kortopates

Perfect, maybe your local community college has a aviation program with pilot classes since that would be perfect (I recall it doesn't have A&P classes so not sure). I teach exactly the class for this at my local college as an advanced IFR sim lab for IR pilots using Redbirds with both legacy instruments with a GNS530W and also G1000 setups. The class is all about using the GPS for pilots in exactly your position moving to glass panels or IFR GPS's. If your local college has the equivalent that would a very inexpensive way to to learn to master the box - only 1 unit in fees which is nothing - with 16 nights of sim time. Can't beat the sim for learning new avionics and procedures.

First an Instrument rating and now and IFR GPS ! Way to go!! You've probably done the BUELT Four departure many times by now, but now its going to be a snap to set up in your GPS to fly it. Enjoy it and access to what must be 10x as many procedures with an IFR GPS. A lot to learn, but an amazing more amount of capability comes with the knowledge.

Yes, but its all in the last paragraph that responsibility is delegated to the "sponsor", meaning the city of county to monitor use. Then the only penalty seems to be the last statement - the FAA will no longer approve AIP grant money for more hangar space -- that doesn't even include disapproval for other improvements that don't include hangar space. Not much of a deterrent. But I think we're well past SMO seeking future AIP grant money and the city appears to have no obligation to adhere to these guidelines. Sponsors should have a program to monitor use of hangars and take measures to prevent unapproved non-aeronautical use of hangars - Sponsors should ensure that length of time on a waiting list of those in need for a hangar for aircraft storage is minimized. - Incorporating provisions in leases to adjust rental rates to FMV for any non-incidental non-aeronautical use of the leased facilities NYADO FY2017-004 - FAA personnel conducting inspections may request a copy of the sponsor’s hangar use program and evidence that the sponsor has limited hangars to aviation use. The FAA may disapprove an AIP grant for hangar construction if there are existing hangars at the airport being used for non-aeronautical purposes.

Love your sentiment and couldn't agree more. One of the ways I personally learned the importance of plenty of altitude, as in lots of excess altitude, came not from stall practice but unusual attitude recovery. I like to give candidates a meaningful simulated runaway trim event and let them recover. Not wanting to take over too prematurely so that my candidate could learn the importance of a nose down unusual attitude recovery as the airspeed was building with nose down trim, my student was being way to gentle about pulling up and Va came and went and we were still accelerating towards redline. It was a never again moment for me since it took some time and a lot of altitude pulling up while ensuring we didn't over stress the wings. We both learned on that one and in only a C172. But if we didn't have lots of altitude we would have had to change more than underwear.

What liability coverage you opt to select has nothing to do with plane value but entirely to do with your personal assets/worth you are protecting. 1 mill with 100K sub-limits means the max your covered per person is only 100K. That's nothing in today's litigious society - if your worth many times that then you or your estate will be left paying for the remainder of the settlement. Smooth limits ensure you have the full million limit. Obviously a young person with little wealth accumulated doesn't yet have much to loose but as we acquire more wealth for retirement the more important smooth limits become to us recognizing one bad law suit could clean out a lifetime of savings.

