WardHolbrook

I remember that stuff. Sporty's used to sell it. I bought some way back when I was flying a Cheyenne III. It didn't seem to make any difference. If I remember correctly, the half-empty can was still sitting on the hangar shelf when we moved out of the hangar. It's probably still there.

Rain X won't help prevent icing. Several years back I was flying a bizjet that had a coating failure of the water shedding coating that is applied to the aircraft's glass windshields to keep rain from "smearing" and making the windshield impossible to see through. (Think of a VERY expensive permanent Rain-X application.) Gulfstream had us apply Rain-X until they could get a team out to reapply the permanent coating. For the two weeks that I flew the airplane with Rain-X, you would still get the normal amount of ice accumulation on the windscreen during icing encounters. Rain-X worked OK on the jet, but we had to reapply it two or three times while we were waiting for the team to reapply the water repellent coating. It only seemed to work for one rain encounter. Rain-X is great stuff for water dispersal on auto glass, but I don't know how well or how safe it would be to use on plexiglass.

I totally understand what you are saying and I agree with you. There will always be risks associated with any flight. The trick is to keep your exposure to those windows as brief as possible - the odds against a failure are indeed on your side. That guy did have a 100% golden out - he did not have to cut the corner and fly at low altitude out over the water. Nobody will ever know if whatever caused him to go down into the water would have been any easier to handle over land or not. But there are plenty of places where a successful off-airport landing could have been made.

All of this discussion about rafts is interesting and essential knowledge, but bottom line is that flying over open water was not necessary for that pilot to get to OSH. Again, the bottom line is to always leave yourself a viable out. Obviously it wasn't done in this case.

If you haven't already, I'd suggest that you and any of your regular passengers sign up for an open water ditching course. A little "OJT" never hurt anyone and it will go a very long way towards ensuring a positive outcome if/when that engine ever packs it in.

The advantage to life jackets is that they make the bodies slightly easier to recover, they don't sink quite as fast. But they're still almost impossible to spot without a beacon. Odds of survival are a function of water temperature and time in the water.

Even with a life raft you can have some serious problems. I've attended several ditching and water survival courses and climbing into a life raft in open water can be quite a challenge for 50 and 60 somethings. Throw in an injury and some swells and it's going to be very problematic. Don't believe me? Take an open water ditching course. It's a bit more intense than doing it in a hotel swimming pool. The correct answer is to ALWAYS leave yourself a solid gold out. If you ever find yourself without one then you need to ask yourself the question why are you there?

What you refer to is BASIC airmanship. What I'm referring to is judgment and planning. It certainly takes both.

I believe that a conscientious pilot will always have an out. It doesn't matter how many engines you've got, whether they're piston or turbine, where or when you fly as long as you leave yourself an out. In singles, outs are pretty hard to come by over open water, at night or in low IFR conditions. Oh and parachutes aren't an out.

Congratulations! That's a serious accomplishment. Now, I'll make the same recommendation to you as I've made to all of my instrument students... You now need to spend some quality time reading Weather Flying by Robert N Buck and Instrument Flying by Richard Taylor. They're not expensive, you can pick them up from about $6 each (used) on Amazon. These two books will go a long way towards filling in the gaps in your training and help you learn how to use "the system" in the real world and how to actually fly weather. They are both excellent books and reading them cover to cover a few times would probably be worth a couple of hundred hours of actual instrument time - at least. Captain Buck outlines a step-by-step method to teach yourself how to fly weather. Trust me, it's worth the investment of both your time and your money.

Propellers are for boats.

