bradp

Thinking wire the second (relay) positive to a  12V rail from a cheapo old computer power supply lying around and then common ground between a minder and the computer power supply.  

Does battery minder logic ever drop voltage enough dip to below the closing voltage for the relay? 

I could see wiring the three prong to have a separate 12 VDC input for just the relay... 

28 minutes ago, Gary0747 said:

 I do not think any of the information will remain secret in the long run. So what is the point in hiding anything. 

Nobody's sworn to any type of secrecy - planes N numbers are right on the ASIS database.  A majority of the carvaner's and a bunch of the Mooneyspace social participants laid eyes on the damaged planes, and the pilots are not anonymous.  There's a 2019 Mooney caravan video on youtube with clips of 1) the formation element that had the accident flying together  2) damage visible on the two accident aircraft, and 3) even a cameo with the FAA guys inspecting damage to the leading edge of one of the aircraft.  Nothing is hidden - the hush hush is just trying to be respectful of the pilot's wishes until the dust settles for their perceived (founded or unfounded) concerns.  If the pilots said let's talk about this now and caravan said No No! I'd be one of the first to start talking.  Since the pilots said wait please- we can do that for what - another month...?  Once the pilots say let's discuss, well then... let's discuss.  They're both on Mooneyspace... until then let's just be patient.  On an internet forum.  In an age where the waiting is the hardest part.  

10 minutes ago, gsengle said:

 

Absolutely. They are separate yet interrelated. But no one owes explanations of either here... and trying to bully information with cries of secrecy and no safety culture isn’t a good look for Mooneyspace.

Again I have nothing to do with the caravan, and have never flown formation. But I know we are living in a quick, grab for the pitchforks culture which I find disturbing, no matter who is doing it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Yes Gary totally agree.  

As I said before I’ll give the benefit of the doubt to the group. One of the accident pilots stood up and asked everyone to just wait and be patient during what I only imagine can be a very stressful time.  That wasn’t the caravan circling the wagons that was the pilot who almost bought the farm just asking folks to be patient until he could get a handle on the process. That’s fair.  

As soon as the ASRS narratives come out (I imagine they are held back for 60 days just so these investigations occur) - we will re-ignite this conversation.  

Although I personally may know just a tiny bit more based on unverified conversations,  having laid eyes on the accident airplanes, and casually knowing one of the two involved pilots, it’s honestly not that much more than any of the Caravaners (or Mooneyspacers) who weren’t in the tail element.  I’m totally okay being a little patient because I the circumstances that allowed this accident to occur will not be potentially repeatable until the clinics start rolling around next season.  If clinics are starting and we don’t have appropriate transparent process improvements in response then that will be a very different circumstance.  I do not want to learn how to do “battle damage checks” in a Mooney ;-)

-B 

By function of his job, Gary knows and is an expert in human factors and CRM. I’m not an airline pilot but I do know they spend and extraordinary amount of effort doing human factors - in fact that industry has pretty much taught many of the others how to do human factors.  

One thing that needs to be clear is that safety culture / human factors or whatever you want the moniker to be is NOT the same thing as an accident investigation.  You do not need “all the facts” to be able to implement effective procedural or operational changes that are driven by speculation or hypothesis when those speculative or hypothetical factors are existing and or potentially valid within your organization. I think we as pilots are sometimes myopic to the NTSB process being the be all and end all of safety in flying.  Human factors / CRM (what your FAAST reps try to teach GA pilots) whatever you want to cal it are informed by the accident investigations certainly.  It needs them and is shaped by then.  But its scope is wider and can operate in parallel with the investigation process. 

Hi All,

If I were to hook up a battery minder to a three prong external power plug (the Cessna / NATO style plug) - will the battery minder be able to open the battery circuit relay (and keep it open during it's cycling or desulfation cycles)?

Any disadvantages to using this method to charge (via the relayed circuit) versus direct connection to the battery terminals?  I see a lot of "interface kits".  
 

Thanks,

Brad

Can anyone with a mid-body that has done this GFC install make a recommendation for or against the YD servo?  

44 minutes ago, ilovecornfields said:

You changed my mind. I had assumed that this has been debriefed appropriately and the actions you described had occurred. I didn’t realize that this was not the case.

