kortopates

I miss the pre-eAPIS days as well. We all do! Especially since CBP have been know to give out significant fines for people that haven't followed the rules properly. But not for where they have their sticker placed. They're not so worried about a device with a small plane as much as they are about smuggling in nuclear material. But if they weren't checking for it, it would be super easy to bring it in. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The stickers aren't for a foreign country but for US CBP when you return. Nobody else will even notice nor does CBP as long as you have it when you re-enter. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Old info. It’s been years since you could do that. Before eAPIS, These days you need the number on the sticker to file eAPIS, both outbound and inbound. Your overdue for another Baja trip [emoji846] Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I like that idea, although I have never tried it. I have kept mine out of sight under the elevator where I can point to it standing by the door. No body has complained about that either after 15 years. I’d be a little paranoid about losing it if not attached somewhere but if I had a paint job as nice as Byron’s I would be very motivated to keep it off the plane. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Like Byron, i've never known of an IA to refuse to sign off an inspection because of an engine at or beyond TBO. But through Savvy Aviation we do see shops that refuse to annual an aircraft with an engine that's past TBO. But usually the shops use a arbitrary cutoff of 10-20% past TBO rather than right at. Mike has been successfull at educating a few why doing so shouldn't increase there liability, but not all. You'd think age would be a concern too but don't hear about that much. But when a shop does refuse to do an annual, at least in the cases I know, the shop has been upfront about it from beginning before they accept the aircraft and begin any work; usually at the time of scheduling. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I won’t say it happens to all of us, since I can’t speak for all of us. But I’ll never forget the day I did much the same thing very early in my flying career. In my case I had the correct frequency dialed in, kept looking at and wondering why I couldn’t hear the other very visible traffic in the pattern. Until I finally realized I had the volume turned way down as I was abeam the numbers and only then got the volume up in time to hear another pilot complaining that I obviously couldn’t hear them! Felt like a total idiot but it was a lesson well learned enough that’s it’s never happened again. And that’s the only positive thing I can say about such experiences like that, that such difficult lessons like that usually never needs repeating. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Those gascolator o-rings should be replaced every annual when they are pulled for inspection, but its seems that doesn't always happen. I didn't think any of the K's came with out the fuel selector not being in the center, making it easily reachable by all pilots. The problem requiring the PVC tool was for the vintage Mooneys where it was placed in front of the pilot seat along with the gascolator drain ring and if the pilot flies with his seat forward the first required step is move the seat back and then use the PVC tool to reach it. With the fuel selector positioned in front of the trim wheel this issue is eliminated entirely. Its a shame Mooney wasn't able to do this much earlier.

At a MAPA PPP, I spoke with a pilot that experienced the exact same thing. Although he may not have been approaching the airport, the key thing was his altitude was too low to give him any time to keep flying the plane to an off field landing. Although he didn't have luck about is tank running dry at low altitude, at least he had some about the location since he was able to put it down without getting injured, collect on the insurance and fly another day. And that's the most important thing! But it happens a lot. We had a very new Cirrus SR22 go down right after takeoff at only 500' agl. This became a fatal because the plane came straight down on its nose. The engine quit in what appeared to be a very steep climb and the Ads-B position data makes it look like it climbed till literally fell out of the sky - the pilot never pushed the nose over to maintain glide speed. Although we have no idea why yet, one of the common possibilities being talked about of course is fuel starvation. All we really know to support that is that the first responders remarks that there was very little fuel to clean up at the site.

Sorry to hear that Continental has abandoned the Aviator Services program that gave owners free access to all documentation. Personally, I don't particularly like the ATP interface either. Under Continental you just merely downloaded the PDF version of the entire manual, but under ATP's website it appears much more restrictive viewing. In truth, so far I have just been using ATP to determine if I need a new copy of something. For the most part the main document that is regularly updated virtually every quarter is M-0 Maintenance manual that applies to all engines since its a compilation of what were previously in many Service letters, bulletins and instruction. For example this is the document where you'll get the current engine set up parameters for most of the engines and all the Torque settings. Due to the cost, I suggest getting paper copies of everything since all but M-0 tend to go years without a revision. Even with free digital access, I bought paper copies of all of mine for the hangar. These are still available through http://cmipowerstore.aero/publications.html for fees that range between $80 to $130. The M-0 manual is $110.

I believe Mooney adopted the folding rear bucket seat design in ‘85. So all ‘85 and on should have it including the late J’s, K’s and all long bodies. AFAIK, , The only thing really unique thing to the Bravo is its engine. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Also consider on the plugs that these engines can have much poorer mixture distribution at idle as compared to cruise power setting. Looking at size of the EGT spread at idle compared to cruise will give you feel for that. Therefore it’s really hard to make any judgement on rich or lean cylinders based on plugs; especially after a low power rich descent followed by a taxi. I’d stick to gami spreads for such conclusions. The oil is another issue entirely, but even there you have to be sure the engine wasn’t pulled back to near idle descent so that the prop was driving the engine. I.e. things only you can take into account in assessing. But you’ve shown you may have a trend going. But if you did have a broken oil ring for example it should be accompanied with a rise in CHT from the added friction with sign of it in the borescope exam which you remarked was good - so very doubtful. Another possible source is valve guide wear; especially if the guide to valve seat wasn’t perfectly centered which does happen on these cylinders leading to premature valve guide wear and/or valve burning. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

After the gascolator draining of both I’ll leave it on the lowest and startup on the lowest tank and then taxi to the run up area, then switch to the fullest for run up and takeoff. Both tanks get exercised for a number of minutes that way. My base is a busy class D field under Bravo so most startups to departure times run no less than 20 min and often more with IMC conditions. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, since you’ll need to replace all 4 OEM resistive senders with CIES senders. I am using the CIES with Monroy long range tanks in my 252. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Curious where do you draw that from, was their something regulatory previously that stated turns at standard rate? Given that the TERPS protected airspace is modeled after standard rate turns at your category aircraft or maximum holding airspeed and their assumed modeled max winds for the altitude, it seems you could conceivably get into trouble if you turned at less than standard rate, but not more than standard rate. So it seems you wouldn't want to use less than standard. And side question, are you able to complete circling approaches kn transport category aircraft within the protected airspace without exceeding standard rate?

The heat shield material is very thin, perhaps 1/4". I can't recall the product, but I believe I recall @jetdriven Byron posted it here within the last couple years. It has an adhesive back to make it easy to install. All our turbo cowls have builtin heat shield protection. Keep in mind that the turbo when operating at above 1450F is glowing a cherry red - its radiating a lot of heat. Your hose and turbo look new, could it be the case you are the first to operate it? Redline max TIT on the Rayjay's is 1650F, yet I'd keep it from exceeding 1600F for maximum exhaust component longevity. But 1500-1540F TIT is usually typical for ROP ops, but running LOP will have you pushing 1600F with power above 70% and higher as % power increases.

If you are referring to the Real silicone gaskets, I had a terrible time with a new leaky one even though I torqued it to 25 inch/lbs per their instructions too. But in fairness, they do say to re-torque a second time after first flight to 20 in/lbs. But it took me more than 2 tries on one of them.

On the calibrated tools - Funny, that's the exact article on calibrated tools I was drawing my statement that as an A&P we aren't required to use a calibrated tool (like a repair station) unless the maintenance manual calls it out. With the caveat that if we use a really out of wack tool, we could be violated and sued after the failure. As per the monthly weight check, I assume you are referring to maint & testing portable fire extinguishers http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/fpc/engineering/fireext2.pdf which requires monthly checks for "Fullness – confirmed by weighing or lifting" among other things.

43.11 a 5 covers that very clearly with a list of discrepancies. But I can’t tell from your earlier response if you are saying a engine overhaul requires a 43.11 entry or merely a 43.9 entry. The engine replacement or wing replacement are not so clear in the regs. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well I am no authority on this, but its my understanding that this falls on 43.15 (a) (1) (a) General. Each person performing an inspection required by part 91, ..., shall (1) Perform the inspection so as to determine whether the aircraft, or portion(s) thereof under inspection, meets all applicable airworthiness requirements. The actual example I am given from my IA gleim study materials uses this an an example: "For example if an aircraft receives a replacement engine between annual inspections, only the engine portion of the annual inspection needs to be performed at the time" The practice IA test had questions to this very topic as well. Also under (c) (2) it adds before approving the engine to determine satisfactory performance in accordance with the manufacturers recommendations of- (i) power output (static and idle RPM), (ii) Magnetos (iii) Fuel and oil pressure; and (iv) Cylinder and oil temperature If that's not a correct interpretation I could take the question to Mike B. to see what he says. But that is where I drew my understanding from. But no on a separate log book. But if a wing was replaced with a different (e.g., salvaged wing I believe just the wing would need to be inspected. I think you could legally get by with just an annual inspection entry for everything in the airframe logbook, but a more detailed entry in an engine log book adds real value though not required (IMO).

Assuming there isn't an exhaust leak, I didn't see any signs of one, does the cowling have any heat shielding? Turbo installations use some form of heat shielding to protect it. You can get some pretty good stick on heat shielding that would be very effective. The EGT3 probe sure looks like a TIT probe. But I am guessing you don't have a TIT probe.

Agreed on the annual, although most will sign off an annual on prop & engine too you are right. Regardless though, if we keep with 100 hr inspection on the engine, the recently overhauled engine which has just been newly installed in the aircraft no longer has a current annual or 100 hr inspection. You wouldn't want to re-annual the entire aircraft but it seems you do need a current 100 hr inspection on the engine to return it to service. You are right, good point, if a maintenance manual specifically calls out "calibrated" as it does here, its not really calibrated without the paperwork within the 12 months. I just wasn't thinking of instruments in the same way as a tool - my bad. But if a maintenance manual doesn't specifically call out for using a "calibrated" tool, such as in torquing something, I don't think an A&P is legally required to use a calibrated wrench in the same way a Repair station is. 43.13(a) doesn't add that requirement but references to follow the maintenance manual and use tools accepted IAW industry practices... But I'd agree, its foolish not too, since if something does go wrong, from over stressing a bolt from over torquing, or it comes off from under torquing, the A&P that did the work is going to get violated then and worse sued without a good defense. So might as well stick to using calibrated tools even if not strictly required too.

Agreed, Every log book entry I've seen includes an entry from the engine over hauler saying "this engine was overhauled IAW ,,,, " with details of the work and ends with "this engine is found to be airworthy condition and is released for service". Since the engine also needs a current annual inspection, the engine installer then completes an entry that they installed the engine in the airframe, added any airframe specific accessories, hose etc, does the engine setup and says they completed an annual inspection of the engine with the required annual inspection phrase, "I certify this engine has been inspected IAW with an annual inspection and found to airworthy for return to service Never seen a mention of break-in. I have read the calibrated gauges for breakin in with the Lyc instructions but that's pretty easy to do with a modern engine analyzer.

I concur with all the comments made above, but Don @DonMuncyis so right above, we could be looking at plugs after a rich descent that went on for a few minutes. If it was very low power, (air driving he prop), it could have even been sucking oil in. The real story of your engine is told by a modern engine monitor downloaded data as well as warm compression test accompanied with borescope checks. You have done the compression test and borescope with healthy results, therefore I am confident the why's of the plugs will be revealed by looking at how the engine was just operated through downloaded data.

Interesting, as in something to learn, by this fuel starvation accident involving an M20E. http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2018/02/mooney-m20e-chaparral-n7118u-registered.html This one happened climbing out from takeoff at only 1000' agl which doesn't say a lot about the pilots pre-flight. But that low, the pilot tried changing tanks but had to put it down. See the very brief report. Since these birds have the fuel selector in such a bad place that many pilots use a hand made PVC tool to switch tanks, I wonder if a possible combination of a tight fuel selector and such a practice led to not noticing the handle was becoming loose till it created this real problem. Regardless, Its something this event suggest to be on the look out for; as well as ensuring your on the fullest tank with plenty of gas.

Note the line that says "If you have an active Continental Motors Aviator Services,..." Unless things have changed, you anyone that owns a Continental engine simply needs to register it with them and you'll get a free Aviator Services account which you can then get free ATP access to manuals. But the "as of November 2016" may indicate a change in policy - I don't know except that has been my source of free access for many years.