I am glad @teejayevans commented on your earlier remark about doing stalls in the Mooney below 3K AGL. But yes, the ACS just gives a minimum of 1500' for single engine and 3K' for multi - but its an absolute minimum limit and your expected to use higher when advised to do so such as by the the warming in the POH such as you may loose 2000' as you quoted out of your POH - surely that's suggesting the minimum in the ACS is not enough per manufacturer guidance. And of course if you have Section 10 then that makes are accountable for not doing stalls without being above 6K Should you attend one of our MAPA PPP's, such as the upcoming one in Henderson, NV in April, you'll learn we require in excess of 6K for stalls for all models, just as the modern Mooney POH's suggest. In a high performance Mooney we can climb quick enough that using 9-10K' msl is a no brainer to ensure we have well in excess of 6K AGL. The other consideration as a CFI is, we want enough altitude that the pilot has some time to recover such that CFI doesn't have to take over if the pilot isn't immediate in starting the recovery. Otherwise there isn't much learning since our utmost priority to provide a safe environment for learning. As per Section 10, I don't know what year Mooney started adopting it. But recall sometime around 75 Mooney was pushed like all manufactures to replace their free format AFM manuals, and adopt the GAMA new standardized POH specification for content and format. As Mooney switched to the GAMA format, initially they didn't include Section 10 because it was optional, but obviously eventually they too included section 10 which contains a lot of valuable information in many areas in addition to stalls and spins. My later J model POH revisions in the 80's all have section 10. Regardless if yours doesn't have it, I think its worthwhile to obtain the latest for your model just too see and understand all the enhancements that were made in subsequent revisions. For the most part in my experience this equates to improved/refined and often additional emergency procedures. Of course you'll also see a few things that may not pertain to your model, such changes in Vspeeds, gross weights etc, but you'll also see many refinements to procedures that do apply that will probably be of interest.

Interesting comments. On the single alternator /single battery, issue it reminds me of when I did my first across the country flight in my new to me 231. IMC at night with everything turned on including lights, pitot heat, prop heat and the old radar (which was pretty useless but drew a lot of power). This how I learned the 231 electrical system could not keep up with all the factory installed systems. The alternator could not keep up and the battery mostly drained enough so that the Alt CB popped and most everything went dark. After shedding as much electrical demand as possible and recycling the alternator I was able to get what I needed back on and reverse the trend on the battery so that it was charging and continue the flight. But no fun. In fairness, with modern avionics and ditching the useless radar for nexrad the electrical demands were greatly reduced. But the 252 with the dual alternator option provides 28V with 2 60/70amp alternators which is 4x times the juice - so its never a problem and these days with LED or HID lighting and modern avionics I doubt you see too many complaints with electrical system in the 231's except for its lack of redundancy. Minor correction on the "The 252/Encore are both dual battery, dual alternator, 24 volt systems" The 252/Encores do not have dual battery's and not all have dual alternators - Dual alternators was one of the few non-standard options including differences in avionics packages. (possibly the later Encore make dual alternators standard, but not 252's) But dual alternators is perhaps the most sought after option. Since the belt driven alternator run at a faster rpm, the dual alternator option solves the higher coming in speed for the low voltage light to come on at low idle speed, secondly since the belt alternator takes most of the load, the gear driven alternator coupling last much longer and is cheaper to maintain long term (my near 1600 hr coupler is still going strong). Also all 252/Encores have the electric standby vacuum system. Personally, and my opinion, with dual alternators a second battery offers nothing more than ballast weight. And luckily the 252/Encore's don't need the ballast weight so we don't have the expense of replacing dual battery's like the Rocket's and long bodies do but most of those birds don't have dual alternators so I would definitely want one and in my book and unlimited amount of backup current in the form of a second alternator beets out 30-45 minutes of backup battery reserve anytime. I came back from Central America once after loosing one alternator only because I had another one. I get FIKI envy in the winters too! It would be nice to have and luckily its an available option with the 252's with Dual Alternators.

okay, so on a practice LDA-A approach, while your navigating by the PDX ILS and using the KNS80 for DME distance, have you ever tried loading ILS-DME facility, i.e. I-VDG waypoint - not the airport, as the active waypoint and comparing the DME read out distance to the GPS distance from I-VDG? (This goes to your original post earlier when you correctly stated that you can not use the airport waypoint for a DME distance - you need need to use the ILS-DME facility waypoint which is I-VDG). Since you have both, KNS80 for DME and the correct GPS waypoint for the DME facility I-VDG, you could enlighten us on what the difference is? Absolutely agreed ""Pilots are prohibited from flying any approach path that contains manually entered waypoints." But no one has suggested loading one or more waypoints into the GPS flight plan and then using this flight plan to fly the "approach path" which means to use the flight plan for lateral guidance. All that has been suggested is 1) setting the GPS to have the active waypoint the DME facility GPS waypoint to display the GPS distance and 2) while flying the approach using your CDI/HSI ILS signal for approach path guidance. How is that flying an approach path with manually entered waypoints?

Of course if you load the full procedure to include an IAF on the Arc, you will no longer need to turn 10 and twist 10, the GPS will give you lateral guidance along the arc. The ability for the unit to update OBS is actually a plug for the autoslewing capability of your CDI or HSI. All modern GPS's are capable of that, its the CDI or HSI which may not be. But if learning DME arc for your IFR checkride, of course you'll want to learn how to do them manually as well without following the GPS lateral guidance to fly them. Also to clarify an apparent misunderstanding - A DME Arc does not constitute lateral guidance. Lateral guidance refers to following a course as depicted on course center line or lateral deviation indicator i.e. your CDI or HSI. I think the original remark was meant to say that GPS can not be used to substitute for lateral guidance provided by a navaid on final approach segment; which is applicable only to VORs, LOC's, SDF, & LDA's only - again since DME is only distance. Further, the MTN VOR/DME final approach segment consisting of an DME arc isn't lateral guidance either - this approach has no lateral guidance.

I assume they charge actual time. 3 total hours is about right as long as the shock links aren't corroded inside; in which case those will need replacing and along with likely new bearings and a bit more hardware. Honestly, I know Crown very well as well as the folks at Lasar and personally I think Lasar was quoting you what it should take and Crown was quoting you what it could take but worse case it should still come out less than 8; maybe 6 unless you include the nose. Crown is very busy too.

I agree and I've been following that accident. If they do find that downed Mooney below the peak of Cougar Mtn which is < 5500' and only less than a mile from a major highway we can't blame their fate on the desolation of the wilderness even if they did succumb to the elements after a crash. More likely it'll be a CFIT due flying VFR into IMC. Even if it was an engine out you'd think they could make the highway easily unless they were on top or above a mtn Obscuration; (which I thought I recall as not legal for a VFR Canadian pilot). But I couldn't agree more with @Jim Peace earlier comments on the insanity of flying an aircraft that has been out of annual for 4 years on such an adventure just because someone signs off on a ferry permit. I really doubt the FAA would ever sign off on such a ferry permit when their are ample facilities to annual the bird where it sits now at Merril Fld; especially since it would be merely for some new owners convenience - as if the FAA cares about that. I'd be surprised too if Canada would allow an international flight on a ferry permit as well. Personally I also doubt a ferry pilot would touch the plane till it had a fresh and thorough annual.

I am long time 252 owner and before that I was a 231 owner. Additionally I am Mooney specific CFI-II with time in all Mooney's except for a few of rare Vintage birds. I love my 252/Encore it has or had all the redundancies and equipment needed for long cross country flight, but has shed some of that with a glass panel installation. I got it as an 252 and did the Encore conversion. I am also an A&P and work with SavvyAviation. Its the last in the line of fast and efficient birds. If cost, especially operational cost was not factor, I'd go for an Acclaim, which I flew for Mooney as an instructor pilot for a short term gig and feel is the very best in the fleet. But for my needs I prefer the more efficient fuel burn and cruise speeds (very near 200kts) up high which are the best tradeoffs for me. If one could not find or afford a 252, which does cost a premium over the 231, I would seriously recommend the 262 as a good compromise since it has the -MB engine. Sorry, but the Merlyn wastegate is not an "automatic or semi-automatic" wastegate - its a pneumatic wastegate that does offer many advantages of being able to manually regulate a wastegate, foremost of which is to get the critical altitude into the flight levels rather than upper teens. But automatic is not one of them, it is still just as manual as it was with the original fixed bolt wastegate. Its nothing like a real hydraulically operated automatic wastegate that you hear referred to as the "set and forget". But don't get me wrong, I am not here to bad mouth the 231, but you get what you pay for and obviously I was in the same crowd that didn't think the premium cost of the 252 was worth it when I bought my first turbo, a 231. But little did I realize what I didn't know at the time and when the opportunity presented itself while my wife was taking flying lessons I got the 252 to make it easier for her to fly - using her as the excuse But there are many more great improvements in the -MB engine with its tuned induction system which is less susceptible to icing, its turbo controller and the option for dual alternators (which is the most highly coveted option) as well as the 252's infinitely adjustable cowl flaps. Also all 252 included as standard a hot prop, speed brakes, standby electric vacuum, built-in O2 system and more. Can't recall if my fully articulating front seats (rare in 231) were standard in the 252 but they really aid in front seat comfort and the fold down rear seats (that debuted in '85) are also very helpful for hauling toys like bike's in the rear. To me the main draw back versus the newer Bravo and Acclaim turbo's is that they will give you much improved performance down low; especially under 12K; but at the cost of significantly more fuel burn. Longbody's have other benefits too such as even being even more stable as an IFR platform. But once you climb up to the upper teens your getting great performance at very economical fuel burns and with the Encore mod a very good easily over 1100 useful load (without TKS). Performance wise I get book performance which is already well described in great detail above such as by @gsxrpilot and @Jsavage3 and others.

