WardHolbrook

AoAs are great tools. I will have one on my next airplane. I've had them on my working airplanes for 30 years.

I've run into this stuff before during the winter up in Alaska and Canada. I agree with Mooneymite, just fly south. During this time of the year, I always tell my boss that our alternate is Nassau regardless of where we're going. (The Falcon has enough range to do it too. )

I could give you the standard CFI response, but bottom line is that the airplane will fly just fine assuming that it's in the CG envelope. (I know you wouldn't fly it outside the envelope either.) It sounds like you haven't had much experience flying up near the edge of the CG envelope. If that's the case you ought to go buy a few bags of water softener salt and load it up and see how it goes on some of your lighter flights. Years ago, when I was checked out in a Baron 56TC (The original Rocket. ), the CFI brought along several bags of salt to bring our weight up to the maximum allowable. Personally, I believe a checkout isn't complete until you've flown the aircraft and are comfortable with it at the edges of the envelope. But, as long as you're in the certified W&B envelope, you won't encounter any surprises. Scott brings up a good point - your across the fence speed will be a bit higher at your max landing weight than it is at your normal landing weight - if you're using the proper speed at your normal landing weights. You'll want to add a little bit, but don't go crazy with it - it won't be much.

I've never flown a Rocket either, but if that's the case then what's the problem? It's all a matter of knowing YOUR airplane and flying it with in its operating envelope.

[blushing from embarrassment...] Oops, you're right about the mis-read. But again, I just have to fall back on my experience and understanding. There are reasons for max landing weight limitations - especially if it is less than the max takeoff weight. You can choose to ignore any limitation, but at what point do you draw the line? Granted, there are some margins built into it, but when is too much too much? This is why it's so important to know your airplane. Some guys "ball park" or "conservatively estimate" things like fuel burn and fuel required to the point where they end up handicapping themselves unnecessarily and this is coming from the most conservative pilot you guys know - me. There is no reason why you shouldn't be able to calculate to within a gallon or two exactly how much fuel you'll burn on any given flight. If you're lazy like me, you'll want to use one of the free online flight planners like FltPlan.com or any other of the readily available computerized planning programs. Once you get those dialed in to the way you fly your airplane, they are bang on. (Coast-to-coast non-stop flights in our Falcon 900s are typically with in 2 minutes and 100 pounds of planned - a tiny fraction of 1%. The results in piston aircraft are equally impressive.) Once you know exactly how much fuel is called for then it's simply a matter of adding that 60 minute reserve to handle any unexpected vectors. Once you've got that figured out it's just a matter of math. You can either do it or you can't If you can't, you have to put less in the cabin or find alternate means of transportation. Simple. It may not be convenient, but it's still simple.

Flying at max gross weight - within the W&B envelope - is a non-event. That would give me no pause whatsoever - as long as I had the takeoff and climb performance that your departure runways and terrain will require. (Why are we even having this discussion?) As far as partial fuel load operations go, it's a unfamiliar concept for many pilots whose experience is limited to small single engine piston-powered aircraft, but "fueling for the trip" is standard operating procedure for everything from larger light piston twins on up through the turboprops and jets. I too normally plan on 60 minutes worth of fuel on landing in EVERYTHING I'm flying. If there's a chance that I might need to divert to an alternate, then I'll carry even more. But in spite of the old joke about having too much fuel (...if you're on fire) there are times when you can have too much fuel on board - for example, if it causes you to depart over max gross takeoff weight. The real question I think the OP is asking is "It it OK to takeoff over gross?" As we've seem, some guys will imply that it’s OK. This raises the question - Where do you draw the line? How much really is too much? A long time ago, most aircraft manufacturers adopted the principle of "loading flexibility” - in other words, Mooney, Piper, Cessna and Beech have made aircraft that provide us with one or two more seats than can be used if topped off with fuel or a couple of hundred pounds of fuel capacity that must remain unused it you’ve filled all of the seats. You can have it one way or the other, but you usually can’t have your cake and eat it too. (I’ve got PIC time in 105 different makes and models of aircraft, from gliders to jets, and I can count on one hand the number of them that you could honestly load up and go without regard to loading.) It's a legitimate approach; but history has shown us time and time again that there are many of us out there who have no idea of how the concept works. Silly pilots, many of us think that if we've got 4 seats we can top off, load up, and go. However, if you're willing to ignore the aircraft limitations, legalities, and insurance ramifications involved, you pretty much can because there is nothing magical about that max gross weight number – the airplane will continue to fly. My recommendation is simple – just fly your airplane the way it was designed to be flown. Plan your flight the way the guys flying the jets do – while you’re doing your preflight planning just load your plane up with all of the passengers and baggage that you want to go with and then add enough fuel to bring the weight up to your max takeoff weight (for the given runway and conditions). If you’ve got enough fuel on board to fly non-stop to your destination plus your desired reserves (60 minutes minimum) you’re good to go, it you don’t, you plan a fuel stop. Simple.

Remove the right front seat and the problem is solved.

