kortopates

Interesting on the data plate. I have never converted a Lyc engine, but I have done it on a CMI. Continental uses a very different procedure. You merely and to plate by adding the new suffix after a “c” for convert. To my recollection, their service instruction only allows replacing a damaged unreadable data plate and only they are authorized to supply it - but that is based on memory. But there is nothing unusual about Lyc and CMI doing things very differently. The only downside I see to Lyc method is you loose the fact it’s a converted engine. Not a big deal since it’s still conforms to the converted engine in every way. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

@vance.k With an engine serial number, you can get free access to your engine manuals via TCM on ATP's website. Before they moved the documentation to ATP you had to register on TCM website. But now I don't know the process but would suggest checking on TCM's site first or call their customer service. There are several manuals for the TSIO-360's. But you'll need the the generic M-O maint manual, the TSIO-360 maintenance manual for your model and I recommend the operations manual as well and perhaps the overhaul manual.

My understanding is that we can acclimatize to just under 18000', but above that we're in the death zone since we're in a state of slowly dying till we get back down. Of course Sherpa have proven to do exceptionally well at altitude since as you say they were born and raised at higher than any one else. But we all adapt to altitude in differing degrees. And naturally high altitude mountaineering has favored those that are well adapted to altitude. My wife and I are both long time climbers, and she did quite well at altitude having summitted some rather technical ice routes to just under 23000' including South America's highest peak Aconcagua (22837') - all without Oxygen or being guided. For real climbers, climbing is all about the challenge and style by which you get to the top, not just getting to the summit but the style in which you got there. Purist consider use of aides like O2 as cheating. For them O2 is only for emergency use to get down . Taking Everest as an example, Oxygen was considered essential to survive and it was widely believed it would be impossible to survive without it. Also at the same time summitting a mountain like Everest required siege tactics with lots of people and sherpas that ferried supplies higher and higher till the summit was in reach for a small well stocked party from a high camp. The same siege tactics were used originally to climb El Capitain sheer rock face in Yosemite and many other first ascents of tall rock faces. But the tactics were never endorsed by the climbing world as a whole with many believing such ascents should wait till they can be first climbed in good style. Then in the 70's, the game was turned upside down when gifted and purist climbers Reinhold Messner and Peter Habeler, whom had been making very quick and light ascents of the major Alps climbs, applied the same fast and light tactics to big mountains, a style referred to as Apline Style in contrast to Siege or Expedition style, and went on to climb Everest in '78 and K2 in '79 without O2. He even went back to climb Everest solo in '80 without O2. Reinhold became the first to climb all fourteen 8000 meter peaks without O2, mostly all alpine style in small parties; through the 1980's. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinhold_Messner) Over the following decades climbers, (real climbers that spent decades of working up through increasingly challenging climbs), continued to climb the high peaks without O2 until Everest had been climbed by a few hundred climbers and many paid the price trying as well. (http://adventureblog.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/21/how-climbing-everest-without-oxygen-can-go-very-wrong/) But all of that changed, not really out of safety, but commercial climbing came into being to capitalize on a growing number of wealthy and essentially want to be climbers that had the cash to pay the ~$30K to be guided up Everest's rather non technical route with O2 to greatly improve odds of success. Of course getting up Everest by any means other than helicopter is a huge challenge, but being guided with O2 up a mountain is only fraction of the challenge taken on by a small team of climber that are all sharing in the leading up the mountain. But during those years of ascents without oxygen, we learned a lot of about our ability to survive and adapt without O2 as well as the issues that accompany O2 deprivation or hypoxia and a lot of myths were squashed. One popular one you still hear in the pilot community is that as you get older your ability to function without O2 decreases. Yet the climbing community demonstrated that high altitude climbers were actually improving with age to some point in near middle age compared to younger 20's that proved to be less tolerant. Judging by the number of climbers we still have doing it in their 50's and even 60's, its appear to not drastically decline off in later years either. I never did any of the high altitude mountains with my wife. I learned early on my thing was rock climbing and rock'aneering. I climbed all the major walls in Yosemite valley in the 80's (El Capitan, Half Dome etc). My highest rock wall was Mt Whitney's vertical to overhanging Keeler Needle climbed in a day (13 pitches (rope lengths) at over 14000'; not very high but plenty high enough to feel hypoxic when working really hard. Back to drying paint ..... which is looking very nice!

