kortopates

I wasn't aware of the different panel's between inadvertent and known ice. In the Cirrus, the inadvertent panel do not have the same coverage as the KI which makes a big difference. But I wish CAV was more upfront about the differences. I can't help but imagine that CAV would have never gone to the KI panels if they could have met the protection requirements with the earlier panels. Why else would they go to all that expense unless getting certification requirements demanded it. Consequently there has to be some advantages in the newer panels in meeting the known ice protection requirements. At least I'd really like to know.

Ironically you are both quoting the same thing (essentially) and getting different interpretations. Our current icing guidance stems from the Bell legal interpretation letter that was to revise the FAA's stance that for a couple years preceding it was pretty close to saying known icing conditions where as simple as visible moisture at and below 32F. But the Bell letter was in response to an up roar that such an interpretation was totally unreasonable. I thought Rags did a good job of summarizing (its the same way I look at it) and the more recent AD put out in 2015 is directly in response to the legal interpretation of 2009. In understanding known Icing conditions its important to digest this paragraph from the legal definition: The formation of structural ice requires two elements: 1) the presence of visible moisture, and 2) an aircraft surface temperature at or below zero degrees Celsius. The FAA does not necessarily consider the mere presence of clouds (which may only contain ice crystals) or other forms of visible moisture at temperatures at or below freezing to be conducive to the formation of known ice or to constitute known icing conditions. There are many variables that influence whether ice will actually be detected or observed, or will form on and adhere to an aircraft. The size of the water droplets, the shape of the airfoil, and the speed of the aircraft, among other factors, can make a critical difference in the initiation and growth of structural ice. Most flight manuals and other related documents use the term "known icing conditions" rather than "known ice," a similar concept that has a different regulatory effect. "Known ice" involves the situation where ice formation is actually detected or observed. "Known icing conditions" involve instead circumstances where a reasonable pilot would expect a substantial likelihood of ice formation on the aircraft based upon all information available to that pilot. While "known icing conditions" are not defined by regulation, the term has been used in legal proceedings involving violations of FAA safety regulations that relate to inflight icing. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has held on a number of occasions that known icing conditions exist when a pilot knows or reasonably should know about weather reports in which icing conditions are reported or forecast. In those cases the pilots chose to continue their flights without implementing an icing exit strategy or an alternative course of action and the aircraft experienced heavy ice formation that validated the forecasted danger to the aircraft. The Board's decisions are consistent with the FAA's long-held position in enforcement actions that a pilot must consider the reasonable likelihood of encountering ice when operating an aircraft. The reality is it all comes down to our planning and what we do when we encounter known icing. The key thing is when we venture into conditions where icing is possible, we need to have sure thing exit strategies available to us, such as descending to warmer air. And we can't continue on failing to take action before it becomes too late. But if we venture into possible icing conditions without any possible escape plan and/or wait too long to take any action we're pretty much asking to be made an example of enforcement action; if we actually survive the experience.

JPI has gotten pretty good at fixing the MAP oscillations within their firmware. It seems very few installations require installing a snubber in the line but occasionally they'll give the client one when the s/w fails to smooth it.

Maybe what you really want is a reaction at the thread level rather than individual post level. But I know nothing of what the platform supports. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They're mostly not tight on the IO-550 unless they came with TCM position tuned injectors. Those typically get the engine close to .5 but it's rare to see better. Better typically requires Gami's which we all understand we can always keep improving on when ever necessary with injector swaps. But With TCM position tuned injectors there is no adjusting or swapping. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not saying its a bad idea or wouldn't be helpful to some people. But its a lot of work and although I could be terribly wrong I just don't see Craig wanting to take all that on without it being entirely s/w driven by features he can simply turn or enable. Otherwise it seems like a lot of work for someone(s) to do for an unknown value - if any. By monitoring recent activity, everyone can see what threads that are being added too regularly and where the current activity is. By googling outside of Mooneyspace, folks can search for a topic or item they want to learn about before posting - but few do and we repeat the same topics over and over again. Which is okay, but we often get more than one thread on even the same news event, such as an accident. But I personally don't like the idea of the someone summarizing or editing a thread to condense the gold nuggets of wisdom, since the value of the information herein is what people gleam from the post. Different people will get different points etc. Of course this is only the opinion of myself and I have absolutely no say whatsoever. Its totally in Craig's court But I am all for keeping the site as easy or as simple for him to administrate as possible.