This might be a solution for you... http://www.stickonbifocals.com/ I've head of guys cutting them to size and sticking them to the top of their prescription lenses for reading overhead panels. They'd probably work just fine in conjunction with over the counter sunglassses. Do a search for stick on reading lenses, they're readily available and not too spendy - probably worth a try.

You can't assume that your engine will be one of those which can be safely and successfully operated beyond TBO. If you're going to play that game you'll need to monitor the health of your engine using all the available tools such as oil-filter inspection, oil analysis, monitoring oil-consumption and oil-pressure trends, compression tests, borescope inspections, spark-plug inspections, and digital engine-monitor data. This is really something that ideally should have been going on since the last overhaul. Even if you do all of that, there are simply no guarantees that your engine will let you know, in advance, that it's had enough. It may be false economy to try to get a few more hours out of a run-out personally owned aircraft that only gets flown a hundred hours a year or so if those extra hours end up increasing your costs when overhaul time finally arrives. It would surprise most guys what actually needs to be replaced on an engine in order for it to be labeled as overhauled. A lot of things can legally be pulled out inspected and reused and overhaul quotes are made with that assumption. If you end up ruining something like a crankshaft you'll find that they don't come cheap and can easily end up costing you more than what you saved by running past TBO. My experience tells me that as you approach TBO you'd better have the money set aside for the overhaul.

I've had antiskid on all of my "working airplanes" for the past 30 years. Is it something that you need? Honestly, it's pretty rare that you need to get on the brakes hard enough to trigger the system. However, it's like antilock brakes on your car - you don't need it until you need it, then you're glad you've got it. It's the same thing with antiskid - raining or snowing, marginal runway - yes it's a good thing. Is it something that you frequently do in your Mooney? If not, then it would probably be something that wouldn't do you much good. If you frequent marginal runways, then yes, it would make some sense.

It probably wouldn't be the best thing to extrapolate a flight school's experience to what the "average" private owner might expect. For operations under Part 91, the published TBO is rather meaningless, but it does provide us with a convenient reference point for budgeting. Although Part 135 operators must honor the published TBOs, we are allowed to perform our maintenance "On Condition", This puts the onus on us to see that appropriate maintenance is performed whenever necessary. In the case of a busy flight school or other high usage operation, they typically perform oil analysis and have some sort of trend monitoring program in place and the engines get a good looking at on a very regular basis (both hours and calendar). For the average privately owned and operated aircraft that's normally not the case. When it comes to engine longevity, there's a big difference between 50 to 100 hours per month and 50 to 100 hours per year.

I don't disagree with the logic. I still tell students (and myself) not to make any power reductions until you're at the point where you'd be willing to accept an engine failure. For me, it's usually a function of altitude and/or time. (Cleaned up and climbing through 1000 ft or 2000 ft and/or 4 or 5 minutes if I'm flying something with turbochargers. If I'm flying a normally aspirated airplane, then it's usually WOT and whatever the POH says on the RPM.) Of my two engine failures after takeoff (one in a Mooney M20C and one in a Cessna 411) both happened when I was reducing power after takeoff. When I mentioned the "engine failure with power reduction theory" to some genuine engine gurus I was told that had nothing to do with it. I'll defer to their expertise and experience, but if something's working I don't like messing with it down low.

I used to think that as well until more than one engine guru set me straight. Like running over square, it is an Old Pilots Tale.

I run the checks at the RPM specified in the POH. In most Mooney M20Cs I believe that is 1700 RPM, but some later models may bump that up to 1900 or even 2000 RPM. I'm not a big fan of doing routine inflight mag checks - too much chance of accidentally switching the engine off. I also do a quick mag check prior to shutdown at the end of the flight. As far as takeoff and climb in a M20C goes... Takeoff WOT and 2700 RPM and lean if appropriate. Climb at WOT and 2700 RPM and leaned for best power. Climb at 100 (or 120 if hot).

The first step in dealing with addiction is to admit you have a problem.

Probably just need a bit of judiciously applied mouse milk.

I know that I risk sounding melodramatic, but I've seen the long-term effects that 3 fatal aircraft accidents have had on 5 families. Every time I suggest pilots avoid doing "stupid" things like flying SE aircraft at night, in LIFR conditions, or over water, beyond gliding distance of land I get ridiculed after all, their "risk tolerance" is obviously higher than mine. To that, I say so what? Put yourself in the place of the surviving family members. They're the ones that have to deal with the horrendous legal and financial messes that will need to be cleaned up. Then there are the kids. The fact that it was a risk that you were or are willing to take is not going to make one iota of difference to your wife and kids. I guess, when it comes to risk acceptance, if you're in a single seater or if you're flying by yourself then pretty much anything goes - it's your life and you have the right to live it pretty much anyway you want. However, I believe that the moment you assume the responsibility for the lives of others - friends, family, business associates, or whomever - as passengers in your aircraft then you have the obligation to hold yourself to a higher standard. You may certainly understand the risks and find them acceptable. So what? In all likelihood your passengers are simply trusting in your good judgement. Let's hope it's there and is demonstrable.

