kortopates

Can you manage it alone or do you need a helper? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Really a conversation for you and your supervising IA that's going to sign off and submit the required 337 which will begin with removing the 430 and installing a 430W. And the first thing he should point out is that he needs a Garmin install manual in order to have the legal basis to install; unless you got a copy of Garmin's installation manual with it or he is a Garmin dealer - since you can't get the doc accept as a Garmin dealer. The install manual will of course detail the changes that@Hank referred to above. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, and by about 2 inches if I recall right. No porpoising for you! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, not yet but considering it for when the day comes. But also concerned about the added challenges with the cowling. I like that I can do it by myself right now. Mooney changed the height of the lower cowling on the long body's to handle the 3 blade props. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Great prop, but be aware it adds new challenges to R & R'ing the lower cowling. Erik could give you a first hand account since you'll be in the same predicament with 3 blades. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I see @Bob - S50 and I are in similar situations. Frankly, I look at it as if my home base requires an alternate IFR departure airport for any IMC departure. Good risk management is based on recognizing threats of all kinds and developing a mitigation strategy or plan in advance, just as @N201MKTurbo was also suggesting. (I do the same emergency departure brief as I ask my students to do.) My base also has high minimums. Two approaches have minimums at 1000' and 1100' agl. But even if the ceilings are higher than that I still likely won't be heading back to my departure runway unless I can do so VFR. But the decision is based on my departure procedure too since takeoff direction plays a big role in this decision just like it does in the emergency brief for VFR departures when annunciating which runway I will turn back too if I have the required altitude. So depending on direction, my base is only a couple minutes from the FAF of an approach to a near by airport - much closer than to either FAF for my airport. Secondly while both of my approaches begin at 5000' my alternate begins at less than 3000'. With all these considerations, it's very clear I can get down much faster and without needing to climb up all the way up to 5K, nor do the long down wind leg so to speak to get either of my home base FAFs. The nearby airport is a much more realistic option if my emergency is due to partial power as well. These issues are worth considering on unfamiliar destinations as well. But of course these options need to be considered in the flight planning phase which is really the intent of the IFR alternate. The IFR alternate concept is much more valuable than just considering weather minimums. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If they are OEM wires then they have a coded label. The code identifies function and numbers make it unique. You can map the code to the Mooney schematic to see exactly what it is and where it goes- if OEM. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

@Jeff_S & Folks, good questions and happy to respond, but you'll need to give us some time. I have a large queue of aircraft this morning and then the a second half of my day is all flight instructing. We currently have one our data guys out of town so I am doing double duty right now and behind. Soon as I can....

I just corrected my post above, support for @Marauder F is available now combined with the J that is a F/J cohort.

That's for sure!

Indeed Rick, I think that exchange gave it away who was representing and I feel better for you now since as an airworthiness guy, his questions on your pilot quals should have been to just complete his report that was airworthiness based. I assume the report by the tower of a gear issue is what prompted it all. I know a proctoscopic isn't a nice experience regardless of why its being done but hopefully its bit easier to suffer through recognizing it wasn't really about the pilot but aircraft maintenance. At least it sure looks that way. Its also true what you said earlier about compliance; ATC and Tower controllers are require to report all deviations, loss of separation etc They even have software that reviews the radar tapes that will find and report separation deviations even if the controller doesn't at the time. But its also true about their new compliance philosophy that they will try to offer remedial training before violating a pilot for a pilot deviation when they believe the pilot didn't intend too deviate and has a positive attitude. Of course none of that applied to your situation, but your comment about reporting is very true.

You're right Teejay, F/J's are available now, how Chris will provide support for E's as combined with F/J's or some other way. I was presuming a combination and I should not since Chris will do some analysis to decide (and probably some tradeoffs too). I edited the twice correct and clarify too.

Thanks for expanding and clarifying Rick. Unfortunately, "Aviation Safety Inspector - General Aviation Unit" doesn't tell us which of three types he may be. There are Airworthiness ASI's concerned with maintenance, Operations ASI's concerned with Pilots and Avionics ASI's. So your ASI could have been either Airworthiness or Ops based. I expect it would be normal to answer standard questions about pilot qualifications in any report they completed but so often as you know, the process doesn't go beyond a telephone call. And I surely don't know why this ASI needed to write a full report. The FAA does list a directory for their employees that sometime but not always list what kind of ASI they are. I assume you are in St Louis 03 FSDO with the directory being here: Saint Louis, Missouri - Flight Standards District Office - 03 If you browse that, perhaps you'll recognize the name and just maybe it will have his full title as to which kind of ASI he is.

An update. Savvy now does support the "Report Card" reporting on the M20S & M20R as a combined cohort that Jeff brought up with this thread. Next in line with Chris at Savvy is a solution for reporting on the E, either with or without F/J models. (F/J models are supported now)

I remembered that post as well. Now I realize I didn't comment on that after your quoting your post. I see I forgot now, but I was intending to add to your comments that IF that was a problem in this case the OP should find the emergency gear extension will not engage from the brass clutch being chewed up and thus the importance of extending it mechanically after raising it electrically.

