kortopates

Agreed, and I can't imagine how the FAA folks approved that. It's crazy. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For being only 1-2% of the GA fleet I think we get our fair share of coverage. I agree AOPA has been very neutral. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Although it got to be rare, should this happen in the busy terminal environment its a set up for triggering an RA on a larger commercial plane with it taking evasive action like climbing or descending and then the controller having his/her hands full dealing with the aftermath, or causing a loss of separation. Either way the pilot is going to be in trouble. And Maro's follow up comment suggest its just a matter of time before others unexpectedly run into this. Although Marco is prepared for this, I would think most won't be. So based on my FAASTeam role with my local FSDO seeing pilots get pilot deviation for unexpectedly turning the wrong way over a fix in busy terminal airspace I think its definitely not okay. Ken is really in a bad position with this IMO given his STEC can only do 3/4 standard rate turns leading to extra large 270 pattern (which of course is a separate issue entirely). I am very certain you will merely get an annunciation of "Steep Turn ahead" followed by Garmin's turn anticipation s/w starting the turn inside of the turn to avoid over shooting. But please do report back. So the question remains why would Avidyne treat steep this way and turn off turn anticipation to fly over the waypoint? Has anyone called for an explanation? You'd think the FAA would have required them to annunciate a warning to the pilot akin to garmin's "Steep Turn ahead" to warn you?

That definitely explains it, but is worse than I thought hoping it was an isolated waypoint issue. This is flat out wrong to fly the turn that way and could get anyone that doesn't correct it into trouble if not violated. Avidyne should really correct it - its a safety hazard. That said, real life IFR flight plans that would really have a greater than 135 turn required would be really rare. At least I can't imagine a valid enroute situation that would require that and wasn't a course reversal in an approach ( a course reversal in an approach would be coded differently anyway). But @Marcopolo comment above suggest it still happens though.

The control information (or GPS stearing on what to fly, when to turn) is provided by your Avidyne GPS. The Aspen GPSS just translates that to heading commands for an AP that doesn't know how to interpret GPS stearing commands. Thus the issue is with the Avidyne GPS. There is no such thing as a fly over Fix - only fly over RNAV waypoints - and CROME is a low Altitude enroute Fix thus has to be coded as a Fly By waypoint by definition. So the Avidyne stearing is just plain wrong. Why I don't know. Time to call up their support. Perhaps only a DB coding error. But flying GPSS this way on an IFR flight plan could quickly lead to a pilot deviation as you turn the opposite direction from expected over CROME and IFR separation is lost due to nearby traffic. Let's hope it's an isolated database screw up. Really doubt it's anything to do with your less than standard rate turn issue. Glad you figured this out VFR. Let us know what they tell you. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Turboplus document could have been summed up with how to adjust the Max MAP down by ~2.5" based on OAT relative to ISA and then says to follow the TCM guidance for setting up the fuel system, subject to the reduced MAP. But here you go: TSIO360 Fuel Setup - NEW 08.pdf But SID-97e is very old. The last revision of SID 97-3 was G which was obsoleted a couple years ago by M-0 Standard Practices & Maintenance which replaced 100's of SB's SID's and SIL's which is therefore very large. But I values you need are: GB & LB: 2700 rpm 40.0" (reduced per above) max FF 23.0-24.7 GPH However, at Savvy we recommend using a target FF of 0.5 to 1.0 GPH above TCM's high number (24.7) which yields a target of 25.2 to 25.7 GPH. Of course, your mechanic will need to ensure all the fuel flow set up parameters are in spec after changing any one. These are the idle unmetered fuel pressure and idle mixture (both at idle rpm of 700) and the metered max redline FF per above. FWIW, their is really nothing complicated about the TCM's fuel system, its actually the simplest between Lyc and TCM since it only meters based on volume unlike Lycomings which is much more complicated. The priming system though is unique to the TSIO-360 which was put on for really cold winter starts. None of the big bore Continentals have such a system.

Indeed, a TIT above 1450F is essentially an emergency calling for the boost pump because of the insufficient fuel flow in the more modern POH's where 1450F is called out as a redline limitation for full power TIT. I would get it properly adjusted before further flight.

So much for being at least 35' above the departure end of the runway threshold on IFR takeoff! Wonder what went wrong and if it was in the pre-departure planning or on the take-off roll? Looked pretty close to near disaster. Those poor pilots must have been shaking once they saw the damage to their plane. I would have been.

i am pretty doubtful about the wire run being too close to a power cable and I would think it doesn't get real close to the master relay near the battery, which I think would be a bigger emitter. If it happens again I'd be wondering if you have a defective unit and whether ACK can bench test it to confirm. The owner seemed very responsive with past inquiries.

