kortopates

Everyone in the SOCAL area is welcome to fly-in to Gillespie Field, San Diego, CA (KSEE) to learn about and experience their own Hypoxia symptoms via a PROTE flight. The Portable Reduced Oxygen Training Enclosure (PROTE) simulates the conditions at 25,000' using a gas mixture. You do have to register and sign up for 45 min slot in advance as well as have and bring your FAA Medical or Basic Med - we just got approval to allow Basic Med for PROTE participation. The event is a multi-day event starting Wednesday morning and going through Sunday noon. Each morning through Saturday at 9am we will have a Hypoxia Academic session for 90 minutes and each evening at 5pm their is a Fatigue and Sleep Deprivation session for 60 min; both given by the staff of CAMI. Sunday is limited to PROTE flights only 9am-noon. Each of these is a separate signup and each comes with Wings credits. Here are the 3 FAA SPANS announcements with instructions to sign up: Portable Reduced Oxygen Training Enclosure (PROTE) event: https://www.faasafety.gov/SPANS/event_details.aspx?eid=92648 Hypoxia Classroom Presentation session event: https://www.faasafety.gov/SPANS/event_details.aspx?eid=96581 Fatigue and Sleep Deprivation Impacts on Pilot Performance session event: https://www.faasafety.gov/SPANS/event_details.aspx?eid=96583 (No medical is needed for the two classroom presentations.) You are welcome to fly-in. Its a short walk to the event from transient parking at the Terminal. Sign-up soon to get a slot at your preferred times. See you there, Paul PROTE.pdf

Limited to no time in type with also little to no retract time has a very large impact on rates with retractable gear. The IR can have a significant impact as well but is more tempered by the aircrafts capabilities; at least from my limited experience. For example, its a much bigger deal in a turbo that likes to operate in Class A airspace than it is in a trainer aircraft. How much it will help in your J is a good question for your broker.

Not always but often a loss of EGT (decrease in power/combustion) coupled with an increased CHT (frictional heat).

A sticky exhaust valve is usually very clear in the engine data, especially if you have a TSO'd primary that on at startup - i should be visible the. But a poor compression test, especially <20/80 with leakage past the rings has nothing to do with a sticky valve. These are very different things. Regardless though, the weak compression is real. Since its so low, I would just run it up slowly to normal CHT temperatures on the ramp and re-do the compression test. Being that low, its very unlikely it will come back up. Secondly, you want to see corroborating evidence from the borescope if possible, but if a ring just broke, you will not necessarily see evidence of greater oil consumption or cylinder wall scoring.

You won't be able to see anything on your engine monitor in flight, but if you look at the downloaded data you can often see symmetric EGT pattern. Have you looked at it? doesn't change anything here but perhaps it may have been detectable before your oil change.

No, although CIES can operate in a resistive analog mode they still won't be compatible with the Mooney fuel gauge. Their FAQ page explains what they support (https://ciescorp.net/documentation/frequently-asked-questions/) but they also make mention of some future mods to interface with a OEM gauge such as through a stepper motor - doesn't sound like a CB solution though but its on the same web page.

Very possible, yet I would expect to see a fluctuations in the fuel gauge, yet I haven't seen this specific problem and can't be sure. But the annunciator is still well supported by the OEM who is International Avionics in Texas, you can reach the guy that repairs them (who's name escapes me) at 972-417-2820. I'd bet he can tell you specifically if he thinks this can be caused by a sender issue or not or likely be able to help you isolate it. Incidentally, the CIES senders are about $400 each, (I think I paid $395 but not sure about current pricing), but compare that to the cost for http://www.airpartsoflockhaven.com to overhaul your fuel senders - its not a whole lot cheaper.

Fellow Californian here and my entire premium is a bit under that 1.1%. I suspect you're right about it being non-linear. I seriously doubt someone buying say $50K or less of hull gets the same rate as someone buying over $200K.

Seriously?? Most mooney pilots become very proficient at slowing their Mooney down quite well after several hundred hours. After all, Mooney gear ups happen equally to both the manual gear and electric gear Mooney's virtually every week and often with multiples during the good flying weather. @mike_elliott just made the following comment this morning as well: "...yet maxwell has repaired more gear ups on johnson bar equipped planes. Dont be lulled into thinking it cant happen to you. Very few Johnson bar equipped planes have not been geared up already. " IMO, the reality is we're all but just a timely bad distraction away from a gear up - we're still human, be vigilant!

If that statement is accurate, the issue can't possibly be with your fuel senders. You should know if your fuel senders are working properly by the above observations and if your fuel gauges match what you find sticking the tanks. As Anthony said above, its your annunciator that determines when to light up the low fuel warning based on input from the fuel gauge you can read off your fuel gauge. So if you fuel gauge is not low, the annunciator is the problem. There is a procedure to calibrate your annunciators low fuel warning threshold in the maintenance manual, but what you describe sounds more like an intermittent electrical problem: You don't say, but assuming the fuel gauge did NOT show near empty briefly at the same time, this is really pointing at an intermittent electrical issue that could be in the annunciator or wiring to it. I would begin by reseating the plug in the back of the annunciator. Check the security of the plug connection while re-seating it. I flew with a student once that had to bang the glareshield with his hand every 15 minutes to get an annunciator light to go off because the plug in the back of the annunciator had become too loose over the years.

Yes, I never intended to imply to drop Liability, just Hull coverage. I should have been more clear.

That depends on whether you have one of the modern Mooney annunciators. I don't know what year they started but I can't see my gear down light in daylight if I flp on my nav lights. But I understand you can simply wire this to come on with the master to avoid that problem - or so I have heard. Piper Arrows are even worse. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Congrats Bob! Your bird is under valued by at least 20%! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Given a gear up is likely the #1 cause for totaling vintage Mooney’s why not just self insure the hull entirely if you’re okay absorbing a gear up loss? Enjoy 100% discount. Do the math and see how many years of premiums it takes to earn the hull. I am only at about 1% so I’ll keep it. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The smart decision usually at this point is to go with a modern approved for primary engine monitor rather than spend $ with no return for the old analog gauge. To delay the inevitable, be sure to check eBay and salvage yards. I have the gauge, but don’t think I have the sensor. Make sure you have the right part #, 10V sounds suspiciously like a 231 part # Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You can use the cleaning process, just not the standard glass abrasive that comes with them and commonly used with massive plugs. It will ruin them and can lead to damaging them - in fact it could responsible for the damage done to the above plug. For fine wires we should only use a much larger diameter material such as walnut shell material. https://www.tempestplus.com/Portals/0/PDFs/Sparkplug Cleaning The Right Way 061212.pdf Safe walnut shell abrasive for fine wires: https://aircraft-tool.com/shop/detail.aspx?id=78W&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

I am of the same opinion as Robert simply because whenever pilots discuss insurance the numbers tossed around are an apples to orange comparison and frankly the discussion loses all relevance to me. You can't compare liability between Joe's plane that carries per person sub-limits compared John's policy that is smooth with twice the coverage. Nor can you compare hull value to someones under insured J model to someone else's over insured fancy J model. You can get better just telling us $'s per 1K of hull value but even that loses meaning when the geographical coverage limits only include US for one policy and someone else's includes Central America to Canada & Caribbean etc. Then the big one, a very large faction of pilots sharing their rate information and can only tell us who their broker is; apparently they don't know who their underwriter is - the real insurance company. Bottom line, from a discussion standpoint, I am much more interested in what is happening in the insurance market overall, such as what Parker has been writing about here. Secondly, all pilots need educating on what our policies cover and don't cover, and who is covered, differences between sub-limits and smooth and on an on. That's the kind of discussion we all have an interest in. But when it comes to rates, I can get the real facts that matter, and have relevance to me, from my broker, not here.

There is very little risk of fire as long as the pilot approaches the ground at normal approach speed and has enough room to decelerate without a lot of excess G's. Remember the energy required to be absorbed to stop increases by the square of the ground speed. Furthermore, the tanks are better protected than your earlier comments on bladders helping presumed. There is no fuel directly behind the leading edge of the wing, this is where the aileron push-rod linkages are located. The fuel is behind another aluminum bay. Perhaps why we've never seen fuel leakage from a bird strike that went through the leading edge. A force strong enough to rupture both the leading edge and continue through the aluminum wall into the fuel bay isn't going to be deterred by bladders either. Best defense is to come down as slowly as possible followed by having some room to slow down.

See “Mooney’s answer to the chute” thread. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think airports work since the navigator already has a visual approach to every runway at every airport to use - plus this technology is a long ways off from dealing with engine outs.

I want one! too bad it only comes with the G3000 system, but perhaps there will be an upgrade path for the Gx000 planes (but I doubt the # will pencil out to see that happen)

Remember it takes 2 things to run smooth LOP, mixture distribution is key but so is a healthy ignition system. The ignition system is under a lot more stress LOP than ROP and if there are any issues with it, they'll show up right away under the stress of firing LOP. Hence why we do the LOP Mag test in flight to check it out. So roughness encountered from LOP ops can come from cylinder power imbalance (such as poor mixture) or it can come from faulty ignition leading to premature misfire. Only a review of your downloaded diagnostic engine data can tell you the difference! (although sometimes the cause can be so obvious its clearly visible in flight)

Agreed, it'll probably even clean up just fine. A couple possibilities - was it still firing? (if you have an engine monitor you'd know right away) Can't tell from the picture to see if the plug is actually fouled, i.e. is it shorted out so that it wasn't firing at all when removed? If so, a good plug will look like that pretty quickly if its been cold in the cylinder and what we're seeing now doesn't necessarily mean anything other than a fouled plug. If so, clean and inspect including internal resistance (less than 5K ohms) and gap and re-install and carry-on. But on the other hand it could be sign of an excessively oily cylinder in which case would suggest borescoping the cylinder and you may well see oil pooling in the cylinder since that plug looks oily - not just carbon from being overly rich but excessive oil. If so, look for oil leaking past the rings and/or sucking it in from valve guides. Also your bottom plug is going to be much dirtier than the top - so hope that is a bottom plug

That's okay and in fact I think you can well make the case that the FAA agrees with that sentiment up to a point, CFR 91.207 even says "(f) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to -- ... (9) Aircraft equipped to carry not more than one person." So if it's just you, the FAA agrees entirely. Another exception listed that may apply in spirit to why you perhaps shouldn't be required to have one: "(3) Aircraft while engaged in training operations conducted entirely within 50 nm radius of the airport from such local flight operations began" Perhaps a bit unfair or inconsistent to only grant that to flight training? However, most Mooney's are travelling machines though, and I therefore I do agree with the FAA in that if we have seats to take unsuspecting pax, we should be equipped with an ELT. But even here there is another interesting exception that adds a twist to this from the regs, is that you may still operate the aircraft after removing a faulty ELT for repair or replacement but only for upto 90 days as long as its placarded in plain view of the pilot to show "ELT not installed". You got me wondering when its truly required.

Everything is in the schematic including the location of where it is. Here is a picture of the gear connector that's at the pilots sidewall - just have to pull the pilot seat and raise the carpeting to see it. Actually easily accessed. The picture shows one of the male connectors pushed back out to see them. (also FWIW, its not legal to do "maintenance" without the service manual - its required but of course not always followed)