kortopates

Well said Anthony!

Its really not that hard to pull a wire through the wing or the tail. Perhaps hardest through the cabin if the interior side wall plastic isn't already off. You shouldn't find any of the wires in the belly area of the cockpit, you should find them all along the interior side wall on the pilot side. Pulling the inspection panels in the wing isn't a big job and you're not even pulling every panel but of course easier during annual when you'll already have most of it not all of the ones needed already off. But the string trick to pull one doesn't always work that well. Other tricks that work quite well in longer runs is using a long piece of piano hinge wire but I prefer a long piece of plastic nylo tubing since its not sharp and still flexible. The leading 3-4 feet is made stiff enough to push through holes by heating it with a heat gun. Its works really well. But since you have a strobe lights going out to where you're installing the beacon, and I assume the tail, I also assume you need the wire for the nav-light & transponder since you don't have a nav light on the tail? if so, I think I would prefer to pull a new wire for the beacon power and nav light and put it on its own circuit breaker or the existing transponder CB and always be "on" with the avionics buss on. That way I could retain the strobe switch to turn on/off the strobes. Without the rotating beacon, having the strobes on during the day with the nav lights off is standard practice. The tail position light is superfluous anyway. The UAT always has to be on, so can that tail position light - but just wouldn't want my position lights always switch on with the resulting dimming of my gear down light in the daytime. If really pulling a wire anyway, you have options on how to power it.

Many installations have a separate toggle switch for it on the panel but I assume should have a separate CB on the far right quarter panel that you could pull - right?

The Cirrus AD as mentioned above 2019-08-51_Emergency.pdf

Curious if you have tried just re-booting the EA100? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

BTW, a main reason why the 830 can’t be approved for primary use is that you can’t set a hard redline for the CHT POH limitation (set by Lycoming in your case). It’s the same probe used in primary installations but the end user can set alarms for whatever they want. Primary requires it has to be set per OEM limitations which the unit be customized to your aircraft. Guess the FAA doesn’t trust pilots to set it to the OEM limit and not change it later if the unit allows. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Although you can argue not using all available runway may have made the difference, I don’t think so. The combination of departing in the dark and allowing the plane to drift off left of centerline into the trees is my recollection of what happened. If the plane maintained centerline it would have been fine but he lacked the visual cues in the dark to help track straight where it was mostly clear. Even less right rudder would have brought the plane down sooner even with more runway. ADM (night not being able to see obstacles off to the sides, not using all runway) and basic airmanship (not tracking centerline and never letting the plane accelerate to Vy, maybe not even to Vx given stall horn was intermittently going off the whole departure sequence) I know most blame it on not using all runway, but I thought that wasn’t the big factor most made it out to be - just my option. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just bypass the Whelen power supply - so that the power input wire to the power supply gets connected to the power supply strobe output wire going out to the wing tip - no new wire required. But you may have to change the connector on one side of Whelen power supply so you have both a male and female connector. They should be AMP connectors. That’s what I did and then you can pull your power supply and gain about 2.5 lbs useful. Please verify you have separate leads for Strobe and Nav on SB - people have told me they only had one. But be aware, if not already, that using Nav lights in daylight automatically dims your gear light making it much harder to see the green gear down light in daylight. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

