WardHolbrook

I used to fly a couple of bizjets that had a "Fast Erect" button on the panel. I was always too afraid to push it to see what would happen.

If someone has already posted this link I apologize. It's worth the time to watch...

Here's something fun that was in AVweb's "Short Final" section this morning. It show the cooperative nature of Mooney pilots and also the pragmatic realities of today's world... I was recently flying my Mooney into an airport in Colorado. ... Listening on the CTAF, I heard a Citation X announce: "Citation N1234 about 15 miles west, landing." ... Trying to be accommodating, I replied: "Citation, Mooney is about five miles out, but I'll go to the VOR, then return and follow you. You're burning a lot more fuel than I am." ... Just after that, a voice came on the radio saying: "Mooney, don't do that. Make HIM go to the VOR. I'm selling fuel here at the FBO."

Over the past 50 years I have been collecting aircraft keys. Keys to aircraft that I owned, to club aircraft, to aircraft that that I instructed in, Bingo! I've been slowly collecting aircraft keys for almost 50 years. Keys to aircraft that I have owned, been a partner in or were in flying clubs that I belonged to. Keys to aircraft that I instructed in or to aircraft that I managed. My jar of aircraft isn't vary large - it's in a storage locker or I'd go check to make sure - I'm guessing maybe 25 to 30 keys. In the past 30 years I haven't found one GA aircraft that I didn't have a key to. Key collections like mine aren't unusual, I think every maintenance shop and A&P has one. That aircraft key you have on your key ring probably works in at least one other airplane on your ramp and likely several more. I used to fly for a large corporate flight department. We bought Medeco locks that were cut the same for the cabin, baggage and hell-hole door locks on all 6 airplanes. Much more secure. Personally, I'd do the same for any airplane I owned. I really don't like the idea of 5 or 6 guys at my airport running around with keys to my airplane in their pocket even if they don't realize it.

I was the guy in the Lear in that position once. I'm not excusing bad behavior, not by any means, but that Lear can only slow down so much and even with the power pulled back, the fuel flows in the traffic pattern are eye watering. Put yourself in this scenario... You're in the left seat of the company bizjet, nearing the end of a rather long XC flight and the weather is barely MVFR at the uncontrolled destination airport. There are one or two airplanes airplanes in the pattern shooting touch and goes. ATC clears you for the ILS. This is a not uncommon scenario and one I've also been in many times. Although it's not a big deal with many of the smaller single engine turboprops, it can be a problem in some of the larger King Airs, MU-2s and Cheyennes and just about all but the smallest of the jets. You don't want to get them much slower than 120 kts and with some popular jets it's even higher, up to 180 kts. At 2 to 3 miles a minute you don't have a lot of time to be dodging and weaving around other traffic once you breakout on the ILS in MVFR conditions. It takes cooperation and respect on both sides and plenty of communication. With two-pilot airplanes it's much easier to talk. In single-pilot aircraft things can and do get pretty busy. The good news is that in 40 years of flying turbine-powered aircraft I can count on one hand the number of times I've had an issue with bad behaving pilots - one was a crop duster who locals told me pissed everybody off on a regular basis and another guy was scud running in a Cessna Mustang and cut me off in the pattern. For the most part, it's been my personal observation that the guys in the pattern are more than willing to extend or do whatever needs to be done to accommodate the guys in the larger, faster aircraft and it is truly appreciated and usually reciprocated whenever possible.

I hate deferring maintenance, but I agree I hate deferring maintenance, but this seems like it's the smart thing to do - unless, of course, you end up deferring stuff that ought not to be deferred. To me it sounds like it makes sense to replace the vacuum pump now and continue keeping an eye on the other stuff. Put it in the shop during the latter part of December and take that extra month. Personally, I've always tried to work our annuals into the January or February time frame.

Here's are the steps to buy the perfect airplane for you and your family... Determine your mission. Do your due diligence. Test fly as many different models as you possible can. Establish your budget. Then after you've done all of the above, buy the one your wife likes best.