I've said this many times before and I'll continue to say it. There are caveats associated with the operation of any aircraft - regardless of the number or type of powerplant(s). 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. When it comes to twins, the big caveat is that when that engine quits on you, you had better have made the required investment in training and have the prerequisite level of skill and proficiency to avoid turning the airplane into little more than a lawn dart. A properly flown twin operated by a proficient pilot within its limitations is inherently safer than a single. If they are not operated that way, they are more dangerous. I'd guess that the majority of the non-professional light twin drivers and many of the "pros" would be safer in a single. It takes a lot of effort to gain the necessary proficiency and even more to maintain it. That's dang tough to when your recurrent training involves little more than a basic flight review with a CFI every couple of years and you're only flying a 50 to 100 hours a year. It also takes judgement and discipline to operate your twin in a manner that doesn't severely compromise the limited OEI performance capabilities of the typical light piston twin. Just like in a single, you can play the odds all you want in your light twin, but never forget that now you've got two engines so you've got twice the likelihood of a failure in any given period of time. The statistics don't give us the number of successful OEI light twin landings, but they are certainly more than the unsuccessful ones. Using statistics is one thing, but as the accident record demonstrates, what really matters is "When is it going to happen to ME?" The only answer a person can honestly give 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. Our equipment is so reliable and because engines really do seldom quit and there is a temptation to say something along the line of... "I've been doing it this way for umpteen hundreds or thousands of hours and it's never happened before, it won't happen this time either therefore it must be safe." But engines can and do quit or lose power - for many reasons - and if you allow yourself to operate "outside the box" sooner or later you run the risk of getting bit.

No disrespect, but safety and legality are not synonymous. Something can be totally safe yet illegal and vise versa. Although our FAA allows it, there are many countries around the world that do not. The way you maximize your odds of living a long life and having a lengthy flying career is by always having a viable Plan B and even a Plan C that will ensure that you can get back on the ground safely - it doesn't matter how many engines you have or whether they're piston or turbine. The next time you're out at night or even flirting with extended LIFR conditions during the day you owe it yourself and your passengers to be honest about what your circumstances would be if you were to lose that engine. Many pilots are simply betting on long odds when it comes to an engine failure. Wise pilots always hedge their bets.

Go for it, just have a workable Plan B in place should you find yourself facing unexpected major engine expenses in the next year or two. I'm sure the current owner will say that TBO doesn't matter and that the engine is running just fine. That may or may not be true, but on paper the engine is run out and that should be factored into the asking price of the airplane. I keep saying this, but after an engine reaches TBO, that engine doesn't owe you or anyone anything. In the real world of Part 91 operations, TBO is essentially meaningless and pretty much useful only as a budgetary factor. That's not to say that you should plan on exceeding TBO, sometimes those extra hours can come at a significant cost if it causes some expensive internal components to wear beyond limits. Who said that a high-performance, turbocharged single can't be someone's first airplane? That makes zero sense. The key to operating any airplane like that is the same whether you own it or not - proper initial and recurrent training and proper and timely ongoing maintenance and a budget that allows for both. Those are readily available to a newbie owner so all it really takes is the budget to handle it.

This has been discussed ad nausium on several different websites. It is a procedure which looks deceptively easy, after all, how hard could it be to open the door and pour out a bunch of ash? Horror stories abound and I've heard my share of 1st hand experiences from friends and associates. Bottom line is this - It is something that has to be done correctly the first time. Mess it up and you're going to have one heck of a "disagreeable" and unpleasant mess to clean up and guaranteed, the family will not be happy with you. When it was proposed to me, I simply politely declined. There is little to be gained and a whole bunch of potential negatives.

You'll do just fine. Oh and by the way, aircraft manufacturers can have the same issues. Anyone seen the performance charts for a new Maule?

I wish that I could document what I'm about to tell you, but I can't so take it with a grain (or shaker) of salt... This isn't an issue that's limited to Rocket Engineering STCs; actually, it's quite common. It's been a 100 years since I last flew our Riley Cessna 340, but if I recall correctly, they didn't provide any new performance data with that engine mod either. The way it was explained to me, way back when, was that the FAA will accept either totally new and certified performance data (read mega expen$ive) or some sort of statement that the performance is equal to or surpasses the existing/original certified data. Guess which option is cheaper for the developer of the STC? Guess which option many STC developers elect to pursue? So, when it comes to your oral (and in day-to-day operations), you'll want to use the data that is in your POH. Although now it's obviously quite conservative, it's the only certified data that you've got. I wouldn't bring it up unless s/he says something about it and if something is said, all I'd say is that the airplane performs very well, but no credit is provided for the increased performance in the approved POH. I think that's the answer that they'd want to hear from you and that's the answer that I'd give if I were taking a checkride. The last thing I would do on a checkride oral is use "uncertified data based upon personal experience". That would have raised the red flag quicker than anything I could think of on any checkride I've ever taken. Good luck on the checkride.

"Babying" engines has shown to be bad for a lot of aircraft engines.

There is a huge difference between first run engines and engines that have been overhauled at least once. You've got to listen to your engine, but don't forget that once you go beyond TBO, that engine honestly doesn't owe you anything. It can be false economy to fly hours beyond the recommended TBO if those hours cause some very expensive components to wear beyond limits. I'm assuming that you're doing oil analysis and have an engine analyser.