EDM Vs MVP is a deeply personal question. I prefer the EDM 900 for its footprint on the Mooney panel and that it does everything I need. Others prefer the MVP 50 for the larger screen and the fact it provides a lot more sensors - but all of the extra sensors are superfluous to engine management IMO. I don’t really care about gear and flaps position etc nor do I care for the added install complexity and added potential maintenance. Both provide the same GPS integration to the GPS’s for range etc., leaning functions etc... Pick what appeals to you. Not sure about EI install policy but with JPI an owner or shop doesn’t get to specify limits. They take their responsibility seriously and require you to provide a copy of your POH to program all the limits properly. As a primary instrument, the pilot can’t change them. I would imagine EI does the same since end users aren’t that trustworthy to provide all that they need without error. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Doesn’t have to be the ships CHT gauge but you do have to have a CHT gauge approved for Primary. Not just any CHT. The JPI 830 is not approved for anything primary - as stated in their documentation and above by a several. So you could get your OEM one working or buy a separate standalone Primary CHT such as an EI. I assume you don’t want to upgrade your just installed 830 for a 900. With the problems you are having with the 830, I am wondering if you installed a new harness with it. Multiple connection problems are common with worn harnesses with chaffed areas - make sure yours is in good shape. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I was going to attach the AD which answers all the questions - but from my phone with Tapatalk I can’t seem to figure out how. The failure is due to their AOA sensor that was improperly assembled by the manufacturer Aerosonic. A couple setscrews missing loctite become loose on a potentiometer resulting in a loss of AOA which has the system pushing down. Correct response is to dis-engage autopilot system. Didn’t read it that closely but there may have also been either a loss of airspeed indications or perhaps just a Vref speed indication. I’ll post the AD later when I can if someone else doesn’t by then. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ah, good point Anthony, I didn't comment on that because it's superfluous to me since I had his N number But Scott, @231lv, you can post a link to one flight or all flights. I suggest the former, then anyone on Mooneyspace can play with your data using our Savvy tools. It's really not practical any other way. Just go down to the bottom of the page and click where you see Sharing options to generate a link to share with. Savvy has awesome tools! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Scott @231LV, Now we're getting somewhere. But in a sense, you are still getting ahead of yourself, trying to run LOP without collecting the data. I don't mean that critically, but just stating the facts you need 2 things to be able to run LOP and they both need to be verified independently. (perhaps you already did this before since you mentioned an overhaul - but if so that data is stale at this point). But that is what the Savvy test profile is for - to check out your mixture distribution and ignition system. Which is why several folks above that have all been down this road have been giving good advice. Right now I wouldn't even focus on TIT, you need to be looking at EGTs and I see you got some decent data to start. Zoom into 10:30 where you leaned out the engine from ROP to LOP and measure your Gami spread. I get the following: Time: 00:10:28-00:11:32 EGT5 peaked at 10 EGT6 peaked at 9.9 EGT3 peaked at 9.6 EGT4 peaked at 9.5 EGT1 peaked at 9.4 EGT2 peaked at 9 GAMI spread is 1.0 A gami spread of 1.0 isn't sufficient to run LOP - your leanest cyl will flame out, actually seriously start missing, while you're trying to get your richest cyl lean enough. Keep in mind 1 gami spread isn't enough data to make any conclusions. We need to see consistent, repeatable spreads. So I only only refer to your data as an example. In the above data, Cyl #2 (almost) appears as a rich outlier, but it looks like you may need more than one swap to get your mixture to <0.5 GPH. But maybe not, when we discard #2 mixture comes in at 0.6 GPH - pretty close to our target 0.5 - we still need a lot more data. I said almost about #2 being a rich outlier, but it has another issue which tells me we really don't know where Cyl 2 is peaking (especially on only 1 gami spread). You notice how EGT2 keeps rising as you lean? well that is a sign of misfire; which could be due to a weak or dirty plug in #2. But that is what the LOP mag test is for - to independently assess the health of each plug and your ignition system as a whole. Ideally this should be done at 50F LOP, But I expect you'll get roughness before you are able to lean that much so just go as far as you can with a smooth engine and then isolate each mag for a minimum of 10 data points or 30 sec. I expect we'll see some misfire in #2 - which should be easy to address if so. But its looking like to me, that you'll probably have to correct any ignition defects before you can get any accurate gami spread data. But get several gami sweeps done real slowly in both directions from ROP to LOP and back to ROP, followed by the LOP Mag test after slowly going ROP to LOP so you can tell how LOP the test was done - since it puts the results in context. Once you get past any ignition defects and can get good repeatable gami spreads, then you can email your results to John-Paul at Gami and he'll be able to get you what injector swap(s) you may need to get good mixture. But before you collect any more data I suggest you also re-set your EDM sampling rate from its default 6 sec rate to every 1 sec, it will improve the data resolution and improve the diagnostic value tremendously. (The instructions on how to do this in the Savvy Test profile are really for the 730/830 - its a little different in the 900 but close) http://content.savvyanalysis.com/static/pdf/SavvyAnalysisFlightTestProfiles.pdf

Agreed, and I am sure it's there but we have very few of the facts here and assuming way too much. The OP is certainly well intentioned but without all the facts our comments may be far from what the real concerns actually are. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would have them move it out to either under the wing or back under the tail - the rear will work well. But the NACA cockpit air scoops are known poor places. In your defense you can point to JPI install instructions which had they been following would have had them placing it under the co-pilot wing. But many installers use the duct because it simplifies the install tremendously compared to pulling the wire through the wing or tail. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think@Hank nailed it above. I am sure you'll find the material to test the pilot on is an exact extract from the ACS or PTS depending on his certificate. (I've been involved in giving remedial training for pilots who have deviated and the requirements stem directly from the pilots ACS or PTS). I suspect the oral portion is going to be the real test and would suggest he be prepared to discuss in addition to his pre-flight panning procedures, his equivalent of the CARE checklist aloft and his selection of an alternate and especially 91.175 in detail - since it appears he violated that one pretty good. Of course everything else listed is fair game but from the background presented those seem to be some of the key elements that the FAA is concerned about. I doubt the FAA has any concern on his ability to fly an ILS to minimums but probably suspects his poor judgement could have resulted in a much different outcome. His attitude will be critical to success and sorry to say, but right now the first interview isn't predictive of a positive outcome. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's being considered as they look to replace VOR's with a more affordable cost solution as a backup to GPS. I suspect their intended date on that will slip big time! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hate to say it but your mechanic sounds like he is more eager to modify your aircraft rather than maintain it to it's type certificate. It doesn't sound like he has trouble shooted the problem. Absolutely, you want to keep your annunciator working properly. The suction gauge, which is actually standard for example on my 252, is a great supplement to the annunciator but not a replacement for it. You'll likely never notice the gauge indicating an issue while instrument flying but you are much more likely to notice the red light in the annunciator. Anyway I know the company that makes the Annunciator is still in business and servicing them - at very reasonable cost. But issue could be wiring or from my recollection an issue with a vacuum sensor mounted on the back of the attitude indicator. Obviously some troubleshooting is required to track it down but it should be quite fixable. But a little suction gauge is a good addition. But alone would be a downgrade IMO. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You didn't specify a Garmin Service advisory so I checked to see if there was a new one I was unaware and found this one: https://www.garmin.com/en-US/aviationalerts/approval-of-gtx-3x5r-main-software-version-2-52-ads-b-software-version-3-12-gps-software-version-7-0-new-gtx-3x5r-part-number-for-stc-sa01714wi-and-other-misc-updates/ This came out in Feb 12, 2019 and Its says in part: Added processing of Magnetic Heading from an active traffic source The G5 only comes in with the "GAD 29/29B to GTX 3X5(R) interface to provide pressure altitude and airdata" Thus it looks like if you don't have the AP interface nor active traffic it doesn't look it like this update matters but you should check with your avionics installer.

That essentially what I've been doing since eAPIS started. I downloaded the XML schema and use an XML editor to edit it before each submission. Very few fields change between trips so this takes me only a few minutes and then I can submit it. I worked with some woman years ago at their office via email to get all I needed, but my recollection is that the schema is available for download. Their is another document I got that has all the validations in the schema - but I think they are all in the schema so the document is just additional documentation. Back in the early days the user interface was terrible and didn't allow you to save off much info for making future manifest. So my approach saved me lost of time. These days their interface has improved vastly plus their are lots of apps out there that do this much cheaper if not free - or so I am told by other pilots. But since I have my own solution I don't follow the other options. When I did this when I was working, I used XML Spy, now that I am retired I just use a free Windows XML editor. I might have to check out the Excel approach, but it looks like its just substituting Excel for the XML editor - but its critical that Excel be able to validate the XML manifest against the schema - not just provide a template.

I can't call it a safety issue, but I prefer to pump my own fuel so I know exactly how "full" it is if I am filling it. Otherwise if I can't, I'll be sure to be present so I can work with line personnel to get it filled to my standard - especially if I am adding fuel to the extended tanks. But if it's only a minimal amount to defer FBO fees I don't really care and will let the FBO add the 10-15 gal whenever it's convenient for them. But for sure when the differential gets to be over .25 cents and I am putting on a substantial amount - say 30+, that is plenty of incentive to go SS. But it's my desire to be a part of the fueling process that takes on a greater priority no matter the differential. Sitting right seat with many Mooney pilots, I observe our community of pilots fills the entire spectrum. Some will ask for FS without caring what the difference is. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Since your J is early enough to not have wingtips you are fine and should have no problem. All with wingtips though need a strobe in the rear since the wingtips house the strobe and prevent them from being visible from the rear. The current production Mooneys also use an external mounted light that may not need a strobe in the rear and thus may work - but they all have ceilings above 18k. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am surprised so many still using the OEM style towbar. They're terrible and do slide off. I suffered with mine for years till I learned about the Bogert tow bar for the Mooneys. It's far superior and lighter - it's design doesn't require being made out of heavy steel. https://m.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/pspages/bogibars2.php?clickkey=5939697 No relationship with them, just very satisfied with it's much more secure and light weight design. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The good news is you'll only need the special tool for the nose. The weight off the plane on the mains should be enough to compress the new main disks. Do a good inspection looking down inside the top of the shock link tower - it's often corroded. LASAR sells a less expensive PMA'd part. After 53 yes I'd expect to need some new bearings too. (Not expensive) Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My first choice would be an A&P that's good at airframe electrical. An avionics shop would likely swap new parts in - if they'll do the job. These are repairable if you have the patience and not in a hurry. I recently had my rotor in an my alternator short out, but .25 AMU's later I had it repaired with new rotor, brushes and bearings versus over 1 AMU for a replacement alternator.