kortopates

Thanks for all the extra details. But given those facts it’s much worse than i was realizing. I assumed he had a real IFR GPS but just 2 portable GPS’s. Probably rationalized doesn’t do “hard IFR” and therefore didn’t need to follow the regs wrt to using a IFR certified GPS to fly RNAV under IFR. Perhaps years of normalization of deviation got him complacent as a magenta line pilot till this day when the weather was far more than he could handle. Very possible too that the 396 GPS was working fine but given the busy workload the pilot may have screwed up the buttonology and got to over loaded to figure it out since he had to fly the plane. Do we know what if anything the FAA did about this. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The vast majority of these stories, including many of the fatal IMC accidents we read about begin for one simple reason. A pilot who is not instrument current and certainly not proficient thinks it’s okay to venture into IMC conditions. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Only when they are on the policy, otherwise the open pilot clause is protecting the owner! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That’s a big problem IMO, as i agree with Byron. I need far better assurance than a brokers opinion that they won’t come after me as the CFI so require being a named pilot or additional insured with waiver of subrogation before i give transition training. it’s very rarely an issue. But i can’t afford to risk all my assets just to give flight instruction. i also carry separate non-owner insurance but it’s not always enough. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Probably true, but i’d get the Ultra just for the Nxi avionics since it’s a big plus and offers increased obsolescence security. But i wouldn’t expect to ever see either see upgrade options - but we’ll hope. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Visual approaches are really handy going to unfamiliar VFR airports. You should be able to use VNAV - i thought a software update replaced VCalc with VNAV. Vnav can be very helpful. I forget if the 480 did holds, which you’ll have now too. I had a 480 in the early days but never got over the discontinuities. it wasn’t a problem on long cross countries but a big pain doing multiple approaches back to back. I went back to a GNS. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Seats don't matter but I think there are a couple ways it could go: i) they could offer to pay the claim to the insured but then subrogate the loss against the uninsured spouse so that in the end they loose the plane or ii) just deny the claim on the basis that the incident pilot wasn't named and didn't meet the open pilot warranty since she does not. Either way any pilot flying on the open pilot warranty is uninsured in the aircraft. The owner will be made whole by the insurance company but the insurance company is likely going to subrogate their losses against the pilot not on the policy flying under the open pilot clause.

Got it, but you’re the first pilot i know of that does that. And i’ve flown with a great many pilots. Me, i’ve been known to tighten it up encountering some turbulence but never un do it. Well i am sure if you do it, others must too, but your the first i’ve heard doing this. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Vince If G500 was the autopilot, i think you mean GFC-500 AP. G500 actually stands for the Garmin PFD/MFD glass combo which i assume you didn’t mean with the 2 GI-275’s Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

i think your missing that most of us don’t release our seat belts at 26’ agl, so in flight with the seat belt still on, the pilot can bend over to change tanks etc In fact maybe with the inertial wheel you wouldn’t feel the need to disconnect the seat belt? Regardless i don’t have the inertial wheel either and since the fuel selector doesn’t need any acrobatic maneuvers (it’s right in the middle below the center pedestal), my shoulder belts are click and forget till i need something in the back seat. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Definitely insurable now. I had a student pilot training in his J. (no private) But your rates will go up with those hours but Parker should be able to give you an idea how many retract hours to the next reduction in premiums and then you can decide on the trade offs. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Absolutely! but Freddy doesn't say it perhaps, but no breaker ever popped. He is merely describing the procedure to reset the VR and Alternator which almost every time brought the alternator back on line; except one leg that it too a few tries spread out. Yeah, I was right seat. I'll add too that the shop that thoroughly checked out Freddy's new alternator and found out all the issues was Robert at Aero Accessories in Van Nuys - highly recommend them.

Maxwells - they own the STC now and as far as I know aren't yet making installation available to others - which is a bigger deal to our European and Australian friends. But that could change any time.

You need to provide more details to get helpful advice. So far all we've heard is the TIT got over redline and above 1800F, and that Cyl 5 went cold after the event when you did a mag check. But as far as the event you've only shared the high TIT and "slight revving" (don't know what that means). Besides the TIT being high, was the only high EGT issue with the Cyl 5? Do you know if the event was limited to just the one cyl, #5? This is what I assumed since you borescope check focused on #5. Do you know what your EGTs and CHTs where during the event? Do you have an engine monitor you can download data from? What have they checked besides borescope the #5? I assume this is a very new to you aircraft and perhaps your first experience with a fuel injected engine. Such a broad statement is not answerable.

That’s correct, it was approved for a small number of J’s and then Mooney went back to not providing a higher v-speed for partial flaps in the latest J models. But it’s a great example that if there was an approved higher v-speed for partial flaps then it would be listed in the TCDS and POH as it is for those J models. The argument that the POH specifies a Vfr for “full flaps” must imply a faster speed for partial flaps is a hollow one. This has come up 3 or 4 times probably in the last 5 years often with hundreds of posts which merely proves pilots will continue to interpret their POH however they want. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

An injector blockage would be a partial blockage to that one cylinder. It only takes a small fraction of the total fuel to that cylinder to make it very lean and push up the temps. A blockage large enough to stop combustion is unheard of but kill the one cylinder with its EGT going cold and TIT dropping from the other cylinders having a richer than normal mixture. With any injector blockage, the fuel pump and servo are still delivering the full amount of fuel but to the other cylinder. Fuel contamination in the form of water would cause a drop in EGT and TIT, not an increase. As well as a rough engine. If there was a large amount of water in the fuel it would kill the engine before you got off the runway. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

27.5 is actually a bit low, 29-30 is much better. We have the same issue with Continentals where the manufacturer has the max fuel spec on fuel low side. Regardless though this wouldn’t be your issue nor would MAP gauge; especially when it affected a single cylinder. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Absolutely, see @EricJ post #2 Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do you have an engine monitor? The only thing that can cause such a high TIT is lean mixture assuming it’s corroborated by high EGTs. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

correct, not the best choice or words, to clarify should have said connected simultaneously.

That’s also the Ferry route to Hawaii and Australia and if i recall correctly Merced is where they install ferry tanks. Some years ago we had a ferry pilot experience a fatal takeoff there when the ferry tank wasn’t properly secured and moved during takeoff resulting in a crash. it was actually a flight of two with the other pilot being a veteran at it leading and the Mooney following with a newer pilot headed to Australia if i recall correctly. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Connecting to a GTX-345R on the G1000 is a bit different from the GTN’s because their is no Connexc menu like on the GTN’s and no FS capability, it’s just blue tooth pairing with the iPad directly. (Nxi changes this for the Ultra’s) Mooney didn’t certify the latest G1000 s/w at the time, so it’s a bit limited in its feature set. The biggest problem i see is that you can only pair 2 devices, but that may be unique to instructing. But other than that it works all the time but i have seen drop outs from poor signal in one installation. Both Deb & David and Lance have this set up so they should be good resources.

it isn’t rpm that causes ring flutter damage so much as very low MAP; especially such as a closed throttle idle power descent. The issue comes from allowing the prop to turn the engine rather than engine to turn the prop. In so doing it reverses the normal stress on rings and there isn’t sufficient combustion to seal the rings. A long closed throttle descent can and has damaged engines in the past. But any MAP below 15” will put you into the territory of the prop driving the engine. This is why both engine manufacturers say not to reduce MAP below 15”. To further clarify the misconception that RPM is damaging to the rings, the reason why we pull back RPM in order to make a faster/steeper than normal descent is to slow down or come down faster without having to pull the MAP to lower than 15” where we have the prop driving the engine - which is the damaging cause. First symptom is usually very high oil consumption. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The only solution is a drop in fuel replacement. There is no ignition timing issue in the eyes of the engine manufacturers nor most owners for that matter. Nobody wants to decrease their engine horsepower even if it was available. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

On the topic of steep idle descents, shock cooling is a myth but ring flutter is not! This is why both engine manufacturers talk about never doing a closed throttle descents but maintain a minimum amount of power of at least 15” to prevent the air from turning the prop rather than the engine turning the prop. Having the prop turn the engine reverses the stress on the rings and can damage them on a prolonged descent. The immediate symptom right after such damage will be much elevated oil consumption. Recall one pilot that did an emergency descent from flight levels to an airport below him with closed throttle and opted to overhaul soon thereafter. Of course depending on the nature of the emergency, the engine may be the least of your concerns. Above though @Will.iam talks about the proper safe way to do an emergency descent without risking damage to the engine above. But the other concern for engine management is don’t go to full power immediately if you go around, just use enough power to maintain level flight as oil temp and CHT comes back as you fly over the runway and by the departure end temps will be good off to go to high power. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk