kortopates

The FAA claims the use of a glide slope or always using the CDFA technique I referenced in the above AC is "safer" than the old "dive and drive" method we used to fly NPA's. This is the whole basis of Advisory Glide slope since it's automated the charted descent angle on the IAP. But thank you for making my point - it's no where near enough for a student to just be able to mechanically fly these different procedures. The pilot needs to understand their differences and meanings to avoid the many gotchas that are possible; especially following the advisory Glide slope below MDA. Some may recall that a few years ago the FAA went wild removing charted descent angles from the database procedures (actually re-coding them to zero) on many approaches where the VGSI was not co-incident to GS because pilots were screwing up. So that would be in point in favor of your argument - if pilots blindingly follow a GS. But with the knowledge of how to fly these approaches the CDFA technique to fly a stabilized approach with advisory Glide slope is definitely a safety enhancement. But where the box has simplified the mechanics of flying difficult approaches the knowledge required and the avioincs to do so are far more complicated than ever before for our GA pilot. As an example, perhaps the most challenging aspect of instrument flying before GPS was partial panel, but with WAAS it's very easy to fly approaches to ATP standards with the same otherwise legacy 6 pack panel. That’s a huge safety enhancement right there. Working with a lot of pilots that were originally trained with only ground based nav (like myself) it's no surprise to me that they still tend to rely on ILS approaches rather than GPS since they haven't yet mastered their avioincs nor become educated on all the different GPS approaches. They probably make up half of the folks I work with. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Fair enough Andy. I say that because although the mechanics of flying them aren't hard but it takes typically longer than 20 hrs for most to master the buttonology on the boxes. Plus there are 6 different types of GPS Approaches not counting RF legs that a waas box is capable of and getting into the nuances of each and their differences takes time. The written is catching up but instruments students are still sorely lacking in knowledge on these. The beauty is that flying them is much easier than say an old DME arc to an ILS once we have the GPS, but now mastery of the avioincs is much more complicated and we have many more versions of NPA's to understand. In fairness, I can't really separate the training time in mastering a non-waas box versus a waas box because really any approach capable GPS is going to take a lot of time to become proficient on. So perhaps my remark about half a ticket should be left for ground based only approaches vs ground based + GPS. Still though, WAAS adds much more complexity to understanding all the different options and how they are different along with the many charted subtleties not found in precision approaches (eg Advisory vs VNAV, VDP's, VGSI not coincident with GS and many more, PT's and many more...) LNAV, the only non-waas approach is just one of the 6. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Boy Cliff, if that's all you think about WAAS, you're really missing the point of what it provides. LPV approaches down to ILS minimums is only the tip of iceberg. And just because they go down to 200' and 1/2 mile doesn't mean we should set our personal minimums that low either. You're far more experienced than I have had much more training and I realize from reading your post that regardless of your expertise and knowledge you would set conservative minimums within the capabilities of your equipment and your proficiency - as do most of us that wish to avoid the smoking hole you referred too. But what your missing about WAAS is that we no longer need an ILS to get a glide slope. Of course WAAS adds either a real glide slope in the form of LPV or LNAV/VNAV. But it also adds Advisory glide slope in the form of LNAV +V, and LP +V which when available allow us to fly the calculated descent angle on the chart to fly a stabilized descent or perhaps what you did in the airlines as CDFA or Continuous Descent from the Final Approach. Of course its well proven that a stabilized descent or CDFA is much safer for us to fly than the Dive and Drive method. Its WAAS that automates this concept for us in the GA world to fly these easily with a Advisory Glide slope. (See AC 120-08) So WAAS adds in addition to capability is also lot of added safety to GA pilots by offering us so many more options over the older legacy approaches with the ability to fly NPA in a stabilized CDFA approach with real or advisory vertical guidance. Which is especially good for us since ILS's are not all that common at our GA airports. But I disagree about a new instrument pilot getting a good IFR training and background based on a LNAV only GPS. GPS navigation and approaches are far more complicated than old the legacy ground based approaches but they are much easier to fly which I'll argue adds to safety. But my point is there is so much to learn with GPS Nav and procedures that without a WAAS box you'll only be getting less than half the training of what you'll need with one. So if you look at WAAS for only LPV minimums you're not seeing the bigger picture of what its all about.

Of course you can always find a ferry pilot or instructor to get it for you and give you transition training. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My home drome only has a loc-d with circling minimums at the TPA altitude and a LP with lower but still high straight in mins. Without WAAS, the LP would become an LNAV. Not a big difference. But all of our local dromes have ILS and LPV both with 200' and 1/2 mi. I'll alwsys pick the LPV, I prefer them. Frankly, they've proven more reliable. Till recently, my ILS glide slope was out for a month, before that both the LOC and GS were out and some kind of maintenance outage is common. GPS Approaches don't have this problem till we have a major issue. The worse I've seen is only a loss of WAAS in the fringe area back in the day when we only had 1 waas satellite up. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would expect not too, and it good to call attention that they do have a limited life span. Although I log it when I service mine, yet I am an "on condition" guy for the vast majority of maintenance with one big exception for magneto maintenance - they get opened annually and every 5 yr/500hrs they get IRAN'd!

Watch your Silicone in your oil analysis for an idea of whether your air filter is loosing its effectiveness or wearing out since it going to go up if its not doing its job. Of course you have to omit recent invasive engine work since that will cause it to spike too. 25 annuals/years (the only time I have needed to service mine) is a long time and probably longer than these will actually hold up.

Yep, pretty cool. And boy what a pain when I have to detour around a Falcon heavy launch over one of my many Mooney Atlantic crossings!

That’s awesome Kelly - that’s a hugely wonderful gift to do all that. Sorry I can’t up with more appropriate words to thank you. Merry Christmas to you as well! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

True. But Technically it replaces a fixed wastegste (a bolt) with a manual pneumatic wastegate. It's principal advantage is by replacing the terribly ineffecient bolt, it is able to very significantly raise the critical altitude from about 15k something to the lower flight levels. But it's still a manual wastegate controller that provides a very major improvement to the birds performance at altitude over the stock configuration. The 252 is yet another leap with an automatic wastegate, ceiling to 28K and many other refinements.

They should all have the STC. Its been over 15 years ago, but I recall the STC came in the box with the filter. Its not like the LEDs though where the same lights is used on virtually every Mooney airframe. The 252/Encore uses a different filter than the 231 since the 231 has a very different (untuned) induction system which is visible from the different cowling. I am sure your J would use yet a different filter as well. I think they're great filters over all and although expensive to purchase, not replacing them every year makes them more economical long term.

With the engine air filter you need to find out what you have their now. Many of us have upgraded the OEM paper filter with the re-usable K&N filter you clean with their solution and then re-charge with their oil. So check first. All available from Spruce. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’ve never seen one on and older KFC-200 installation - just the newer KFC-150's. So I always assumed it wasn't an option till then - but don't know. But that said, I can't imagine it being a worthwhile investment. It involves a lot of labor to install. And the kicker is that it's totally replaced by modern glass like a G500. And then you have the expensive maintenance cost just with the altimeter alone - a source of many complaints among owners. Although you haven't experienced the high cost of maintaining these excellent AP, unfortunately it's just a matter of time till you do. [emoji853] Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

8000 DA is not really realistic for mountains in CO unless your only flying in the winter and flying at the tree tops. Summer time and climbs to enroute altitude will be much higher DA. Of course this is what Turbos are made for. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Timing should only shift a max of2-3 degrees, if even that much, between annuals. And when external engine timing is shifting, so is internal magneto timing and about the max for internal timing to shift before spark really weakens is ~4.5 degrees. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Spurious correlation! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

IMO its much more along thorough transition training than the actual required HP endorsement. What I mean by that is that the airframe you do it in will dictate most of it. You won't get nearly the same (transition) training if you did your HP endorsement in a new SR20 or C182 compared to if you did it in any turbo or big bore engine. But if one is really looking to pull out of their transition training what the HP portion is, then @Bryan is right on for a new Turbo pilot, but it can probably be more generalized as "heat management" for most HP. But hopefully its much more than that, for example the engine emergency procedures don't get any more complicated than on turbo engines and it would be a real shame, especially in a turbo checkout, to not go through the emergency procedures and engine limitations so that the pilot understand what they're doing and why. Turbo HP checkouts should also include O2 requirements and use and that includes any longbody with a built in O2 system. But much more than trainer checkouts, the HP checkout should have a strong emphasis on engine management through all flight profiles which is a challenge since most checkouts don't get up very high. So think of it more as transition training specifically tailored to the airframe you are getting it in. It's just that only the first plane you do so in above 200HP will require the endorsement, but all the subsequent planes you do it in will still need comparable training tailored to what you really need in each new airframe.

I expect it will come down to "pay now or pay later". I expect you're looking at one because its priced comparably to that an airframe with a runout engine - given calendar time SMOH if not the hours. So be sure to get a realistic idea of what it will take to overhaul it to the LB spec. I don't have first hand knowledge on this, but given all the changes I would expect it should be priced well under a similar airframe with a LB engine since I'd expect will cost much more to bring the engine upto LB specs. I suspect you might find it more sense to go with a factory reman or overhaul given the cost; if they will take the GB core. But even budgeting for the extra cost of overhaul you'll still want to want to add on the Merlin and intercooler if your at all concerned about turbo performance. And if not, just stick with a J model. Hands down though, the best "deal" among the 231's is to find a 262 conversion. Then you'll have a real turbo with the MB engine used in the 252 without the cumbersome manual wastegate and another 10 kts on the same fuel flow if you believe the POH data.

Indeed - here is the exact wording - it appears in the cockpit section but notice the first line. I don't do it that way either, but I've never found a drip of water in my sumping in my 15+ yrs of ownership. 1. Cockpit Fuel Selector -- It is recommended that wing tank sumps be drained prior to draining gascolator. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rt. Tank: Pull Gascolator ring (5 seconds) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lt. Tank: Pull Gascolator ring (5 seconds)

Modern POH's say to drain each tank for 5 sec each! That's a few seconds more than I actually do but I imagine enough time to ensure you'd find water if it was up to the fuel pick up level in the tank. Someone previously posted it would be a better idea to sump the tanks individually first just in case you did find water to prevent it from entering the line past the fuel selector to make it easier to get rid of.

But it’s much more rewarding to be our own dispatcher! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, but that's from the Glide slope to minimums. The comments where about IF segment min altitudes before the FAF and glide slope. i.e. the altitudes to descend down to on the approach from the IAF till you can capture the GS.

To clarify, are you saying the approaches show the minimum altitudes with the step down fixes in the flight plan when you load an approach? That's helpful, but I understand there is no auto pilot interface like Garmins GAD43e that can can do VNAV with it. I was trying to find that in the pilots manual but could only find altitude constraints that provide the same functionality of the previous Vcalc functionality to descend to a certain AGL or MSL altitude within x NM of some Waypoint in the flight plan based on specified descent rate.

Going through the thread, I see mention of many of the pluses of the GTN's including RF legs, Voice commands, and visual approaches to every runway, but I didn't see mention of the VNAV functionality that loads minimum altitudes on each approach segment and allows you to specify your assigned altitude on the enroute portion and use this for VNAV. Its a huge feature in my mind and the FS510 capability to wirelessly load all nav data, both Garmin and Jepp data is another one. But the GTNs only support 3 of the 6 required RNP nav legs required for RNP approach approval, but I doubt we'll ever see a box for light GA with RNP approach approval since there is a lot more too it.

Just to close on this, the desired feature of typing the flight map data to the charted data is in our Savvy feature request queue for future enhancements. its not a high priority item though because it really doesn't help with diagnosing engine data, but its clearly helpful to the pilot. But I have no idea when we might see progress in this area.