Exactly right and these points can't be emphasized enough!

I always lock my baggage door before flight. There have been too many unlocked doors popping open in flight. If the door departs in flight it could do real damage to the tail and rudder. It’s happened, but to my knowledge without totally disabling an aircraft - yet. After a couple of departing doors at MAPA PPP’s a policy was instituted that we won’t fly with you if you don’t lock it. Haven’t had any more incidents since. In our low wing Mooney it’s very unlikely that we’ll have a problem egressing from the cabin door with the wing to protect the immediate area; assuming landing right side up. But if need be, I have the emergency exit out the baggage door. But I surely doubt first responders would be trying to use the baggage door. If you come down near civilization, it’s more likely you’ll see your roof cut right off to pull you out if your incapacitated and not on fire. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Perhaps one of the more important tips I learned while in A&P school and just as valuable to pilots: "Never inspect the prop and spinner with the engine running, its much harder to see that way!"

That's a very good practice to do and doesn't take a lot of time for something so important. Unfortunately, the accident report left important questions unanswered about whether it was the high pressure line or the low pressure line that had a loose fitting: "An oxygen tank was located aft of the aft bulkhead. An elbow fitting that was connected to the oxygen regulator assembly, which connected an oxygen line to the tank, was found loose. The fitting could be moved in both directions by hand without resistance." I would guess it was the low pressure line with the loose fitting, only because since it had been 2 years since servicing the tank and regulator per the report. A high pressure line leak will leak out while the system is off thus allowing ample time for the pilot to notice loosing all the air while sitting on the ground and not just going through the air faster than normal. But a low pressure leak will only leak out air when the regulator valve is opened in the cockpit (or fails to shut off). This is obviously the more insidious failure since its only leaking in the delivery line while the valve is open and the pilot is less likely to notice his O2 is draining at faster rate than normal. However, such a leak , which is limited by the regulator, is still going to take hours to drain the tank. Plus as pilots we still have two devices to protect us, the O2 tank pressure meter which shows us the remaining tank capacity as well as an O2 Pulse oximeter. One was found in the cockpit in this accident. Per the accident report, the pilot took off about 12:00, read back an altitude assignment clearance to FL250 at 12:16 and then was non-responsive to ATC query 23 min later at 12:39. Its really hard to imagine a circumstance by which the pilot could have just taken off with a near full tank of O2 and seen it drain in half an hour even if it did just happen to have the high pressure line become loose at take off - which is highly unlikely and still too fast to drain a tank. More likely the tank, which had been serviced with O2 3 months prior at annual was already getting low and the pilot figured he had a enough for the 2-3 hr flight yet didn't notice the tank meter draining while in his climb to FL250. I wonder if he even got a chance to use his pulse oximeter or look at the flow meter attached to his mask before he succumbed to hypoxia. Very sad. But it underlines the diligence pilots flying alone in the flight level must exercise in monitoring their O2 supply, O2 flow level, saturation level and be alert for any symptoms. In my personal history it has always been the awareness of the symptoms of O2 saturation dropping below the 90's that got me to look at my flow meter and realize something was wrong and fix it. The pulse oximeter has enabled me to set my flow to achieve a desired % saturation level but has never saved me to so speak. The flow meter does that easily and if that can't be fixed, the backup emergency O2 cartridges are in the back pocket. Which luckily I have never had to use.

No, you have the quarter panel on the far right with breakers at a different angle. The center stack and right side don’t make a lot of sense to combine either. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I suspect the vibration was from prop ice. No electric prop deice? Picking up a trace in descent is the least hazardous way to experience it; especially if you are able to descend to below freezing. You may have picked up more on the elevators though. But it’s harder to judge the loss of performance in a descent compared to level flight when you will notice a speed drop as accumulation increases. One isn’t going to get cited for flying where there might be a pirep for icing or even forecasted icing conditions. It’s all about whether your plan had reasonable outs or plan B’s and you exercised them to get out of icing conditions. That’s perhaps overly simplistic but the FAA really leaves it up your judgement and planning. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Getting the full size bottle out in half an hour is pretty easy even without the extra removal panel. But putting it back in takes me more than 2x the time to leak check and mostly get the valve cable rigging perfect so it fully shuts off. The latter seems to get messed up a lot by those not attentive to details. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Without the report of going down I would have thought CFIT as Kelly suggest. But if he was going down why didn't his training kick in to trim for best glide and turn towards lower terrain and a better landing site. I can imagine darkness slowing down a change in direction but 147 kts in the descent and 750fpm down? FlightAware is usually pretty accurate. I sure don't mean to real critical of a pilot in distress, especially at this point if that was the case. But the numbers reported by FA sure don't look like a loss power event. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You really need to take the time to do some reading so you can make a better informed decision since ultimately the value received is limited to what you'll appreciate. But the technology has improved greatly. As far as approach types though there is little difference. Only one new approach type is added for approaches with RF legs with support only provided by GTN's unless Avidyne got that in their recent update ( it wasn't originally). But when we get into utilitarian improvements, including approach leg types we see lots of improvement. For example we now have support for heading mode legs which we didn't have on the old boxes. Heading mode legs are used on just about every missed approach - so we get much improved guidance on the missed. We also get support for airways , ability to program holds, and on the GTNs ability to program a visual approach into any runway at any airport which is great situational awareness tool. Many are satisfied enough to just see the color higher resolution touch screen which makes the larger units much more practical for also serving MFD roles. Avidyne takes that a step further with synthetic vision but I think GTN's have the edge on approach support. But it comes down to whatever makes sense for you and very clearly a GNS, as long as it has WAAS, will get the job done just fine even without FS210; but the FS sure gives it some new life. But I personally wouldn't accept a non WAAS box in 2018. Regardless of what you have in the panel, a WAAS box can keep you alive in partial panel and enable you fly partial panel to ATP standards with its 5 Hz GPS update compared to the 1 Hz non-WAAS update rate. I only scratched the surface, so you'll have to study up and decide for yourself how happy you are with an oder box and your IPad. But in contrast I sure wouldn't want to rely on using my iPad interface. I have it, but I prefer to interface with my GTNs and the rest of my panel directly. But no matter what you opt for, get to know your avionics intimately in VFR conditions first so your equipment is a tool rather than a distraction. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Absolutely, a repair station can issue repairman certificates to someone that is not an A&P nor IA and can have them participate in the annual and do whatever they are approved to do. An IA or shop without a repair station certificate can use people in training to do work that is supervised by an A&P except for the annual inspection which must be legally done by an IA (its not legal to supervise even though it happens). But in every case it's FAA certificated mechanic or repairman that's signing off on the work; with the exception Clarence brought up. Yes, A&P school is huge time commitment for 2.5 years, but for this pilot it was pure entertainment and always learning. And a bit sleep deprived too. It was only really rough a couple semesters when there was no way around not having a Friday night class which cramped our weekend plans. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Absolutely right. Perhaps the only exception to the rule about work done outside of the US in that I don't know of any other country we recognize their certificated mechanics like Canada.

We covered above that you don't have to own it. A certificated pilot that is "owned or operated by that pilot" may perform preventative maintenance. see CFR Part 43.3 (g) I've known lots of pilots with lots of years with their aircraft that have never taken the cowling off and put it back on and have no interest (or time) to do so. Piloting and preventative maintenance are really entirely different skill sets.

Indeed we were. but luckily you clarified that N registered aircraft can only be maintained by FAA certified mechanics or repair stations, with FAA oversight, no matter where in the world the work is done. And thankfully we do have FAA approved repair stations all over the world.

Having been through the community college A&P program some years ago, I can provide a couple of informed comments. Its actually a 2.5 year or 5 semester full time program, far far more training than any pilot certificate or more comparable a professional pilot program from ab initio to professional multi pilot or ATP. Given the rigor of the training and lack of pay for graduates it quite obvious why we don't have an abundance of A&P's. Each semester if done full time to finish in the minimum 2.5 yrs. I did it at night after by daytime engineering job, 4 nights from 4pm to 10:30pm. The first semester covers the General classes which prepared you for the General exam. Any pilot wanting to do preventative maintenance would be well served to take the General class. Highly valuable and the only class I originally was committed too. It covers methods and practices and many more basics. In my case, it just opened the door to recognizing how little I knew building a thirst for more. With General completed you could go off for a full year of Airframe or full year of Powerplant. In terms of non-applicable classes to Mooney pilots, there was only one in the powerplant year, covering turbine engines, and one in the airframe covering wood/fabric/composites & finishing; but since it covered finishing/painting it wasn't totally inapplicable. So it was really just one night over one of the 2 semesters for those topics. Not really that much that you could really say doesn't apply to piston and Mooney pilots. If you have a local community college offering the program it reduces the cost to essentially nothing - meaning just your time. Then after 5 semesters of full time study/work, most A&P go to work for major companies like the airlines, military maintainers, production facilities (e.g., military drones, Boeing production, helicopters) - almost everything but GA since GA only pays $20+ an hour to start with the least benefits. Contrast that to a much shorter auto mechanic program where you get trained to be a certified Toyota mechanic or the like in much less time and realize you'll be making better money not just by the hour but also with the promise of being rewarded being efficient at flat rate work. (Cirrus is the only aircraft manufacturer that has gone to flat rate estimates for maintenance, but I don't know how comprehensive that is). It then takes another 3 years of experience before an A&P is eligible to apply for the IA. With the IA the, A&P/IA can perform and approve major alterations & repairs (which includes STC's) and perform annual inspections which equates to god like status in the eyes of the FAA.

I don't know if this is the one being referred too, but try searching for Advantage Aviation at KBJC https://www.pilotcareercenter.com/Pilot-Training-Flight-School/USA/Colorado/674/Advantage-Aviation Don't even know if they are still in business but given its a flight school rather than a club, solo opportunities may be limited.

It's the holes for the roll pins that tend to become enlarged resulting in the rod end becoming loose that can cause their demise. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Operate" is defined in part 1 too [emoji846] Got to be flying it. I'd say it works for any rental pilot that is trusted to do the work by an owner when stranded away E.g. fouled plug. But good luck, most owners I know in a local club I fly with are not that trusting. Operate, with respect to aircraft, means use, cause to use or authorize to use aircraft, for the purpose (except as provided in §91.13 of this chapter) of air navigation including the piloting of aircraft, with or without the right of legal control (as owner, lessee, or otherwise). Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

FWIW 43.3 (g) spells out only a certificated pilot under part 61 can perform preventative maintenance with the exception of sport pilots without further requirements. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Since a pilot owner asked the question, I assumed that even though it wasn't stated specifically. But I probably should have added the pilot signs it with his Pvt or Cml or ATP certificate number in lieu of an A&P as required for any authorized preventative maintenance work done. But yes, as[mention=8913]Bob_Belville[/mention] and[mention=6995] neilpilot[/mention] point out only a pilot owner is authorized to perform preventative maintenance if I misunderstood the intent of the question. Re-reading I see I totally missed - if not a certificated pilot. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, you sign the engine log book with an entry done in accordance with 43.9 (a) Most of us also include that the engine was satisfactorily leak checked as well. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not clear why since every modern Mooney has the battery(s) in the back? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actually to be really discerning on the terminology, we have bounces and we have porpoising. The distinction in porpoising requires the nose wheel to hit first on a bounce which then leads to increasingly nose high bounces until real serious damage or its corrected. Bouncing alone, off the mains, will still occur if the plane doesn't settle on the runway gently as wings are losing lift to support it. Thus one can bounce from stalling the wings up to high and falling out of the sky from several feet or just coming down too quickly without holding it off with too much speed and lift. But its the latter bounce with too much speed while the wings still have plenty of lift that will very easily lead to porpoising if the pilot doesn't prevent (hold off) the nose wheel from contacting before the mains. I've seen a bad bounce rupture the rubber disk in the nose wheel from falling out of the sky! Flaring too high is the time to ease a bit of power back in to cushion the landing. Frankly the Ovation is easier to land than vintage birds, its more stable. Although some people like to deploy speed brakes in the flare I personally hate the idea of making any large configuration changes while flaring (speed brakes or flaps). Just be patient and hold it off (unless its a very strong x-wind and then fly it on gently if really necessary). On the ground though I've been know to raise flaps and/or pop speed brakes on short fields but we have to be really careful - too many people have raised the gear intending to raise flaps for the ultimate short field approach (and not impossible in a Mooney as we've read about here as well).