kortopates

Think you got the help on codes you requested but understand that is not going to solve the issue you raise. Even without filing /G on a domestic flight plan they'll assume you are GPS equipped even when not because so few of the aircraft they work with aren't GPS equipped these days. You just need to be proactive about what you need. That is, as soon as your talking to approach near enough to your destination, tell them you have the Atis and are requesting what ever (ground based) approach you want or the visual. I always do that and have the approach loaded and briefed before I leave the enroute structure on vectors - and I almost always get what I request. But with very few surprises that way. Of course it helps to have familiarity with the airspace as well. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

After listening to the tape I couldn't believe the pilot had a current flight review and wondered if he has a medical and if the airplane had even yet been annual'd or if he had a ferry permit. I searched the airman's database. I couldn't find any Larry Nelson in CO in the database that would be a potential match (assuming he really was a CFI at one time); and I also tried Lawrence and Laurence. I then tried Larry Nelson's throughout the country and none of the 22 hits looked like a good match to this gentlemen's credentials sited by his daughter and none of the possible ones had a active medical - but if he just got one that wouldn't show up this soon anyway. I reviewed Beechtalk's thread on this too, (I saw at least one of you here also contributed to that thread), and another very interesting witness account was revealed. It was pasted in as a graphic and was relayed second hand by a co-worker. But it says the co-worker stopped by the plane and pilot on ramp because the cowling was open and he had a broken dzus fastener and another one messed up so bad that it wouldn't hold either. So the pilot asked this guy if he had any tape to secure it, and the guy said he then noticed "several other fasteners were being held shut by blue painters tape". It doesn't relay any discussion about actually trying to fix these discrepancies but goes on to say the co-worker apparently called the tower to see if the tower had authority to call this plane back to the ramp. Given the witness account, it appears very unlikely he even had a Ferry permit; let alone an annual. I doubt an A&P would risk their cert by signing off an airplane with broken fasteners not holding that would be pretty easy to fix before flying to CO. Another item I noticed on the audio tape, assuming the audio tape wasn't shortened, there clearly wasn't time for a rusty pilot to do a meaningful run-up after he arrived at the runway area and before he took off. He starts taxing at 24:00 when the controller tells him right on Alpha and at 24:30 he's on Alpha when the controller tells him next left to Alpha One and then 45 sec later at 25:15 he is calling tower for departure and the ensuing discussion on deployed speed brakes begins. Did he do a runup on the FBO ramp after startup or did he really depart without one? We don't know, only that there was very little time between arriving at the runway and departing. If the pilot was having a medical event that was going on pretty much the entire time wouldn't that it make it very unlikely he'd be able to get as far as he did to KSAF? Not conclusively, but sure seems unlikely. If he did have a ferry permit, he would have been limited to day VFR only, yet it was dark at his arrival to SAF and apparently not talking to tower when he went down a mile from the airport. I'll leave out my thoughts about 3 of the 5 hazardous attitudes for now in case this really was a medical issue. But it was so sad to hear this plane depart with an obviously very rusty pilot that shouldn't have been flying alone; especially on x-country flight in the mountains in a plane with questionable airworthiness concerns and at night. I can't help but wonder why his daughter didn't intervene.There was also reference to him following her on a x-country solo flight years ago implying she was also a pilot; at least years ago. Regardless though, I really believe there are take away's for us all by trying to understand these disasters and what we might do to avoid these. We're all getting older! One I've learned about from discussing some similar ones is the need for us aging pilots to appoint someone else we trust that's knowledgeable about our flying skills that can tell us when its time to start hanging it up or to really increase our level of currency training and increase our personal minimums. We really need to be able to trust objective criticism about our decreasing abilities when the time comes.