A prop strike that wasn't fully inspected would have most people either passing or at least negotiate the cost down to include an engine IRAN and expect ~ 3 month down time. Although legally a shop can return to service an engine after a prop strike without a tear down based on complying only with the legally required AD 2004-10-14 (which is largely based on complying with SB475C). But recognize Lycoming's recommendations to complete a full IRAN per the above referenced Lyc SB533C. The owner chose not to comply since it's optional for a part 91 operator, its only legally binding for commercial operators. Yet no insurance company would refuse to comply with it ; after all we've all seen anecdotal evidence of crank failures after a prop strike that wasn't properly inspected. Some failures have occurred shortly after and others haven't till many years after. Yet we can only speculate why the owner didn't comply. Did he lose his insurance after the first episode and thus didn't have the money being self insured? Or did he purposely not file a claim since he would expect to not be able to get insurance again after 2 prop strikes or claims in such a short period. But the only remaining question that really matters to you, is do you want to roll dice and fly a prop strike engine that hasn't properly been inspected. It could be a ticking time bomb putting not just you at risk you, but your family and other unsuspecting people. If something does happen down the road, expect the first thing the lawyers will notice that the prop strike in the logs wasn't fully inspected against the advice of the manufacturer and best practices in the industry regardless of whether or not it had anything to do with the mishap that got them involved. Here is an article that explores this more: https://www.avweb.com/news/features/The-Prop-StrikeSudden-Stop-222325-1.html

If it leaves the option of subrogation open to the insurance company its really not coverage at all - at least not coverage under the open pilot definition we can count on. On the gear up claim example, you imply that if the company subrogates to recover their loss, blaming someone that falls under the open pilot, that it isolates the named insured from fault? How so, it does nothing to erase the claim and the named insured will have to declare it on future insurance apps and I suspect take the same hits for having the claim regardless of whether their company was successful subrogating. Please correct me if I am mistaken. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If the engine wasn't IRAN'd, just complied with the Lyc SB, I wouldn't even consider it. Too much risk. As long as it was insured, no insurance company would have refused to IRAN a prop strike since there is too much liability exposure down the road. Sorry, but this is enough reason to not to purchase an aircraft. Its one of the biggest mistakes people make - I liked @Boilermonkey analogy of a mail order bride. Surely you can afford a airline fare over a weekend to go see it. You should be!!! pictures aren't enough.

Seems like a lot of work when simply googling "mooneyspace jackscrew" brings up the thread at the top of the list. Google works pretty good for me. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you want further background on this, this article should help. https://www.savvyaviation.com/wp-content/uploads/articles_eaa/EAA_2014-11_prebuy-dos-and-donts.pdf Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So true. This article helps explain these terms pretty well. https://aircraftandmarine.com/aircraft-insurance-basics Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I can't explain it either, but it's been a common issue enough that any installer should be well aware of it these days. I am sure Jerry can explain it. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not unless they are a named insured, just like yourself. Otherwise it's as Vance explained above. Next you'll want to understand the difference between sub-limits versus smooth; probably the second most miss understood aspect of insurance. These days the typical sub-limits of 100K is nothing. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In principal I totally agree, but at Savvy we'd recommend turning the pre-buy into an annual AFTER you own it. Reason being that if anything goes sideways during the annual you as the buyer have no say, only the legal owner of record. You can't legally direct the annual till you are the owner.

Exactly, as I suggested Jimmy at AA above.

Any good avionics shop doing a new panel is quite capable of CNC'ing a new panel customized to whatever you and the shop arrive at for the layout. They can cut it to your panel dimensions just as easily as they can cut the holes for your new instruments/glass. Changing the dimensions though I can't help but I would expect to be much more involved than just the panel.

I personally wouldn't put any stock in the opinion of the bank providing financing. They look at risk much like insurance company's. The real issue here is a lack of facts. If the airplane engine has not been IRAN'd with prop OH'd with new blade(s) or whatever it needed even though the Lycoming SB doesn't directly require an IRAN, then that is very reasonable to pass on the aircraft. Afterall, every insurance company will pay for the IRAN and prop (with the owner paying for betterment) because they realize that the saving not to do so is small versus the risk of being wrong and the exposure to a major lawsuit later. So anytime this isn't done, all we know for sure is the plane was self insured. But if indeed the engine and prop were both IRAN's or Majored then that defies all logic. For all practical purposes the engine and prop that were damaged have in essence been replaced with IRAN'd or OH's ones whether its just parts or entire components. But many owner/prospective buyers are similar in their response and want no part of it; including a gear up that happened years ago with all damage replaced. But if you're seeking an "expert" I suggest Jimmy G at All American - as a Broker he has to deal with both the wide array of prospective buyers and the finance companies. I'd trust his advice to be well grounded.