I understand what you're saying and I agree with you but (there's always a but) whenever I encounter a scenario that begins with stuff like "Need go/no go votes this AM" and " Would you go? Take a look for me? Why/Why not?" I have to assume the worst possible scenario. As I pointed out, I've had a couple of instances in the past where my concerns were justified. Under those scenarios I will ALWAYS default to "He11 no, you shouldn't go." It's not right to ask people to make PIC decisions for you and it's not a position that I'm going to allow myself to be placed in. And above all, if a pilot isn't up to competently making those types of decisions and competently flying his/her aircraft under those conditions they have absolutely no business making that flight and, if there happens to be passengers involved, it rises to a whole new level of negligence. I make no apologies for that position. As for as my personal position of single-engine (piston or turboprop) IFR flying it's quite simple... There are caveats associated with the operation of any aircraft. The big caveat when it comes to singles is when the engine quits on you, you will be landing shortly. Hopefully, as a result of good judgement or dumb luck, you will be VFR over survivable terrain because you'll be "up close and personal" with it in very short order. You can rationalize and play the odds all you want, but It's a fools errand to use statistical probabilities as justification as to how, where and when you fly any airplane - piston or turbine, single or multi. It's about this time when someone pipes up about the safety record of our modern engines, after all they almost never quit. And I agree, but over the years I've had just enough engine failures to be very skeptical about using statistics to justify any type of operation. The only smart answer a person can give to the question "What are my chances of an engine failure?" is "Sooner or Later". Since we can't pick the time or the place of the event, I believe it's wise to limit our exposure to those places and conditions where one has little or no control over the outcome. A successful outcome - no injuries, not necessarily no aircraft damage - under those situations requires luck. I made a decision, early on in my professional flying career, to limit my dependency upon luck. Hence, you won't find me flying singles - piston or turboprop - at night, LIFR, or anywhere - hostile terrain or open water - that I don't have someplace to put it down safely IF/WHEN the engine quits. You have to be able to see in order to land. It's pretty obvious what my position would be for the conditions given on that particular morning. I wouldn't go. Not with a significant portion of the route with ceilings between 500' and 1000'. If I was flying a twin it would be a no-brainer.

Please excuse me if I echo what other advice you may have been given on this thread. I haven't read all of the posts yet. Here's my take on it... If you are not totally confident in your ability to master the conditions pertaining to any given flight then you have no business taking that flight, don't put others in the position of have to make your PIC decisions for you. Period. In the past, I shared a hanger with a retired Army colonel who spent his career flying helicopters. About a year or so before he retired, he got a chance to fly a C-12 (Military King Air 200). The problem was that he had enough rank that he was able to pick and choose the flights he took and he didn't like flying in weather so he didn't. After he retired he found a job flying a King Air 200 for a company in town. It was a Part 91 gig and he had all the training and time that their insurance company required so he was able to jump right in. The problem was that the boss wanted to go when the boss wanted to go. I can't tell you how many times my friend would call me late at night or early in the morning and ask my opinion as to whether or not he should go. I would always tell him that I wouldn't go under those conditions. (And if I would have been him, I would not have gone.) I even flew with him a few times to help him with his skills, abilities and confidence. This went on for about 3 or 4 months. One day his boss was out at the airport after his pilot had canceled on him; we were getting ready to blast off in the Lear. I was flying with a contract pilot who wasn't aware of the situation with the KA pilot. The pilot's boss went over to my copilot and started talking to him about the weather. My guy told him that it was plenty good. As you can guess, the guy's boss was pretty miffed and it went down hill from there for my friend. He was let go and they hired another guy with more "real world" and more applicable experience. This kind of thing also goes for pilots of larger aircraft. Several years ago I had just shot an approach to minimums in a snow storm at a small college town in the mid-west. After we put the airplane to bed for the night we walked into the FBO and were approached by the crew of a charter DC-9 out of Florida. (Not that being out of Florida had anything to do with it.) They were waiting for the college team to show up so that they could depart. Both pilots pilots looked to be quite young. They came up to us and started asking us about all types of questions about the weather, the departure etc. This was more than the expected "PIREP" it was basic stuff that struck both of us as being quite strange that they would be asking basic stuff like that. I guess it goes to show that just because you can get though a check ride doesn't mean that you can be comfortable in the day-in, day-out operations of the license or ratings that you hold. If you've got any questions as to what you can or can't do it's time to address the "license to learn" aspect that I'm sure someone mentioned to you after you got the rating. Don't feel like I'm picking on you or singling you out, I'm not. Every single one of us has been exactly where you are at and have had those same questions. I'll tell you what I tell my students and the guys I've flown with - get yourself the latest editions of a couple of books: "Weather Flying" by Buck and "Instrument Flying" by Taylor. Buck has an entire chapter on how to get comfortable with a new or little used instrument rating. Read those books though - cover to cover - a couple of times. Take notes. It will help you. Finally, spend some time every 6 months with a CFII. Keep your skills up. Remember currency does not equate to proficiency.

Some of the bizjets I flew where quite heavy on the controls as well and they were hydraulically boosted so they could have been as light as a feather if that's what the designers and engineers would have wanted. The one thing in common these aircraft have was that they could cruise right up against the barber pole. Keeping the control forces heavy meant that it would be much harder for "ham handed" pilots like me to over control the airplane at speed.- especially in pitch but also in roll. Same thing with our Mooneys. They're traveling machines, not aerobatic mounts so having heavy controls adds a safety factor when you're cruising along at the upper end of the green band (or a bit higher) on your ASI. The Lear I flew was FUN to fly, but you had to be VERY careful with it. That puppy was pitch sensitive. You flew those things with 1/4 degree pitch inputs. At speed each degree of pitch input translates to a rate of climb or descent of 1000 fpm X your indicated Mach. In other words, If you're cruising along at .80 mach, each degree of pitch change will give you a 800 fpm climb or dive. If you're a ham-handed pilot it's not too conducive for passenger comfort (and long-term employment) if you get my drift. Newer generations of jet aircraft had much stiffer controls to make it easier on the airframe and passengers when guys like me were flying. But seriously, it doesn't take very long to get used to the control sensitivity of transport category aircraft (most bizjets are certified under Part 25 transport category rules). Some aircraft like the 3-engine Falcon 50s and 900s that I flew had systems that adapted the control forces based upon your indicated speed. That's all well and good in a mega-million dollar jet, but it's a little too rich for most Mooney owners. Bottom line is that the Mooney brothers were ahead of their time in more than one way. Be grateful that you have a traveling machine that's fast enough to merit stiff controls. Whether you know it or not, it's probably saved a few lives.

One of my good friends and aviation mentors is a retired chief pilot for a major airline. He told me a very long time ago that the most dangerous time to fly an airplane is right after you pick it up from the factory or right after it comes out of maintenance. He ought to know be cause he was on the new aircraft delivery acceptance team for his airline for many years. For what it's worth, my only inflight experience with jammed flight controls happened after a "reputable" avionics shop installed a new navcom in a Stinson 108-3 Station Wagon that I used to fly. It slipped a fraction of an inch in some light turbulence and blocked the control yoke mechanism up under the panel. I ended up with roll and limited nose down elevator, but no up elevator. Thank goodness the airplane responded well to trim inputs and I was proficient at wheel landings. Over the years, the vast majority of the in flight "issues" and precautionary engine shutdowns that I've experienced in the jets I flew for a living could be traced directly back to recent maintenance/inspection events at factory service centers. You should never allow yourself to let your guard down anytime your are around an airplane; but you should be especially vigilant for the first 10 hours or so after any major maintenance - some issues take time to develop

FYI, the jets I've flown had had the AOA probes on both sides of the fuselage. My uneducated opinion is that it would make little difference as long as the vane is properly calibrated after the installation, buy hey I could easily be wrong.

The phrase "Penny wise and pound foolish." comes to mind here.

Jose, it's not about the pollution, I think they couldn't care less about the pollution. It's about the $11 billion USD.

Think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. You are absolutely correct about the risks being different and of the danger of complacency. The point I was trying to make is that at some point the "mechanical" aspects of flying - be it VFR or IFR, day or night - become automatic. You no longer have to give it much thought. It's not a matter of being complacent, it a matter of exposure. How many hundreds or thousands of night landings does one have to make before you've got it down pat? How many hundreds of hours of flying in IMC does it take before your scan and control inputs and responses become totally automatic, requiring little if any thought? Not everyone will achieve that level of proficiency because not everyone will get the opportunity to have the level of exposure that it requires. It's pretty tough to be completely at ease in IMC when you've only got 500 hours and your total actual instrument time is 20 or 30 hours and you're only flying 100 or so hours per year. That's a fact and I've not mentioned one thing about risks. When it comes to managing risks you've got to keep yourself solidly within 3 sets of parameters - Personal Capabilities, Aircraft Capabilities and Legal & Regulatory Requirements. The accident reports are filled with "low performance" pilots got themselves in deep kimchi while flying high performance airplanes. Having all of the whistles and bells doesn't compensate for lack of experience or judgement. We also see a plethora of accidents involving all sorts of pilots - including highly experienced ones - who attempt to fly their airplane outside of its performance envelope. It's easy to find right/wrong pilot, right/wrong airplane scenarios in just about any accident report. Experience doesn't allow you to manipulate the controls better, it allows you to fly smarter - exercise better judgement - which all boils down to know when to tell yourself "No". As far as the legal and regulatory stuff goes, you need to remember that just because something is legal does not mean that it is safe. (And just because something might be safe does not mean that it is legal.) When it comes to judgement, there are caveats associated with flying airplanes, any airplane. When you're flying your Mooney or any other single-engine airplane the big thing to remember is that when (not if) the engine quits on you you will be landing shortly. Hopefully, as a result of dumb luck or good judgment, you will be in VMC over survivable terrain and able to see because you're going to be "up close and personal" with it shortly. The big caveat when it comes to flying a twin is that when an engine quits on you, you had better have made the required investment in training and have the prerequisite level of skill to avoid turning the airplane into little more than a lawn dart. In my mind, the issue boils down to knowledge, skill, discipline, and judgement. You need to have a thorough understanding of what the airplane you're flying is capable of and not capable of doing in any given set of conditions. You also need to know how to achieve maximum performance. You need to have the skill and proficiency necessary to achieve that performance level. Finally, you need to have the discipline to avoid flying your airplane in those conditions/situations where the outcome would be questionable or worse. A review of the accident records clearly demonstrates the folly of those pilots who fail to do what is required to achieve and then maintain the required levels of knowledge, skill and proficiency to fly their airplane safely.