I don't understand your point, none of those TRACONS are as large or as busy as the SOCAL TRACON that @ilovecornfields was giving the example case for using FF. Based on FY16 data, SOCAL is the busiest and largest in the world with over 2 1/4 million operations over 18,000 sq mi of airspace, New York is #2, and then NORCAL is #3 and nothing else tops 1.5 mill operations. POTOMAC is #4, Philadelphia-Consolidated is a distant #10. In my busy SOCAL airspace, as a Lead FAASTeam rep we are doing everything we can to get GA private pilots to use FF when VFR. In order for us to be able to share the complex airspace with the rest of users we really need to help ATC do their job in separating traffic by participating in the system. We are constantly in danger in loosing more of our airspace to Class B or C largely because of the pilots who refuse to participate making it much harder for the rest of us. Especially the latest fastest growing segment of pilots that think because they have Ads/B In that they can be their own controller! Others have made the case for benefits of FF, but I am making the case that if we all work together and participate by talking to ATC they have far less reason to take away more of our airspace. Some examples of how non-participating aircraft create a pain for the the system are: We get GA pilots flying right up to the boundary of class B not intending to penetrate it but since they're not talking to ATC, the controllers have no idea what their intentions are. So when a controller sees a plane squawking 1200 headed for an IFR commuter or airline he's not going to wait to see what you do but start moving the airliner, since Class B airspace deviations are common. And if conditions are right between the two planes, like a climbing GA plane and a descending airliners (vice versa) our actions can cause a TCAS RA and the detecting traffic has to take immediate action increasing everyone else's workload because someone thinks its their right to fly around on the edge of busy airspace without talking too anyone. These actions will just cause us to continue to loose more airspace. For example, for the past decade we've been fighting to keep Long Beach airspace (under the Bravo) from going Class C, but it appears we may be losing the battle and pretty soon. Other problems are that unless your mode C altitude has been verified by talking to you, they can't trust it and have to give you a larger bubble of airspace. I am sure all participants have heard the the controller call out a target and say "altitude unverified". I implore anyone that feels they don't need to participate to take a tour of their local TRACON, they are generally available. My TRACON does one every month and I schedule tours for all my students. I am confident that once more knowledgeable from attending such a tour all will make the right decision to use FF. Even going out to the practice area to do maneuvers. Also we're very fortunate to have a Controller responsible for doing outreach with a suitable budget and time to give presentations to our pilots throughout the TRACON. Its truly a 2 way street and we've given him an education from our perspective that controllers have to be there for us, so recognizing it can be tough sale for some pilots that don't want to talk, he listens to pilot concerns about being dropped etc and takes those back to his colleagues and its made a positive impact on our services here as well. We have for the most part only a couple sectors that can get so overwhelmed that they really do don't have time to give VFR FF. But even when that's happening the better ones keep you N number and say they'll call you back in 10 minutes (its almost always just a few minutes later) or some will ask you to call them back in 10 minutes.

I certainly agree with you there that any increase in air or fuel causes this positive feedback loop to reinforce it. But make sure it isn't being triggered by some misfire for the reasons I mentioned. I see it a lot and deeper you go LOP, the more sensitive you are to this since power is beginning to drop off quickly. If I recall correctly, you're a client of ours so don't hesitate to send create to send an analysis request and I'd be happy to help you look at it. But include it with some Savvy test profile data so we can check both mixture and ignition. What your describing seems a bit severe for changes I would consider are pretty normal for a manual wastegate. Anyway don't hesitate to send in some data. There was some changes to the latest fuel pump configuration if you got your part no on it updated as well to the latest configuration. They added a galley that now allows fuel to pass through at ICO, unlike prior configurations, affecting the previous recommend method of circulating hot fuel with the pump at ICO for hot starts - now you have to be careful not to flood the engine using that technique. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Technically bootstrapping is when the turbo can no longer maintain the target Upper Deck Pressure at the current altitude and current RPM and MAP fluctuations begin to occur. It's easy to confirm by increasing RPM by another 100 rpm and the bootstrapping will cease till climbing higher. Even without looking at his data, I am pretty sure what is causing [mention=15449]ziggysanchez[/mention] issue is running too deaply LOP for either the ignition system or mixture distribution. This typically leads to some misfire in the leaner cyl, which raises EGT and TIT and sets off a positive Feedback loop with the turbo spinning faster from the hotter exhaust, raising MAP and increasing FF as a result which reinforces higher MAP till the pilot fixed it. But yes, without a real controller, the pilot will need to fix it with adjustments to the controls. Diagnostic data would be required to tell if mixture distribution or the ignition system is driving it. But it could also be that the engine is being operated deeper LOP than necessary for the % power. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Cool - you obviously have some experience with them this then. But quite as bit of cool new features that really add new capabilities starting with the much improved graphics I know you are familiar. But also new leg capabilities like the heading leg so common on missed approach segments and departures and RF leg segments that open up new approaches (something that the Avidyne boxes can't fly) and the VNAV capabilities are amazing when you consider it's integrated into your autopilot! Voice commands are slick too, but the FS510 which transfers all DB updates seemlessly is also really cool. IMO it's a very big step forward. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sounds like you haven't flown behind one of the GTN's or Avidyne's yet? Frankly, Aspen's make me yawn, like a pair of G5's with double selectable inputs for 2 navcoms/gps's with very little AP integration - but with all due respect to those that fly with one.

They were never $250, I was a early adopter while the STC was still pending. I recall more like $400 each which is a great price considering airparts of lockhaven charges something around $350-$395 to overhaul them. So I think your $1740 price suggest a $35 markup as best as I can tell.

I am not sure I understand why there is an issue since you have to manually keep from overboosting with less throttle. Its should not be all the way forward but whatever it takes to make 37". Gently keep advancing till you have near 37" without overboosting. If you are trying to do that, I suspect you are advancing it too quickly. Also make sure oil temp is over 100F and cyl CHTs are 250F or higher before going to full power. Edit - BTW from your description when you say MAP went over redline I assume you are saying MAP went over 40" which is what is causing your excessive FF. How high did MAP and FF go? Did you look at your downloaded engine data yet? Although your max FF may simply need adjustment, it sounds more like engine is just overboosting from too much throttle - but I may not be understanding your description correctly.

These kind of CHT indications are not that uncommon and are typically due to baffling. CHT3 is the main cyl with larger fluctuations. Initially CHT3 starts to fluctuate after both the plane has leveled off and ground speed has come up to cruise. Then we see fluctuations of 8-10F over about a 1 min period. Over more time in cruise, they get as large as 15F over a slightly faster period of 50 sec. CHTs 1,5, & 6 are all very stable and we see a very normal typical fluctuations in the 2-4F range in cyl #2 & #4 also - which are very typical. We also see a big more fluctuation in CHT5 in climb only, yet it stabilizes in cruise. Whereas CHT3 is pretty stable in climb but fluctuates in cruise. This is typically due to the changing air flow dynamics in the cowling. We also often see these appear right after the cowling has been R&R's with maintenance and then go away when its R&R'd again. So it could be pinched or flexible baffling that got bent the wrong way. But since this is a middle cylinder we also recommend checking the inter-cylinder baffling to make sure that's secure and not moving around. But more likely its the silicone flexible baffling and could also be a sign of its wear. Incidentally, we would not pronounce a poor electrical connection or interference from noisy ignition wires or high current without a much faster period and typically a poor connection or chaffed wires results in much larger fluctuations. But it never hurts to check the security of the connection and wiring when the cowling is off.