Yes Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

'bout time Robert!! But no, after what must be at least 3 or 4 years the only false activation I have seen was when I accidentally tripped the panel switch when I was buried under neath the panel and reached up to the top of the panel to help pull myself out. I got that same call within 5 minutes - maybe it was only 3! - and was apologizing to them over the phone for my stupidity. But boy was I happy to see how quickly they are on it should something really happen and I do need help.

Like Paul says above, the 252 is much easier to manage than than the 231 and was my excuse to upgrade to 231 after my wife got her private license. If I had it to do all over again, I woulod have wished I had just skipped the 231 and gone for the perfection in the 252.

It would be good to read you policy and understand what your coverage limits really are. For starters, Traverse is an agency or broker not an underwriter. The actual insurance company that wrote your policy, or the underwriter, that Traverse sold you will be clearly shown on your policy. You should be able to ask your broker to provide a pdf electronic copy of it for you via email. Its a good idea to review, not just to review coverage as you expected, but also for errors. By broker made a few errors including model that even got repeated on subsequent years by the underwriter but were always corrected once I brought them to their attention.

Agreed, back in early 2000's when this Avweb article on the subject was written no one excluded Mexico. But it's possible the insurance company is trying to say Mexico may not recognize your US written policy which is a lie I hear all the time from US brokers that want to sell you more insurance or just don't know any better. https://www.avweb.com/news/insure/181584-1.html Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I got the alert or test on my cell earlier today as well. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed, although the subject is LED's the brightest lights by far (typically a factor of 5) over LED's remain the HID. Mine from knots2u are claimed to be over 600,000 candle power and draw much less power than even the high powered LED's. I've had my set since before the LED's where an option and have been trouble free. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Or you could be turning the knob without turning the shaft of the control under it, if is slipping. A set screw keeps the plastic knob aligned to the shaft.

My suggestion, go through the list of Mooney CFI’s and pick one near where you are purchasing the plane. Secondly, delay departure to a weekday when you have access to a mechanic to fix anything needed after a local shake down and training flight before starting a long x-ctry. Its rarer than you might realize to pickup up a plane new to you without some sqawks even if freshly annual’d. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It is, but does not have a reputation for being friendly enough that it would be recommended for a first timer. A few complaints unfortunately. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wouldn't bother to fly into Nogales, MX just to conduct a couple hours business and depart. Not unless you plan to do more trips into MX soon. The reason being is that you'll have to buy the entry permit at near $100, spend near a couple hours going through the paper work lines and then when you depart, its another international flight out that requires extra time to process. Save flying the trip to Mexico for when you are headed to a fun destination and have a long weekend or more. Unless you want to use the trip to get your Mexican Multi-entry permit out of the way for another trip(s) down before the end of the year when the multi-entry permit will expire.

Its much worse than that, its changes the type of policy from pleasure flying to operating the plane as a business which means $$$$

Virtually everyone buys the Mooney first and then gets transition training in their Mooney. What you are looking for is a school or club with a Mooney. The CFI will be come with the school or club. That’s the only way you’ll get left seat dual in a Mooney you don’t own. Many Mooney CFI’s here, but none of us carry the additional insurance required to rent our planes and most of us wouldn’t want too. There are a couple of such schools here in Southern California, but I have never heard of any in Texas. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As above, with a good flow meter like the Precise Flight A5 and a pulse Oximeter. The good flow meters aren’t marked in volume but in altitude. That gets you started and then you fine tune based on your spo2. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe, but my point is that with out the widespread cooperation of everyone involved, afforded by not allowing them to be used in that manner, the NTSB reports would loose their credibility and would have very little value to any of us.

Not a lawyer but it seems obvious the role of the NTSB would severely be impeded if their findings were allowed to be used as evidence in court. The goal of the NTSB is entirely to promote safety by not assessing blame but by getting all experts together to work cooperatively to determine what may have gone wrong and to make recommendations to avoid similar outcomes in the future. Cooperation would end the second those involved believed their admissions could possibly be used against them as evidence for negligence, admitting fault, wrong doing etc. I don't know to what extent the participants are protected but clearly without the provision to not treat the reports as evidence they would not get the necessary cooperation they need to do their job.