My most "intense" experience was several years ago while I was giving some actual instrument dual in a Cessna 172. Some severe unforecast "lake effect" weather (low ceilings, visibilities, and icing conditions) developed while we were on a combination night, instrument "round-robin" XC training flight. The weather was forecast for the entire period to be 4,000' overcast with good visibility beneath, perfect conditions to allow an instrument student to get his first bit of actual. The “out” part of the trip was totally routine. The "back" part of the trip was another story. Evidently Ma Nature had forgotten to read the entire weather forecast. We updated the weather after stopping for fuel and everything was as forecast and was in agreement with what we had experienced on the outbound leg. However, after we had departed, an unforecast winter squall developed and moved across our home airport and every possible alternate for about 100 miles. Ceilings and visibilities were running around 400' and 1/2 to 1 mile in blowing snow. Additionally, there was light to moderate icing in the clouds. Initially, I wasn't too concerned, it would be a good experience for the student to see just how quickly things can go "south" on you in spite of all the planning you do. By the time we got to our home airport, the weather had dropped below the minimums for the VOR approach so we decided to go to our alternate which had an ILS. We were starting to pick up a trace of ice, but it was only about 15 minutes to the alternate so I wasn't too concerned. Again, I felt that this could turn out to be some very good experience for the student. As we diverted to the alternate the vacuum failure light on the instrument panel illuminated. That was not a good thing! That was precisely not the time that I wanted to have deal with a vacuum failure. The student did a good job of partial panel flying, but after several minutes he started to get vertigo and he began to lose it. At that point, I took the airplane back and was flying "cross panel" partial panel. The winds started to pick up and the ride went from occasional light chop to light to moderate turbulence. The whiskey compass was all but unusable. At that point, I declared an emergency. What had started out a routine training flight with a couple of easily handled "issues" had turned into something altogether different. As we weighed our options, it became apparent that the weather was going to get worse before it got better and we didn't have much more than the legally required fuel - waiting out the squall line in a holding pattern wasn't an option, besides we had started to pick up a bit more ice. I decided that it would be better to get on the ground as soon as possible - the weather was at minimums for the ILS. I tried flying the first approach, but with the turbulence and the whiskey compass dancing around I couldn't keep on a heading that allowed me to track the localizer. Basically all I had was the electric turn coordinator. I missed that approach and went around for another attempt. This time we had approach vector us to the inner marker and I descended on the glideslope. Just as I was getting ready to go around the runway lights came into view and we were able to land.

Oh yeah, the reflection off the top of the cowl would be dangerous, same thing for the backside of the prop. Of course that's why they're painted black. The back paint from the cowling back along the sides of the fuselage was for the exhaust stains. Any way you cut it, a polished airplane is a labor of love. Me, I've learned that lesson. I'd much rather spend my time and money (time=money) flying. That Mooney when finished will be a beauty though.