I think you mean Breakdown Assistance rather than Maintenance. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mechanics don't do the test as part of the install. You have to fly the savvy profile to measure it. Your EDM also has to have the fuel flow option to measure it. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would advise not to run out to clean them. First measure your gami spread via the Savvy Test profile after making sure you have a 1-2 sec data capture rate to get good data. Then see what your gami spread is, only if its degraded or 0.5 or higher would cleaning be warranted. You may be surprised to realize this but the injector environment needs to be so clean that maintenance practice of cleaning injectors often does more harm by introducing debris and nicks of injector o-rings than it does good cleaning them. Which is why we recommend only cleaning them on condition i.e. when the spread degrades. absolutely, for exactly the reason that @Andy95W refers to above. Virtually any pilot that has been running LOP long enough will see their gami spread degrade over time as the injectors get dirty. Maybe sometimes its just varnish buildup, but its real and from the data I see its much more common in turbo's than NA aircraft. In turbo's our injectors are also being pressurized with Upper Deck Pressure air which is another source of debris or dirt that can get in and clog the injector. Very small clogs are not going to create a rough running engine ROP but by making it peak too early it will prevent it from running LOP smoothly since the lean outlier will be flaming out while your richest is trying to get LOP. But cleaning the injectors is the first step to restoring good mixture distribution when it has degraded over time. Nevertheless, its never a good idea to adopt a cleaning schedule based on time in service, like the example A36 pilot above, because cleaning them is one of the most common causes of a partially blocked injector. They should only be cleaned when necessary.

Yes, Virtually identical with the electric too - 3 seconds of holding switch up then back to neutral to hold them in T/O or approach position. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

When Mooney went to the electric flaps they were all "infinitely adjustable" so to speak - a bit of a plus but more of minus when you want to raise them to T/O position when doing a GA. When Mooney re-introduced the J in the early 90's they did so with a 3 position detent switch which is really nice and works the same way all of us have experienced in the C172 trainers. The big advantage is you don't have to look at them to raise to T/O on the go - just move up to the T/O detent by feel. They also had the added advantage of a higher v speed for initial t/o or approach flaps. This improvement never made it to the long bodies AFAIK till the G1000 Mooneys since the G1000 also was based on 3 position flaps. I imagine it would be possible to retrofit the J's 3 position detent system, but likely only if you have a 28V system (unless if Mooney made a retrofit kit for 14V systems?). Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is nothing new about the fire-resistant synthetic MIL-PRF-83282. I understand most military aircraft were using it by 1985. It has total compatibility with the oil based 5606. It has other benefits in it's temperature range for stabilizing viscosity over a larger range that is perhaps more applicable to turbo flying up high, but it also last longer in service and is not prone to geling with time in service. Interesting on the concern for leaks but I have never experienced what might be referred to as premature leaking like we have seen in engines with multi-weight synthetics. Maybe it's a sign that seals are ready for replacement anyway? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Most likely normal with a non-standard CHT probe in #1 - your left rear cylinders. Check@DVA number 3 item above. EGT is normal. If it is a spark plug probe you'll want to replace it with an Adapter probe that piggy backs onto the OEM probe. If it is a piggy back probe already, make sure its still covered with firesleeve and not exposed to air. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just to be clear, sticking valves a.k.a. "morning sickness" is different from wobbly valves also mentioned above which I think was in the context of FEVA - our Failed Exhaust Valve Analysis algorithm which is executed automatically when you upload data to Savvy and then used to alert subscribers of potential failed/burnt exhaust valves. The burnt exhaust valve can often be recognized because the valve is sticking in rotation - not sticking closed or open - which results in a what we call a FEVA EGT pattern recognized by our software. To detect morning sickness when the valve sticks (i.e. is not opening and closing properly), we need your engine analyzer recording at engine startup. All the TSO'd for primary analyzers are wired to the main buss (as required by being primary) so that they are on when the engine is started. Often the sticking valve only last a few seconds after startup while the oil is cold and then stops sticking as it warms until the day comes when it starts sticking in cruise leading to a bent pushrod or worse. The non-primary engine analyzers are often wired into the avionics buss and therefore aren't on when the engine is started so that we are likely to miss a sticking valve at startup unless it sticks long enough to caught when your monitor does come on line. But we've still caught a few here in Mooney's with non primary monitors. For data capture rate, we (I) want to see your fastest supported rate upto 1 sec. Many of the non-primary ones only support a 2 sec rate, like the EDM-830 or the older 700 series which is actually a good compromise with those with smaller memory. Some like the Avidyne only support a 6 sec rate (which is terrible for getting good data resolution). But most of the primary ones including the EDM 900 series support a 1 sec rate which is the best rate for diagnostic value e.g., getting good gami data and interpreting LOP Mag checks. For example, for the LOP Mag check we need to see a minimum of 10 data points on each individual mag as well as on both in between isolated mags while EGTs fall back down to stabilize; or minimum of 30 sec (since 10 sec with the 1 sec capture rate is sill too short). But with a 6 sec default data rate, that takes a full minute to get 10 data points that are very far apart and not nearly as good data as 30 sec at 1 sec rate for seeing issues. Some of you may know that while you have your modern EDM monitor is in "Lean Find LOP or ROP" mode the analyzer switches to 1 sec data rate on it's own, but that short period is not enough when we are trying to diagnose engine anomalies and looking at data in all phases of flight. We want the data capture rate at a constant 1-2 sec rate; which ever your monitor supports. This is also covered in our Savvy Test profile document online at Savvy http://content.savvyanalysis.com/static/pdf/SavvyAnalysisFlightTestProfiles.pdf