More info and video at: http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2018/01/mooney-m20d-master-c-fesn.html

Interesting, I assume this notice was from a specific FSDO and not nation wide since I see no mention of it on FAASafety.gov. Anyway, I wouldn't take this very seriously, as a Lead FASTeam rep at my FSDO, only the FAASTeam Program manager is an actual FAA employee, otherwise the entire FAASTeam group member are all volunteers and our ability to carry on won't be affected by this. The one exception is getting new SPANs events approved because approval is limited to the managers which are all FAA employees. But since events need to be in the system generally a full 4 weeks in advance to go through the approval process in time for airman notification this shouldn't have any real bearing for a few weeks. There is the occasional seminar given by or supported by a FAA employees, including FAASteam Program managers, and others including ATC TRACON reps that have out reach responsibilities that could be affected in the near term but these are rare. If anyone has concerns, my suggestion would be to call or email the event POC on the announcement for any upcoming event they might be concerned about to verify it will still be held. But I expect the vast majority of these won't be cancelled. But I can't really say about FSDO's other than San Diego.

What your quoting applies to GPS approaches only. We're not using GPS for lateral or vertical guidance in doing ILS, LOC or VOR approaches, therefore we don't need a GPS database approach procedure to fly them just like before GPS existed in the cockpit and we flew these without GPS. But we are able to use GPS to substitute for DME as long as the DME waypoint is in the database. As @Steve W says above, it does not need to come from a loaded procedure, but when its available its certainly legit and can be used for added situational awareness. Its certainly still legal since we are navigating by raw radio signal (e.g. VOR, ILS, LOC/BC, LDA, or SDF) and we may use a IFR certified GPS in the panel to substitute for the DME distance providing we have DME facility in the DB, which will work for any VOR based DME. An interestingly you will find many ILS, LOC, LDA DME facilities in the Garmin databases also including what you need for your VDU LDA-A approch. I do think your KVUO LDA-A approach that uses the PDX ILS is a most interesting issue since the procedure is not in your Database. I've given it a bit more thought and assuming we're looking for options for GPS equipped aircraft without DME to fly an approach IFR, I came up with these two: 1) firstly, one option you've probably considered. Just get clearance to fly the PDX ILS 10L, with intent to cancel and land at VDU. If you ceiling are above 1100-1200' this should work since you'll go right over VDU at right around JALAG at 1100'. Although you'll be able to load this approach, JALAG isn't in the database procedure so you'll be going more by distance to the missed for 10L to realize your passing VDU. 2) You can still fly the VDU LDA-A approach. Granted there is no procedure in your database. But you do have the I-VDG facility in the database, so simply dial in the ILS for PDX, identify it, and substitute your GPS distance for DME to identify each and every DME fix to the missed. Both GNS and GTN databases have these facility fixes. If you have dual GPS's like I do, its even easier since one GPS could have the KVDU airport while the other has the I-VDG facility for your DME distance. That method would get you the 860' minimums and be still legal although I have not had a need to do this, but you have an interesting issue. Anyway, I am confident this is valid (using the I-VDG waypoint). Back in 1998 when the FAA first granted us the ability to substitute GPS for DME & ADF, they had 3 limitations at that time, one concerned ADF (had to be an overlay like today), one for requiring a non-GPS alternate if an alternate was required (since this was before WAAS) and thirdly "DME transmitters associated with a localizer may not be retrievable from your GPS until the manufacturer incorporates them in the database. Pilots are not authorized to manually enter coordinates." That quote is right out of the old AOPA document courtesy of Steve above. Well that problem was solved some time ago and these facilities are now in the database. Hope that helps you out.

Very good - you are well on your way to Ace'ing your CFII - but that circular, although the original source, is a bit dated and these days and it's better covered by the AIM in section 1-2-3 (which actually references 90-108). DME arcs are certainly covered, including the note worthy unique Martin State DME arc, where the actual Arc leads to the runway. The note about not using substitution for primary lateral guidance past the FAF on approach is referring to VOR and NDB lateral guidance - not Arc's. But even this is outdated thanks to another AIM entry added more recently that clarifies we may navigate via GPS as long as we can monitor the raw Nav signal (see 1-2-3 c) note-5) This is something we can all do on a second CDI for VOR approaches which is nice but still does nothing legally to allow us to do NDB approaches with just GPS and no installed ADF equip. (But who really cares?) But it also means we can't fly a VOR based approach with an OTS VOR since we are unable to monitor the raw nav data (ironically even though we can fly VOR airways with an OTS VOR since we can use GPS to substitute for VORs sole source enroute and terminal navigation). As for the difference in DME slant range versus actual GPS distance this is made irrelevant in one of two ways. In the enroute/terminal navigation, the difference is well within the tolerance of the protected zone of the TERPS criteria for calculating the required obstacle clearance. For approaches, you'll note even though the approach plate may only list DME fixes without GPS waypoints names, the navdata procedure uses a jeppesen coded letter and number to provide an actual GPS waypoint for every DME fix needed on the approach - thus you'll always be able to use GPS waypoints for DME fixes as long as you have the approach procedure loaded and a current database. (But the substitution rules would still allow us to use GPS distance from the VOR if we didn't have the procedure with DME waypoints, but that's pretty silly when we have the approach procedure in the DB).

All aircraft certified under CAR part 3, which was everything prior to Jan 1, 1958, were certified with a Basic Empty Weight that did NOT include oil. Mooney's of course were originally certified under CAR part 3 and new models after '58 were added to the amended certification. But at some time, Mooney did change to the Part 23 weighing requirements that all the mid-body's and long body's go by where full oil is included in the Basic Empty Weight plus all required equipment for flight including POH, tow bar, etc. as it left the factory. There was an original equipment list provided that checked what equipment and arm was included. One should be able to resolve which rules their Mooney falls into by looking at your POH or equivalent guidance for calculating W&B, TCDS notes or even their existing W&B sheet. Its not necessary though to drain the oil for earlier models, instead its perfectly acceptable fill to capacity and use the specified arm and 7.5 lb/gal to compute oil weight and arm to subtract from the weighed aircraft with full oil. The same can be done for fuel. Both old CAR part 3 and new Part 23 rules call for the Basic empty weight to include unusable fuel only. But for accuracy (since its near impossible to be assured you have filled your Mooney tanks to the actual stated capacity) I would personally drain the tanks dry and then add in the actual unusable fuel as specified for your year & model (even on some of the same models it can change by year or serial number) - just as Mooney's weighing procedure advises. You can look up the precise unusable fuel for your model/serial number in the TCDS (I recall note 1). Besides too many people still use 6.0 lbs/gal (which was the generic weight for leaded avgas no longer in use) when FAA approved weight for 100LL is 5.82 lb/gal (although technically it varies by temperature).

Absolutely a contaminated wing will stall earlier and extra speed or more precisely a lower angle of attack should be carried through the approach and landing. But who is to say an AOA indicator no longer applies or is useless? True that one won't be using it to target for the normal Vs x 1.3 approach speed but its value doesn't end there. Air speed alone tells you nothing about your margin of lift in any phase of flight, while an AOA is still indicating your actual AOA, we just need to recognize that the max critical angle of Attack (CLmax) is now considerably less. NASA icing studies have equipped us with some very good information that we can utilize. Their studies have shown that on our GA airframes, that Rime icing typically can reduce stall angle from 18 to 11 degrees in 20 min. And that Clear icing was significantly more detrimental to performance reducing stall angle from 18 to 8; both in 20 min. Perhaps more useful for us is that they also indicate that just a bit of icing can typically reduce CLMax by 30% and large accretions in the form of clear ice horns on the leading edge typically reduce CLMax by 50-60%. Therefore they recommend maintaining a clean configuration at an airspeed of Vs x 1.5 or 1.6. I'll maintain that the "useless" AOA can be used as a reminder to keep the wing unloaded on the approach as we get near the landing environment since after all most icing accidents occur in the final approach/landing phases of flight. Therefore keeping the AOA in the solid green zone is going to help. But absolutely, a lower angle of attack on the approach and landing is critical, but I'll maintain a CDFA (continuous descent final approach) to keep the wings unloaded, keeping the airframe in a clean configuration (except for the gear) without flaps, manually flying without AP (so you'll feel any buffet) and selecting a long enough runway to allow for the extra airspeed are all important considerations to a successful approach with an iced airframe. Some worthwhile references: AC_91-74B, NASA's Online Aircraft Icing Training Course

oddly, the full autopsy report has found its way to the web, haven't seen this happen before - full details are usually treated as confidential even in NTSB reports: http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2018/01/icon-a5-n922ba-registered-to-n529pg-llc.html

I have no idea, but that this very common with with parallel runways to keep the patterns as far apart as possible, but they don't go to right pattern on 12L either which would also make sense if that was the reason. They are only keeping 12R/30L traffic entirely on the south side which is may not be for noise since its further away from the center of the airport but it still could avoid flying over some of the residential area. Ground freq could probably have explained why if not busy.

Indeed it was Phil's C model before his Eagle @mooneyflyer

I didn't even know about the movie till this thread which inspired us to watch it last night on Amazon. Thanks for the post! You'd think filming the takeoff through the tree tops would have led to the real accident posted, but I assume that was pure Hollywood. Couldn't imagine a plane not coming down in those circumstances though. Trying to look up the accident airport, i did find this short video of a C172 doing a touch and go there and it does look like a pretty short field but doesn't really look like the strip they filmed the scary takeoff from either.

All the K's are 42 psi on mains and 49 on nose (nose is same as J) . Even the Encore's increase to max weight of 3130 didn't change the tire pressure which is heavier than the Rocket's landing weight (3083 lbs - the rocket's take off weight is 3200 lbs - or 70lbs more than the Encore). But I see no mention of tire pressure changes in the Rocket POH supplement - perhaps @Yooper Rocketman miss recalls that or I missed it in the supplement?

Too funny, I am always pointing out the importance of using TRK and DTK for real world partial panel. As long as you have WAAS with TRK being updated at 5hz, who cares about a bouncing compass - at least until you loose all electrics in which case a review of compass errors with turns and timed turns is still worthwhile. But I encourage using TRK & DTK on all approaches - partial panel or otherwise. Non-WAAS though is too slow at 1hz to be helpful.

250 lb increase from weighing it does sound excessive. But is also crazy to weigh a plane and not expect it to go up in weight, which is reason enough IMO to stick to calculated W&B updates. I'd carefully go back and review every superseded W&B update looking for mistakes and if still convinced the 250 lb weight increase is not justified, I'd re-weigh it or even re-do it by re-calculating the last update based on the Turbo STC info for weights. If you know the paint job included a full strip before re-paint, then that shouldn't change W&B. And of course there is nothing wrong with weighing it to verify the CG is very close to the calculated CG and using the weighed version for informational purposes only -i.e. not using it officially.