Ten years in the Navy - Thank you for your service! That saying is on the verge of becoming quaint - like "Have a nice day." - but I truly mean it. I guess I should have counted all of those hours at night out over the ocean or droning along between layers on countless coast-to-coast trips, but I never did; just the time actually spent in clouds. In jets it accumulates very slowly - you spend most of the time CAVU on top and what little IMC you get is on climbout (but at 3000 to 4000 fpm it doesn't take long to climb up through the scuz) or on descent and approach. I spent 35 years flying corporate jets and doing all of the training and stuff that goes along with that profession. Prior to that, I spent 10 years flying corporate and charter in pistons and turboprops. Prior to that, I just flew my Champ and Luscombe around a lot. I've spent my share of time playing around in the weather. I've come to find instrument flying much more relaxing and less stressful. Like I said earlier, there comes a point in your flying where everything is so ingrained and automatic that flying is just flying whether or not you're IFR in IMC or VMC, whether or not it's day or night. (All bets are off when it comes to VFR flying. Trying to continue VFR in deteriorating VMC or IMC is one of aviation's biggest killers. Night VFR, if not IFR ready and willing, isn't much safer.) Don't take what I'm saying wrong. I am probably the most anal retentive guy you know when it comes to flight planning and weather and the need for an appropriate amount of recurrent training - the more the better. But, assuming you're flying within your limitations (personal and aircraft) and you're in a well maintained airplane appropriately equipped for what you're asking it to do then there's nothing too much to be concerned about. Over the years, I've never had a problem in the airplane that I hadn't experienced multiple times in the sim (usually while hand-flying an approach to minimums. ) It's not bravado, it's just hard won confidence backed up by training and experience. The key to all of this is to stay within your personal and aircraft limitations and the key to that is ongoing training and the exercise of good judgement. Those too are the subjects of another thread or two.

What are you using as polish? Back in the day we used Flitz. It worked quite well, but that was quite a while ago. Nowadays, there's probably much better polish available.

I've got a couple of thousand hours of actual IFR and there comes a point when - IMC or VMC, Day or Night - it makes no difference it's just flying. I actually prefer IMC because it tends to keep the "less proficient" among us on the ground in conditions where being on your A game is really required. As far as enjoyment goes, after all of these years I still enjoy every moment in the air - whatever the conditions.

OK, I get that it's a PITA and of course, the airplane is still totally flyable, but it's legally unairworthy when the gear is inoperative. If you intentionally fly an unairworthy airplane you are subject to sanctions if the FAA finds out about it. Then there's the issue of insurance ramifications if something where to happen during the flight. FWIW, I had the same issue a couple of years ago and getting a ferry permit for the flight was straight forward.

Yes sir, when it comes to experience there is a huge difference between 1000 hours of experience and one hour of experience repeated 1000 times.

Just a personal observation from over 35 years as a CFI, 40 years flying for a living and 49 years as a licensed pilot. I realize that I am most likely preaching to the choir here, but there are more than a few out there who aren't "proactive" when it comes to training and proficiency. I'm sure we all know plenty of guys (and probably a few here) whose only recurrent training events consists of a BFR. The guys I hang around with get sim training every 6 to 12 months in addition to other periodic training events such as aerobatic training, high altitude physiology training (altitude chamber) and attend frequent safety meetings, seminars, and other training courses. The guys you read about in the accident reports usually aren't the ones that you see attending the meetings, seminars, training courses, etc. The guys you see participating in those are a fraction of the total pilot population. Just saying.

Most of us we're told something along the lines of "It's a license to learn" when we got our license. Many of us don't appreciate just how literal and serious that statement needs to be taken. The problems begin when we stop being "student" pilots. One of the reasons why I enjoy participating in this and other aviation forums is that there is so many experienced guys here who are so willing to share their knowledge. There's much for all of us to learn.

I'm really glad we're having this discussion. We're assuming that he was hypoxic and that's probably a pretty safe bet, but we'll probably never know what really happened until the autopsy report comes back - it could also have been a medical issue (stroke/heart attack), CO poisoning or (Dare I even say it?) suicide - but, it doesn't really matter. It's a discussion well worth having. Bottom line is that this all underscores the need for ongoing training and I'm not talking about a simple flight review every couple of years.The problem lies in the approach many of us take to training. The FAA gives us the Practical Test Standards which, by definition, define the minimum acceptable standards. These minimum standards then become the training goals of 98% of the students out there. Think about it, their personal goal is to achieve the minimum required standards. It seems pretty foolish when you think about it doesn't it? Then, just as soon as those minimum standards are met, most pilots stop their training, take their checkride and hope to live happily ever after. From then on out, it seems the question most pilots ask themselves is what's the minimum I have to do to keep current? How many of us equate currency with proficiency? And we wonder why we have so many accidents?We all have our personal flying styles and missions, so when it comes to what would be adequate ongoing training, one size certainly doesn't fit all. But lets face it, a few things would benefit practically everyone of us - extreme maneuver/unusual attitude recovery, taildragger and glider training. Add to that list mountain flying for those of us who are new to flying in the tall rocks and high altitude physiology/altitude chamber course when/if you plan on spending any time in any airplane above 10,000' msl - pressurized or not. Is training like this legally necessary? No, of course not. Do you need it? If you're like me, you probably would benefit from it. One thing for certain, this type of training would save many lives every year.