Mid-airs are the one thing that scare me about flying. I have control over just about everything else. Having electronic aids are helpful - we've got TCAS II on the jets and since we always fly IFR we've got ATC looking over our shoulder as well, but that doesn't take away from the need for plain, old-fashioned, honest-to-goodness scanning, using proper scanning techniques. It's not good enough to simply look outside, you've go to look outside correctly. I'm sure that your CFI taught you to scan for traffic the same way mine taught me... Scan the horizon for a short distance, stop momentarily, and repeat the process. I can remember being told why this was the most effective technique to locate other aircraft. It was emphasized repeatedly to not fix your gaze for more than a couple of seconds on any single object. The instructors, some of whom were WWII veterans with years of experience, instructed us to continually "keep our eyes moving and our head on a swivel" because this was the best way to survive, not only in combat, but from peacetime hazards (like a midair collision) as well. We basically had to take the advice on faith (until we could experience for ourselves) because the technology to demonstrate it didn't exist at that time. Click on the link below for a demonstration... www.msf-usa.org/motion.html As far as fudging on cruising altitudes goes, I'd just remind you that If you're IFR on a west-bound airway at 6,000' msl and some east-bound VFR guy is cruising that same airway at 5,500' msl at best you're only going to have 500' separation. 500 feet isn't much to begin with and if you eat into it 100' and the VFR guy does the same, that's not a lot of cushion - especially when you consider how well some guys hold altitude. (Also remember that everyone is using GPS to navigate with so everyone will be tracking the airway centerline smack down the center.) However, never forget that when it comes to VFR-VFR and VFR-IFR traffic separation the "prime directive" is and always will be "See and Be Seen". Not only must you be able to see, you also need to be seen. Why do you think jets run their recognition and/or landing lights on departure and arrival? It's so that other aircraft can see them. A smart pilot will turn on his lights when operating in crowded airspace. We run our lights in the jets, day or night, anytime we are below FL180 just so others can see us better. A wise pilot will also install some sort of pulse light system on his airplane to enhance the effectiveness of running his lights during the day.

Check your rigging and engine mounts. While you're at it, run a few W&B problems. Every Mooney I've ever flown had enough (but just enough) trim with two lard arses up front. I wouldn't be messing around with the factory rigging specs when it comes to trim. Don't go there, it can come back to bite you. Like someone else mentioned, a few tools, a survival kit and a quart or two of oil might be all you need.

Yuup, what the others have said. Lack of use is just as bad as abuse. I'd rather assume the engine will have problems and be pleasantly surprised than vise-versa.

On this short of notice? You can pray that they don't take too hard of a look at the POH.

Note to all of you self-proclaimed Mile High Club members... Doing it in a Mooney Mite doesn't count.

Why remove it at all? From a safety standpoint having a second AI is definitely the way to go.

Since you asked me to chime in I will, but you said pretty much everything that needed to be said. I'll just add a few random thoughts... In response to some of the above, and Ward, add your comments freely PLEASE.. Remember my first post on this thread? That you can fly a Mooney like a Cessna, only it will kill you. There are dramatic differences in the way different GA aircraft behave "at the edge of the envelope". That is, or should be, the point I am trying to make. When I first checked out in a Mooney, I was a 17 year old PP with around 100 hours TT. The instructor told me that "fat wing" Cessnas and Pipers flew with angle of attack and "thin wing" Mooneys needed speed. Although that's not exactly correct and I cringe when I hear stuff like that, it gave me what I needed to know at the time. Most of us learn to fly in Cessnas or the Cherokee derivatives. They are all puppies in the air, especially the Cessna. I rarely take on students, but recently, I did, as sort of a special favor. The student, a 50ish old gentleman had been made a nervous wreck by his first instructor. After 39 hours of dual, he was not ready to solo. The first thing that I had to teach him was that, properly trimmed and powered, the airplane would fly itself. We went up and I made him put that 172 in the most extreme attitudes, then MADE him turn loose of the yoke. What happened? Nothing. The Cessna just simply went back to flying. At times, we would do this from a 40 degree pitch up in a 40 degree bank. Before he soloed, I was determined to make him abuse the controls to the point that the 172 would spin. He is a large man, over 300# so we were well forward CG. It was almost impossible to make the aircraft enter an unintentional spin. In fact, the flight configuration from which we finally kicked over could hardly be called unintentional. We were full power, 30 degree bank, yoke full back, as in an exaggerated departure stall. Finally, I told him to kick full opposite rudder and FINALLY, she broke. I talked him through the recovery and it was hardly even a stall/spin event. So, what I'm saying is: That's the problem. You learn in a bullet proof airplane like the 172 and you get complacent. Over the years "they" have made flying simple so more people could get involved. Although not the first, Cessna came up with "Land-O-Matic" (tricycle) landing gear in the mid-1950's and it's been pretty much the standard ever since. Both Cessna and Piper went to work making airplanes that were easier to fly, safer and more economical... to the point that they became pretty poor trainers - because they don't require the newbie to REALLY learn some very basic skills like what you're feet are really for and what adverse aileron yaw really does. Unfortunately there are a lot of instructors that lack any meaningful experience in "high demand" airplanes and so it goes... Couple all this with the mindset that many pilots have about initial and recurrent training (ie What's the very minimum I have to do to complete the requirements for the checkride? and "Let's make this BFR quick, I've got important things to do.") and you end up with both students and instructors that walk away from basic maneuvers "slightly shaken". Now, if I may, let me reference Mikefox's comment. "Stalls in a Mooney should not be feared." I agree to a point. Onset stalls should not be feared. Deep stalls and secondary stalls should be feared. I fear them. Understand, a secondary stall is a deep stall. What is a deep stall? I think I should take the time to define that, but I can't right now. Tonight I will. Ward and others who understand these concepts might wish to give their interpretation. Spot on and so it Mikefox's comment about training. We recently sent all 6 of our company's pilots through the EMT (Emergency Maneuvers Training) and Basic Aerobatics course at CP Aviation. For a couple of us it was a nice refresher and a chance to knock some of the rust off. For the rest of the guys, it was a real eye-opener. They finally had to learn what their feet were for and a few other things like what to do it they got rolled near inverted in a wake turbulence encounter. They also did stalls and spins, lots of stalls and spins, to the point that they got really good at knowing how to avoid them. The point of EMT courses isn't to make you a skilled aerobatic pilot, it's to try to fill in the some of the blanks in the training that most guys end up getting these days. It's well worth the money. You all have a good, safe, productive day and we will talk more tonight., Jgreen Finally, one last thought... The assumption has to be made that your airplane is properly rigged and that it has all of the required stall strips. If your airplane is behaving poorly AND you're using the proper techniques and inputs it's time to get the airplane into the shop to be checked. But don't expect that wing to ever be as docile as that 172 or Cherokee that you learned to fly in. It's not that kind of wing.

I was flying the Grand Canyon back during the time you were doing your flight training. The 152 I instructed in was N89074. I also did some instructing in N95857 their 182. It is a very small world. The names sound very familiar, but it's been a lot of years and a lot of water has passed under the bridge.

I've got Wayne's signature in my logbook 3 times back in 1980 when he checked me out to instruct in their 152, 182, and 172RG. Back in those days I was flying a Turbo Commander, a Cessna 421 and 340 for some companies there in Ogden. I was also doing some flight instruction out of Ogden as well as glider instruction out of Brigham City and Morgan. I don't remember a Steve, but I did prep one of Wayne's instructors, George Larsen, for his ATP checkride in an old C310A. I think everyone knew Maureen. All of the oldtimers are pretty much gone now - Jim Zogmeister, Claire Whitely, Johnny Weir. etc. When were you doing your training? As for reconstructing your old logbook, you might try going to the FAA website and doing a certificate search on your old CFIs. If they're still around, they may still have their old training records - I know I still do. Good luck.

In the Lears, a complete stall series was required after certain inspections. The factory provided pilots to do the stalls. Stalling a Lear was not something for mere mortals.

Because it doesn't meet the spin recovery criteria.

My work airplane has two lavs - forward and aft. To quote the old Western Airlines commercial... "The Only Way To Fly!"

It all depends upon the airplane. I used to own a glider that had a very short notation cautioning against uncoordinated stalls. It was a single-seater so on my first flight I was getting a feel for it and did a few stalls. I allowed myself to get a bit too sloppy on one of them and I let the yaw string get a little off center at the break. The next thing I knew I was hanging upside-down by my straps in a spin. That was the last time I allowed myself to get sloppy in that particular glider. Conventional twins have a few additional considerations when it comes to stalls and spins. Ideally, you want a twin's stall speed to be higher than its Vmc. Also, it you get one into a spin the rotational mass out of the wings can make spin recovery difficult or impossible. When it comes to jets, I've flown some that didn't even have a stall warning system, there was enough aerodynamic warning (airframe buffet) that one wasn't necessary and it had the most impeccable manners if you took it to the break. One of the things that we would demonstrate was holding the yoke all the way in our gut and driving the airplane around fully stalled. Then on the other hand, there was the Lear. Those puppies have stick shakers and stick pushers. That's Mother Nature's way of telling you not to get anywhere near a stall in one of those. As you approached a stall the stick shaker goes off to let you know it's time to start paying attention and do something about it. If you ignore the shaker, the stick pusher will activate and push the yoke forward for you. You don't really want to stall a Lear and heaven help you if you get one in a spin. I'm sure it would be unrecoverable with those tip tanks. There's no reason to fear aircraft that have those "less than friendly" stall or spin characteristics, you just have to respect the aircraft and its limitations. I can't recommend strongly enough the need to obtain some basic spin and aerobatic training. It is money well spent.

If it's prohibited in the POH, it's done for a very good reason. There's no way I go against the flight manual, I don't feel like being a test pilot.