I think no damage history refers to no "incidents" or "accidents" for the most part. But of course there are exceptions and I've seen lots of hangar rash that isn't typically referred to as Damage History. But severe cases, such as an airplane that fell off the jacks and needed a new prop and engine teardown. I personally wouldn't view that as damage history assuming engine was at least IRAN'd and bent prop blades replaced (like what happened to Don K) although some might - but holes through the wing skin would certainly be considered damage history by most.

Those prices are directly from Spruce for my 40-86 wheels: 1x 154-00800 Felt $24.60 2x 153-00900 Rings $45.50 Total ~$135 I recall reading about your flood water damage and replacing your bearings. Glad it was just the wheels, we've seen many aircraft totalled for flood damage here.

Damage history is one of those things that raises a guttural response in many pilots. It’s certainly fair or true to say there is a loss in resale value due to stigma with damage history. But for damage that has been replaced with new parts, like the typical gear up, where all damage has been removed, the stigma should fully be gone after a few annuals. That’s my logic anyway, but pilots vary all over the place in this regard! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good point to verify. I assumed re-usable since they are held in with the same original snap ring and thus with that removed I expected removal to be the same. These only substitute for the 2 metal washers and felt. On the mains, the new molded bearing is MUCH cheaper than the parts its replaces - we just don't ever need to replace them: Felt grease seal $24.60 and 2x Grease Rings @ 45.50 ~$135 a side of a wheel. For the nose the cost look pretty equivalent. But the bearings, if you source them from Cleveland the cup and bearing cone total $192.50! Of course sourcing for Timiken is cheaper, but it puts the Cleveland grease seal parts cost in perspective. I think your right when it comes to the Nose wheel, but the main's still look worthwhile - As long as these new molded bearings do last indefinitely like the parts they're replacing. But I am only guessing they're not expendable.

I believe its to prevent rotation of the two ring connectors, which then would lead to a loosening of connection. All other ring connectors on our Mooneys are mostly on a fixed terminal post that doesn't move unlike these two wires connected by a screw and in free space (not supported). Both rings are smooth and thus only tightness of the screw prevents them from rotating till the star washer is fitted between them. Regarding the CHT probe going bad, the above points wasn't about different failure modes, that a whole other discussion topic, but about the fact most report accurate data till they fail in pretty obvious ways - typically with big fluctuations or very questionable indications. An EGT probes that dies from tip erosion are an exception is that you may notice TIT readings significantly higher with a new probe.

That's true about most probes - never any degradation in performance other than failure - especially CHT probes which will usually fail at the wire junction at the base of the probe. But EGT probes suffer from tip erosion and will tend to indicate lower than actual temperature when they get significantly eroded. Not a big deal for most since we don't tend to worry about absolute EGTs but it becomes important for those managing their TIT temps. The star washer between between the terminals is often overlooked by installers. But the biggest sin I see installers doing repeatedly is routing harness wires with ignition wires which adds considerably noise to the readings and I suspect its common because unsuspecting owners don't realize what they are missing out on without the noise.

That's very interesting to hear about differences between US and Canadian regs. I'd say though that in the US the onus is on both "inspector" and the pilot. I used inspector only because it becomes relevant for the maintainer when signing off on the annual inspection, but not for ordinary maintenance. But the onus is on the pilot with every flight. But yes, the FAA holds us both accountable here. In some respects it makes sense, in that most owners, especially new owners, aren't going to be able to research applicable AD's alone and really do need the advice of their maintenance professional to interpret and comply. Nor do owners necessarily even have access to the resources maintainers are required to have. Realistically every maintainer is an also an educator for their pilot/owner clients on the acceptable maintenance practices and regulations. I wonder if this difference has anything to do with why the limited reciprocity rules between US and Canada for maintaining each others registered aircraft in that the FAA doesn't allow a Canadian AME to do annuals on US registered aircraft? But its probably more complicated than that because I assume Transport Canada maintains their own database of ADs.