Yes, it does seem more like a CYA at this point than any genuine desire to learn from the event. Pardon my ignorance, but why not just file a NASA form and talk about it openly?

My wife has not heard about the incident, but I’m sure she will eventually and she will not want to fly formation. I don’t blame her. The only formation flying I have done is in a glider attached to a tow plane and I intend to keep it that way. My unpopular opinion is that formation flying should be reserved for the experts (military pilots). Even they manage to screw it up sometimes, so I can’t convince myself that as an amateur I would even have a chance. I’m not saying we should make laws against it, I’m just saying it’s not for me.

I know that the leadership is working through the process and they have every intention of doing the right thing.  I don’t know if a contingency plan - ie how will we handle an accident - was necessarily discussed before the event and that may have played into the lack of a formal debrief on site.  There is a learning process with the how-to of safety in high risk environments.  This is presumably the first time this organization has had to do this and the organization needs to learn how, so I’ll give the benefit of the doubt.  Perhaps engaging with the FAA (there were like all the safety inspectors there) to have them come by to talk to the group, inform the process, and advise on how to positively impact safety now would have been a  good idea in retrospect and would potentially have broken the ice to start talking about it without embarrassment or blame.  And I would have liked wings credit to boot.  Could have just as well happened to me or anyone else given the appropriate environment / circumstances.  That’s why I’m interested in the process.  That group has some of the best stick and rudder pilots you could ask for.  The training is thorough and will be moreso next go around.  If you learned to land a plane (who would have thought we can all do that) safely you can learn to fly formation safely- currency and proficiency are required but a military background is definitely not.  

And the honest answer is no - we did not do a formal debrief about the accident although a general debrief for the organization was done. The consensus was it was an extremely well organized and run event despite the accident.  

I will bet a 12 pack of your favorite beer that both involved parties filed an ASRS report.  I will bet another case that no certificate action will be bestowed upon either party because they are cooperating with the process and nobody wants to allow the circumstances surrounding  this event to remain in place.  I’d also bet that we see both pilots in a future caravan.   I’m okay with the process for now - it’s not perfect and to my liking for timing and upfront transparency, but it will work. 

Btw You can read ASRS narratives sometime at the end of September when they become available (they are delayed 60 days). 

28 minutes ago, mike_elliott said:

Well said Brad. Unfortunately, we, just like we accuse the FAA of doing, continue to have this unwarranted need to place blame first before we can begin the next step of dissecting the data so that solutions and procedures can be developed or changed. I used to start meetings at my companies with "OK, who's turn is it to take the blame this week?" That would set the stage to now focus on the issues and not the defensive mechanisms to protect oneself. In this case, there is a lot at stake to protect oneself as individuals and groups so words are being chosen very very carefully.

Exactly Mike. I’m my profession we’re just finally getting away from individual blame and to systems thinking.  I’ve been around for both methodologies.  The old way didn’t work.  The new way does.  

Attended my first local runway action safety team meeting.  Reps from the airport, ATCT, ATM, individual pilots, corporate charters, FBO, ARFF etc etc ere present. We dissected data and incidents for two hours and applied safety principles to the local environment and operations. Everyone had a voice no matter their title.  It was a very good example of the way one of these events should be run. No individual blame and those running the meeting were quick to move from blame to system when it started to go that way. 

Even the FAA is moving in that direction with regard to enforcement action - work to improve and they won’t take certificate action unless egregious / negligent error or unwilling to learn. 

I participated in the caravan. My thoughts.  

- this was a never incident.  First rule of formation is don’t hit lead.  Second rule of formation is don’t hit lead.  Something happened that should not have (clearly).   Whether wake turbulence was a factor is a possibility that would impact the caravan from an operational standpoint.  This was a high risk accident that could have resulted in loss of life.  I’m glad that the organization is doing its own investigation and this will be reflected in training.

- Some of the lessons to be learned (especially with regard to organizational safety culture) should precede the official findings of an investigation.   I’m my day job we have an investigation, but we also have a debrief temporarily (ie immediately) connected to a safety event.  Part of this would involve a forum  any member from the group to bring up safety concerns.  During the group debrief the incident was described as an incident, and essentially Dave’s lawyerly statement was read aloud to the group, there was not further discussion of safety issues or concerns within the larger group setting.  What would have been optimal would be a brief statement of known facts from the safety committee akin to the one sentence prelim statement that the FAA puts on Asis.  My personal opinion was that we should have had a basic debrief of the incident on site without interfering with the FAA/NTSB investigation.  Part of the debrief would involve a forum  any member from the group to bring up ongoing safety concerns related to the incident (or otherwise).  This is just me with my high risk organizational behavioral safety culture hat on.   Two banged up aircraft sitting in plain view tempers the Oshkosh fun.  

- There is definitely  is a perception issue.  My wife knows that two aircraft participating in the caravan struck each other.  She needs some assurance that we are serious as an organization about safety and do so in a transparent fashion for her to want to fly with us next year.  The timeframe for sharing of information and institution of appropriate changes should be days to weeks.  

- I’m 100% positive FSDO will reference this accident during the LOA negotiations for next year.  Getting proactive about promoting safety of formation flight can only help in this regard.  I’m sure we will be discussing at length during next years qualifying events as Paul alludes to.  However, a single statement from leadership and discussion 8-10 months later as a (regional) group I think is necessary but not sufficient.   The key is finding a way to discuss the event openly, neutrally and publicly in a temporally proximate manner that has learning points for everyone.   Perhaps a series of updates and initiatives via webinar would be the most appropriate forum to bring together a geographically disparate group.  We do need to come together to discuss and it needs to be horizontal not vertical.  

Don the sales rep I spoke with at the Oshkosh Garmin booth knew about your plane and the bracket issue for some J SNs when I mentioned I was considering one for my J.   They seem to keep on top of things.  I was impressed.  

Wonder what the overhaul was like...

I heard there may be a common reason why there weren’t any Mooney Ambassador groups or swag for sale at the Oshkosh Mooney venue.  

Paul that’s what I’m considering but the closest class is an hour commute to and fro.  Hoping that once the toddler gets done with toddler age I’ll have some more evenings to be able to do it. 

For those of use with advanced degrees it seems like maybe 6 plus months of the curriculum is prerequisites.  Could probably cut down on the length significantly with credit.  

I didn’t visit the Mooney tent at Oshkosh.  One of my camping neighbors went and felt totally ignored.  I believe the  comment was if you weren’t dressed like you wanted to buy a Cirrus, you were ignored by Mooney.  Wrong marketing approach whether factual or not perception and word of mouth go a long way.  

I am not in the new airplane strata by any stretch of the imagination, but I get occasional  invitations from the cirrus camp to their events / to schedule a demo flight, so view the new jet.  They are super smart and importantly proactive about marketing.  Mooney fails in this department again and again.  Cirrus knows it takes people like me to keep their new plane buyers moving up to newer models or in some cases to their jet   They understand market evolution and the concept of a Cirrus ecosystem.   Mooney has no clue because it doesn’t have the volume any longer to need to appreciate the used market in driving the new market.

For some perspective, I have the original invoice from the 1977 J I fly (for warranty purposes of course ;-)).  It cost about $270,000 in 2019 dollars.  It was the top of the line piston single of its time.  The modern Mooney goes faster, burns much more fuel and can carry less for about 3-4x the price tag  , but it’s still a single piston.   

It’s all about useful load useful load useful load. All the Cirrus accoutrements including BRS are allowable because useful load.  In fact if we had the useful load for it, BRS would be a no brainer in a hat shelf location on a composite shelled modern Mooney.  They can’t because the useful load stinks.  

From copa website: 

2013 NA SR22 FIKI, AC and BRS: 1200 lb useful load.  Cirrus figures how to maximize useful load over the years.  That’s how they get all the fun stuff.  

From flying magazine :

N197CV - the ovation ultra that was featured in flying and the caravan guys know very well doesn’t have TKS or AC, has 100 gal tanks and a UL of 980 lbs   Full fuel you’re getting 470 ish lbs of payload.  No AC TKS or BRS.  That is why mooney is losing.  Folks who want to use these for cross country flying would rather have the toys and go 175 over no toys and go 220.   I could fit my entire family plus bags and full fuel in a G5 with all the stuff they’d care about (AC, BRS) and stuff Is care about GFC 700 and TKS.   It’s a more practical traveling machine for more market than Mooney traveling with one pax and an overnight bag.  