There actually is no sensor to monitor the emergency gear extension handle. If it is not secured allowing it to engage its going to stop gear retraction by popping the actuator motor circuit breaker. There is also no squat switches on the K. It'll have an airspeed safety switch and if that has failed, then the emergency gear extension red button should be illuminated red and pressing that button will by-pass it and raise the gear. Anyway @ziggysanchez appears to have a very good understanding of his gear system and @StevenL757 suggestion to put the plane on jacks and exercise the gear electrically up and mechanically/manually down is spot on. I don't don't know what it is, but the OP seems to have ruled out the simple stuff so far. But I would first get under the gear, right after getting it jacks, and it give it look over right away as you may well see the problem or damage before you exercise it. Also if you don't have two people to allow someone to watch it closely as the other raises it, I would move it a little at time pulling the breaker to check on it for signs of trouble to minimize risk of more damage in case you have something binding that was missed in the visual. Its really going to take dropping the belly pan too to give it a full visual inspection before manipulating it but the most likely areas of binding are in the gear wells. Good luck!

I don't think there is one independent Mooney CFI that can afford to to insure their personal airplane for instruction. Its gets outrageous and there is no way we could we even break even. The only way would be just like any club aircraft - leased back to club and flown by lots of other pilots. No thanks. Also, Don's not based at what most would refer to as the bay area, although I don't know that its any more expensive there either, but I pay the same in San Diego - its expensive almost everywhere in CA that is not rural due to simple supply vs demand.

What do you mean by ISO? I am stumped... Although one option is to simply upgrade your 330 to the 330 ES since it will make you ADS-B out compliant. But it does nothing to improve the limited TIS traffic you get now from your 330. A portable ADS-B in solution is better than the TIS traffic you are getting on the 330. Besides being limited, it also subject to delays of up to 13 secs. Perhaps the cost of the 330 upgrade is better put towards replacing the 330 with the GTX 345 or one of similar competitor products. But with the 650, the 345 integrates beautifully and the 345 (and many others) provide dual band ADS-B in with the full traffic picture everywhere, not just under TRACON radar coverage by those sites that include TIS. And as more and more planes upgrade to ADS-B and air-to-air ADS-B reception become more the norm, then the more real time your trafffic picture will be. Also ADS-B traffic devices include directional vectors to quickly tell you how much of a threat they are based on their direction and closure rate. So a rather lengthy discussion to suggest not assuming your current solution really has the traffic picture solved for you - its a very limited solution.

You probably already have it, but don't forget to include the critical pulse oximeter and set flow based on its telling you.

You probably want to buy your own new cannulas. If You don't, your wife will appreciate it. [emoji846]

I am total agreement with Clarence and Bill. I much prefer how Beechtalk does it since I believe it ensures more responsibility of the poster. That's not to say those that use an alias are irresponsible in their posts and treatment of their fellow Mooney pilots - most are not. But IMO I think those that are would not or do it a lot less if they were not using an alias. Just my opinion and FWIW I've been on the internet since we've had one. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly right, except today we're only 7-8x worse than auto's - on a per mile basis too! The good thing is I think the vast majority of newer private pilots got the memo in their training and realize this. But we still have a lot of long time pilots like myself that have been telling the lie for so long that are still in disbelief. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Very sad indeed, but lots of competing priorities of what needs saving when this happens. At least hurricanes we know are coming. I don't live in your backyard but I get the idea you really don't get warnings with tornadoes. Luckily we only have earthquakes and although feeling the ground move below you (or the bed:) ) is common, actual destruction from one is extremely rare. With the forecast for Harvey to camp out there for the next few days I hope this isn't just the beginning of damages! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Flight Service has been providing this for some time and its now integrated into both Garmin Pilot and Foreflight. Those that are not GP nor FF users need to register with Leidos on their website https://www.1800wxbrief.com/. Then when ever you file a VFR flight plan through them, they will send you an email or text (your choice) to both activate and close your flightplan. If you file your flight plan through GP or FF, they implement that functionality for you. In these apps you'll see a link on the same page you filed the flight plan, first to activate (or modify) and then to Close. Couldn't be easier and eliminates the need to change frequency, get them on the radio to open or call them after words. And for me, since I fly VFR so seldom, I really appreciate the email or text to close as a reminder I need to do that rather than get that very embarrassing phone call from them when I am over due - cause I forgot! Check it out, you'll love it regardless of which implementation you use. All you need is data access on your phone or iPad and these days that's not much of problem - even in Mexico depending on your carrier.

Along those same lines, I am surprised the lack response on this thread that the down airplane not being found for so long would have simply been avoided had the pilot/owner had a 406 ELT installed! Don't get me wrong the discussion on monitoring 121.5 is all very good and it's intentions are very positive. But the take home lesson here in my mind is we all need to installing 406 ELT. Sure they don't always survive the crash, these 4 souls may not, but surely if anyone was unconscious or too injured to call, the 406 would have instantly alerted the SAR folks to check it out and just maybe someone would have survived. The other thing we can do these days to ensure someone starts looking for us sooner is to use the available capability to activate your VFR flight plan with a single click on your smart phone. The main EFB app providers have integrated this capability into their apps making it even easier. Yet going down and not being found or missed till the next day continues to happen. In another thread we discussed the Cessna going down at Big Bear - that wasn't found till the next day either and it was also right by the airport yet hidden by trees. Sure, monitoring 121.5 helps, but being proactive and installing a 406 and activating a VFR flight plan when appropriate are going to help us much much more. No guarantees much it could sure make a difference. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk