WardHolbrook

I hate to be a party pooper, but I do not believe that the airplane can be flown legally at this point without a ferry permit and I doubt if any mechanic would put his signature on the form stating that the aircraft would be safe to complete the proposed flight - regardless of the length. Having a current annual does not guarantee airworthiness any more than having a current flight physical guarantees that you are physically for flight. I think that attempting a flight in that aircraft would be deemed to be exercising very poor judgement at this point.

The higher up the "aircraft ladder" you go, the more important the aircraft's maintenance pedigree becomes. By the time you get to business jets, it's not just that the various inspections were performed, but also who performed them. There really is value in having one of the well-known shops or factory service centers take a hard look at your airplane from time to time. It's a lot like avoiding a visit to the doctor because you're afraid of what he might tell you. I hope he can find a way to salvage the situation. My advice would be to relax, take a few deep breaths, then put a pencil to it and simply do the math. Hopefully, he'll be able to salvage/recoup his investment. I expect that he should be able to at least come pretty close if he plays his cards right. There's still a lot of value there.

Very nice!

That makes perfect sense too. I guess that there's no such thing as one size fits all. I've done it both ways. If you're flying made of wood or fabric then I don't think you have any viable options. You do with everything else. All in all, I'd rather keep any airplane in a hangar but most of us do have to take a hard look at the math involved.

I tried calculating my dog's age in metric big bang time and I heard something snap in my head. I'm going to go lay down now.

Here's a pirep for the other CFIs here... I just finished up my umpteenth American Flyer on-line FIRC. They've made a lot of changes over the years and this go around was about as easy as it could be. Long gone is the requirement to spend 16 hours trudging through the course materials. You can go as fast or slow as you want. I found the information and videos quite good actually - much improved from the past. All in all, this course has to be about the biggest bargain out there and I see that they've dropped the price to $75 for lifetime renewals. Oh well, I'm good for another 2 years.

If you have a bunch of rust to knock off when it comes to your instrument flying skills, a sim is a great way to do it. But there are other skills just as necessary. My suggestion to my students is to grab a CFI once or twice a year and go fly for an hour or so instead of just going out and boring holes in the sky. If it has been more than a year since you last flew with a CFII, grab one and find out where your instrument skills need tweaking. An hour or two every year with a CFI isn't going to break anybody's budget. As far as that stuff on my list goes, that is in addition to the occasional flights with a CFI. It's pretty tough to be truly proficient if you're only flying 50 to 100 hours per year and only get a basic flight review every couple of years.

The best training you can have for that inevitable engine failure in a single isn't in a "generic" SE sim. It would be in a glider. You quickly develop a sense about what you can and cannot do and that carries over to any fixed-wing flying. The "fancy" sims excel at teaching specific procedures and techniques - for example engine failures in multiengine aircraft, V1 cuts in jets, and all manner of systems failures. Over the years I've gone to over 50 simulator-based initial and recurrent training courses representing 9 different makes and models of turboprop and turbojet aircraft, that's over 600 hours in Level D sims. For training in that type of aircraft there is no better way, but I honestly don't see the value of using one of the cheap "generic single-engine" simulators for anything other than instrument work. Others may disagree with me on this, but if it were me I'd spend the money on some of those other courses I've listed, I think they represent a better training value.

Granted, but what highly detailed Mooney emergency and/or abnormal procedures are you going to practice over and over again until you get it right? I took your earlier post to mean that you'd be using a "generic" single-engine piston aircraft simulator. Honestly, I see those types of sims as most useful as basic and advanced instrument procedures trainers. The real value, IMHO, of simulation comes when you've moved up the ladder a bit in complexity - light twins and up. In multi-engine aircraft the value of sim training comes into its own. The best training you will ever get will be in a good simulator. No one's ever died (other than from embarrassment) when a sim crashed. You can practice, over and over, the procedures and drills necessary to safely operate out at the extreme edges of the operating and performance envelope. Day-to-day flying in a twin is pretty benign stuff. An owner/pilot probably isn't going to do what it would really take to keep current and fully proficient in their twin. Few owners would be willing to treat their engines that way - that's what multi-engine trainers are for. If you want to see how to stay sharp and proficient when it comes to multi-engine flying all you have to do is look to the example set by the airline, corporate, and fractional guys - essentially all of their training is done in the sim. You gain and maintain proficiency handling engine failures and other emergencies and abnormals by doing. In the real world of day-to-day flying there is seldom an opportunity to practice this stuff. I guess what I'm trying to say is, if you feel rusty in your instrument skills and abilities, a generic simulator would be very useful. If you're looking to enhance your skill in dealing with a specific types of emergency and abnormal procedures then those generic devices aren't as useful. If it were me, I'd take the money I was planning to spend on a 3-day sim course and put it towards other things on that list that I posted. That is assuming that your instrument skills are up to snuff.

I'm having a problem seeing what a "generic" SEL sim will do for you. A generic sim works well for generic training, but doesn't do as much when it comes to type specific stuff. Have you considered investing in some serious "graduate level" aviation training along the lines of: 1. Engine Management at www.advancedpilot.com 2. Weather Training at www.avwxworkshops.com 3. Aviation Physiology (Altitude Chamber) Training at www.faa.gov/pilots/training/airman_education/aerospace_physiology/ 4. Extreme Unusual Attitude Recovery/Basic Aerobatic/Tailwheel Training at www.iacusn.org/schools 5. Glider Training at www.ssa.org/WhereToFly There's a lot of productive and worthwhile training to be had without stepping foot in a simulator or even an airplane. Some of this training can be in lieu of or in conjunction with a BFR. Any or all of it will make you a better and more knowledgeable pilot. Flying the sim will help you raise your proficiency level when it comes to flying approaches, but if your instrument skills are already up to snuff it's not going to do a lot more for you. (Now if you're flying a type specific sim, that's a different story.) It's just as important to raise the bar when it comes to understanding the principles of engine operation and management, weather interpretation, aviation physiology, and enhanced stick and rudder skills, etc. (Down the road, if flying something equipped with weather radar is in your future there are courses on Airborne Weather Radar to look at.) My point is, there's an awful lot to learn and not all of it is learned in an airplane. Take your time, take it one step at a time but have a plan and stick to it.

That's one of those variables that you just have no control over so I choose to ignore it.

It’s taken me 48 years and nearly 15,000 hours, but I have finally discovered the secret to making perfect landings every time. In the beginning, I figured that it had to do with maintaining a stabilized approach and proper airspeed control, but obviously that wasn't it. I then worked up a theory that involved planetary alignment and moon phases. I was getting closer. I finally put it all together when I figured out how to hold my mouth - you have hold it just right and the planets have to be in proper alignment and the moon has to be in the proper phase, in addition to flying a nice smooth stabilized approach and exercising proper airspeed control. If you get a good landing other than when you're doing all of that you're just lucky.

I were King of the world I would make it a requirement for all beginning pilots to get a few hours of taildragger time – it teaches you what your feet are for. (Something a lot of pilots never really learn.) Thirty years ago the Chief Pilot at Western Airlines told me that he could tell by the way a pilot flew the Boeing 727 whether on not he had taildragger time. His inference was that pilots with taildragger experience did a noticeably better job in the Boeing. In the thousands of hours I've logged since then I've flown with countless other pilots and I've found no reason to disagree with the chief pilot's statement. If I were King I would also require all pilots to have some glider experience prior to solo as well. The "feel" that you develop as you learn to fly the glider will help you in all of the fixed-wing flying that you do from then on. The confidence that you develop in the ability to handle the inevitable engine failure will be in valuable. (Engine? I don’t need no stinking engine!) Finally, I would also require spin training prior to solo and extreme upset recovery/basic aerobatic training prior to any checkride. Flying a taildragger teaches you what your feet are for; flying a glider reenforces that and teaches you what the other flight controls do and what mother nature thinks about about flying machines; spin training will help keep you from killing yourself; ditto for the aerobatic training. (Just let ATC vector you in a little too close behind that airliner on approach and knowing to push rather than instinctively pulling could save your bacon.) When it comes to this type of training, I am a fan of anything that forces you to learn skills that will make you a more proficient airman – besides, they're a heck of a lot of fun. Just make sure that you get quality instruction. Here are some links… http://www.iacusn.org/schools/ http://www.ssa.org/WhereToFly None of this stuff is all that expensive, the aerobatic/tailwheel training can usually can be counted as a BFR and an add-on glider rating is one of the easiest ratings a power pilot can get. It's all a lot of fun and the skills you develop will transfer to any fixed-wing flying you do in the future.

http://www.donmaxwell.com/publications/MAPA_TEXT/M20-202%20-%20Eight-Second%20Ride/EIGHT_SECOND_RIDE.HTM

There is a difference between being legal and being proficient - one doe not equate to the other. For most guys, a little bit of ground school and an hour in the airplane might be enough to make them legal, but that together with a flight review every couple of years isn't going to hack it when it comes to proficiency. If it's been more than 1 year since you last flew with a CFII grab one and go knock some rust off - both in the pattern and under the hood. If you haven't taken an extreme unusual attitude/basic aerobatics course, find a school nearby and go do it. Even stuff like glider training will provide you with skill that will transfer directly over to your powered flying. This stuff is not all that expensive expensive and a little goes a very long way towards improving your basic stick and rudder skills. If you've never been to an altitude chamber go. The courses are free (at least I think they still are) but the education you will get will serve you well up at altitude. You don't have to do this stuff all at once, but do something every 6 months or so.

Getting checked out in an Acclaim (or any other aircraft for that matter) is simple enough. But a simple checkout may or may not be enough for a lot of guys new to aircraft of that performance level. Simple systems training and a few times around the pattern may be adequate for guys stepping down to something of the Acclaim's performance level, but for guys stepping up it's probably going to take a bit more. You can now readily fly up in the flight levels - are your instrument and weather skills up to snuff with the other pilots that frequent that part of the atmosphere? Have you ever been to an altitude chamber? There's a lot physiological stuff you really ought to know about and experience if you're going to play around up there. And the list goes on... There's probably nothing more dangerous than a "low performance" pilot flying a high performance airplane and a Mooney Acclaim is as about as high performance as you can get in a single-engine piston powered airplane. A FIKI equipped Acclaim is about as capable as any light airplane out there and it is arguably more challenging to fly than a turboprop single. Being safe in one requires that you bring more to the table up front and that you get proper recurrent training as well.

Years ago I was was training in a 727 sim and I asked the sim instructor how good the sim was. His answer - "The sim is good, but the airplane is more realistic."

My will reads... I, Ward Holbrook, being of sound mind, spent it all while I was alive.

In the jets I typically set the radar altimeter to 500 feet (unless I'm using it for something serious) and use it to generate a "500 ft" annunciation for me. I use that to confirm that the gear and the flaps are out and the speedbrakes are stowed. The hand stays on the gear selector until you can make the call - "Gear-Down, 3 Green, No Red". It's all about procedures, checklists and flows.

At least.

You need to consider the costs on a per mile basis as well. It won't really help much, but it will make things a bit easier to swallow.

I believe your best (only) defense against landing gear up is to establish and follow a proper routine... 1. Use a checklist. 2. Back up the checklist with a flow. 3. Hands on the landing gear selector until you confirm the gear is in the desired position - up or down. 4. Perform a short final check. 5. Realize that many (most?) gear up incidents occur immediately after an unusual or unexpected event such as a go around or missed approach. That's the time to become VERY deliberate in your actions and to make your you keep to the checklists. A go around or missed approach means that you start over on the "After Takeoff" checklist and work your way forward to the "Before Landing" checklist.

I've seen A&Ps and AIs get certificate action taken against them for signing off as airworthy repairs and/or components that were later deemed to not be. I've seen pilots violated for flying "unairworthy" aircraft even though the appropriate sign offs were in the aircraft logs. The pilots fought it and won, but the mechanics weren't as fortunate. And while all of this nonsense was taking place, the airplanes involved were grounded until the paperwork was made good. I guess if you're uncomfortable with that scenario, then you probably ought to be flying a homebuilt airplane that you designed and built yourself.

Your mechanic is correct. It's really not a prepurchase "inspection", it's a prepurchase "evaluation of condition". Bottom line is that we are talking "Legal Airworthiness" as determined by the FAA. If the FSDO having jurisdiction determines that the airplane is unairworthy - for any reason - the owner is simply going to have to jump through the hoops to get it rectified. You can bitch and moan all you want, but the fact remains that,in all likelihood, the only way that airplane will fly again between now and such time is deemed airworthy, will be on a ferry permit. Like it or not, that's just the way it is. Is it right or fair? Who is to say, but I've had enough dealings with the FAA over the past 50 years to know that's the way it is. Ain't bureaucracies great?

The guy I mentioned goes around doing just that. I honestly don't understand the how that box works - it uses electromagnetic energy and aluminum is non-magnetic. Like I said, it's a magic box. As for the aerodynamics involved in dents. There are some places where it probably wouldn't matter much - say for example on the fuselage or upper or lower wing surfaces. However, when a dent affects the leading edge, especially out near the tips, on a laminar-flow wing such as on a Mooney, then it's a whole different animal and is of much more concern. It really gets their attention when it occurs on the leading edge of a swept wing jet. Like I said, our dent on the Falcon was only about 1 inch long and barely perceptible from certain angles, yet it would have necessitated replacing the entire leading edge slat on the wing if the dent was not repaired.