Somewhere I read that the L3 has 429 outputs that when integrated with a D/A converter could be used to run an AP. In looking at the instalI manual I see pitch and roll output labels so that may be a future option. I can see problems with that if, for example, you lost total electrical power. The ESI 500 would continue to operate on backup battery, but the AP would be inop. So I'm not sure an AP interface would be useful. So in the final analysis, the price point of the G5 is good, but the utility of the ESI 500 far surpasses it---but for a price.