Mooney should be using additive manufacturing to limit weight and maximize useful load with an emphasis on exotic materials when economically feasible.  That’s how cirrus got 200 lbs with a bigger chute for the G5; they spent a ton of RD on incremental improvement. Mooney added a door and didn’t do anything more.  

Another Mooney pipe dream - SETP market is hot.  They missed the boat on TBM. Resurrect that ugly duckling of a mustang, refine and modernize certain features (one piece windshield) and mate an Allison 250 to it.  You’d have perhaps a sub $1MM airframe that could compete with that market segment who can afford used Malibu’s and TBMs.  You’d sip fuel compared to the pT6 and maybe achieve a 1500 lb useful load at best 200 ktas.  They’d have to totally undercut the market but there is probably an undercut market at us that look at used bottom end setps / Mu2 / PA46s and say someday.  They had a relationship with RR - what ever happened to that? 

Now might be the time to push hard on alternatively fueled engines - the diesels are just about ready for prime time. 

Cut the weight Mooney - haven’t worked on that in 50 years it seems.

Now if someone wants to dig up the approved data - ie the engineering documents that Mooney or Rocket Eng used for the gross weight increases, that could be used as a basis for a 337 or an STC to GW increase earlier J models.  It might end up with a 2900 MGTO and 2740 MAx landing weight, but the data exits. 

If a bunch of early J owners want to get together and try to find the data to develop a STC application to submit to the FAA, I’d consider that a fun project.  

Anyone on Mooneyspace a DER? 

The aluminum mistress got a spa treatment before her trip to Oshkosh.  A petrochemical mask and an isopropyl cleanse. 

(And I did find the loose and missing screws). 

21 hours ago, M20F said:

Ever notice when you go to the beach you come back with sand everywhere and in parts of your body you thought not possible?  

What do you think happens when you have a bunch of sand underneath a cover that is tightly affixed but is still going to shift in the wind?

This.  I had / have a Bruce’s. There was construction about a quarter mile away on the ramp.  Sand blew everywhere from it.  My windshield got beat to $hit with scratches and crazing.  Since replacing the windows and windshield, I know I don’t have leaks because I test whether I have leaks when I have the interior out.  A garden hose and pair of eyes is a powerful inspection tool.  Since then I’ve gone Au natural.  

Also microfiber towels and microfiber synthetic material no matter how soft to the touch will scratch a plastic windshield.  Flannel cotton, specific application wipes, or a bare hand are the only things that should touch a windshield.   

This is not necessarily owner PM but you can measure resistance across your ignition leads by removing the distributor cap.  Inspect the shield braid to ensure continuity along the length of the lead.  Ensure that the seal for the leads is intact and you don’t have oil working up the braid.  

Test resistance of the plugs if you have massive.  I’ve had radio noise from a bad plug but this usually sounds like machine gun fire rather than alternator whine.  

How does it do in vertical nav modes? Still have oscillations during a VNAV path (I think your setup can do that mode) or IAS mode?  What happens if you set VS to say, 20?. 

Bruce Jaeger is at BDH about 150 NM.  

My setup is - everything that has a hose attachment has its own internal fan.  I have the outside air vent that blows onto the back of the avionics (ORM setup) and if it’s really hot I’ll direct the eyeball vent to the back of the radios. I’ve thought about putting in another blower for years but never got around to it...

O ring on your gascolator / fuel selector is another place to check.  Air gets entrained.  Simple fix.  

It’s very easy to disconnect the fuel pressure line at both ends and blow out the line. 

Start there before going further 

Plane cover will only help somewhat.  Water can still run in. 

Window seals are critically important. 40+ year old sealant can be cracked and embrittled.  

Probably hangaring, lack of fiberglass style insulation and ensuring no little rodents have taken up residence are the best insurance policies.  

If you really want to see if you have a leak, pull the interior panels and run a garden hose.   

When I purchased my plane, Top Gun ran a magnet along the lower longitudinal tubes (I think that’s part of the SB) to look for corrosion.