We had a similar bug on the Garmin side that took a few weeks for them to resolve since they have a lot of testing to do. But in that case ADS/b data from the GTX345 was overloading the processor in the GTN gps's causing them to go blank for several seconds. The Aspen issue sounds very similar but more frequent and more drastic since it's your flight instruments on the PFD. Haven't heard of anyone complain about the bug though. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There are multiple ways but this site is very popular https://visitedstatesmap.com/

As a CFI I highly recommend you get the written out of the way before starting training. It's the most effecient and improves your education in the cockpit. I have yet to see the pilot that wasn't delayed in some fashion but not taking care of the written before starting flight training. You do NOT need to find a CFI first to take the written, but you will need a signoff but that's easy. You have many self paced home study programs that will prepare you for the written. Cost vary from what they provide but pick one that is comprehensive to include practice exams and a completion certificate that entitles you to take the written. The most Popular ones are Gleim at cheaper range to King Schools at the more expensive upper end. All of the comprehensive ground school self study programs will provide you with a completion certificate that will enable you to take the written at any approved testing center. But if you have a local community college nearby with a pilot program that is by far your best option and also your cheapest. In a semester you can get the most comprehensive ground School education that goes beyond the exam and for practicaly free. I teach at such a college. Before tsking the exam, besure to Practice the written exam questions until you are repeatedly above 90%; preferably higher. For Each question you get wrong, the pilot examiner is required to quiz you on that topic during your practical; so your practical will go much smoother for you with a good score. With written completed go interview a few CFIs and pick one you think you'll enjoy working with. I would personally suggest an experienced independent instructor that's teaching because they love it over a wet 250 hr CFI teaching only to build the pre-req hours for a flying job. Meanwhile go sign up with AOPA for their free student pilot periodical "Flight training" - I think they'll give you a free 6 months. But you'll want to join for all the great resources they provide student pilots. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

See https://planeplastics.com/product-category/airplane/mooney/ Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Neither actually. Those are identical. There is a synthetic that is fully compatible to 5606H you show above. Has some improved properties in addition to not burning. Here is a link to the Royco brand https://www.skygeek.com/royco-782-synthetic-fire-resistant-hydraulic-fluid.html Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I see what you mean! The mid body's went too a different parking brake valve that is downstream past the master cylinders, about under the rear seat. Your earlier one looks like it prevents fluid from going back into the reservoir? No idea when they changed, but more the J so I expect your right about which one Chris has. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The 2 independent lines through the parking brake don't interconnect except through a valve mechanism. Depending on which O-rings are leaking it could very well only leak out from one side - not necessarily both sides. I forget exactly, but I recall at least 4 O-rings. Hope that clarifies. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk