kortopates

Thanks to Brian for his call out to Savvy Analysis and his recommendation for our services. I've had the pleasure of working with him these last few days. His issue was quite a puzzle! But I guess the good thing is that none of that contamination actually made its way into the cylinder to clog an injector thankfully or he really could have lost cylinders.

Putting the training wheels back on would get an insurance discount! And probably make it slower than a Cirrus - yuck

Forget about the discount. You're buying the added insurance to prevent a gear up and then either find yourself denied by the preferred providers due to the claim and higher rates after one. Only discounts I know of are for recurrent training. Are the benefits worth the extra cost? IMO, Heck yes! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There are a plethora of approved gear safety devices available now for our aircraft. I had one installed eons ago and like this one http://www.p2inc.com/audioadvisory.asp This one gives warnings through the audio panel in English based and is tied into the pitot-static system to alert based on speed which is more than adequate. There are radar altimeter based devices too but I don't recall offhand and their other more affordable options out there too. Exactly, as I recall the Piper "automatic gear" had a AD's against it to remove it after the system killed a number of people because pilots weren't adequately trained in their use. There must of been some option in the AD to keep it, perhaps with the following mod. The ones I flew had a floor switch to deactivate the system when you were flying very slowly, e.g., departing a high density altitude airport and initially climbing out at Vx for terrain. I just don't know if that was a mod required by the AD or if it was always there. But that was exactly how many folks died because either they either didn't know to use the deactivation mode or they didn't have it. But even with the system its killed a number of people departing trying to clear terrain in a maximum performance takeoff/climb and the gear drops down suddenly when they got slow such as a bump of air. You can readily see the consequences of that when the plane's ceiling with the gear down was only ~7700' as I recall; although I haven't been one in years but I had to use the deactivation switch many times when I did. The Arrow is dog at altitude. Just yet another example of how important pilots need to know their airplane systems to keep them out of trouble when the unexpected happens.

The bushings didn't fit in the connecting rods properly. It started with some engine shops complaining about them. But initially Lyc thought they weren't installing them correctly. At least one shop I know of stopped using them because they felt they weren't right; using Superior ones instead. I would expect most shops to use PMA'd Superior ones anyway to be cost competitive. Although I don't know the specific differences in prices but often the PMA'd parts are much cheaper than OEM. But some people mandate using OEM parts like Robinson Helicopters - who is in world of hurt right now because of this.

The pilot observing a personal max x-wind to ensure a safe landing is what's important. Not a published one. When pilots screw up the insurance still pays and the NTSB shows it as another R-LOC accident/incident - our most common screw up. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Loosing prime is not an issue till it sits for months; regardless of changing the oil filter and oil. It's easily regained by removing the top plugs and using the starter about 15-30 sec at a time till oil pressure comes up. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If your receiver hasn't connected to Sirius in awhile you'll have to go to their website and "refresh" your Sirius radio ID. But you need to have your unit on when you do and it can take up to an hour till your receiver gets the signal and is essentially re-activated. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

At least per the Lyc SB, you're quoting the dates of one of 3 part no's for the connecting rod assembly, (perhaps the one used in your engine) but the SB indicates all bushings shipped after Nov 18' 2015 have to be replaced! Generally connecting rods are re-bushed at overhaul and only entirely replaced if out of limits.

You're in the window of the time period but easy to check out. As a factory reman you need to check by your engine serial # in the SB. And if you are affected you'll get Lyc warranty to pay for it.

Yes, I assume slick mags and its on the port of the one of the mags. looks like an electrical connection issue but should be easy enough to tell from inspecting it at the magneto.

See this thread

Count your blessings you didn't procrastinate till it broke in flight leaving you with a difficult emergency landing. Seen that too. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Correct. But all indications are this will be followed by the FAA issuing an AD on this SB, and if adopted with 10 hr compliance time stated in the SB now its going to be hugely painful.

Good for you, but most affected people will not be by serial number but by a engine overhaul done by someone other than Lycoming that happened to use the affected lycoming part no's; especially the Lycoming rod bushings since these are replaced at overhaul. People with overhauls done during the affected time period will have to look for the affected part no's in their engine build parts list or contact their engine builder.

Good News!! New SB attached – no longer a Mandatory SB and no longer to become an AD by the FAA. Continental CSB05-8C (camshaft gear).pdf High lights are it calls for recurring annual inspections and replacing affected gear p/n's at next overhaul. From the last paragraph on page 1 of CSB05-8C, shows this will not become an AD: Per definitions contained in Chapter 1 of M-0, Standard Practice Maintenance Manual; MSB05-8B was created in accordance with FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 20-176A, Service Bulletins Related to Airworthiness Directives, at the encouragement of the FAA and was issued in March 2017. Subsequent analysis by the FAA has determined that an Airworthiness Directive (AD) may not be warranted at the present time therefore, this bulletin is being reissued as CSB05-8C, a Category 2, Critical Service Bulletin.

This is HUGE!! Its going to affect a LOT of people. Its not just Lyc reman/overhauled engines listed in table, but it has the potential to affect any overhaul done since Nov 2015 if any of the lycoming parts listed in table 2 where used, with the chief concern being if the engines connecting rods were re-bushed with the Lyc bushings. But if the Superior bushing was used instead, then that engine dodges the bullet. This could affect 1300 engines and is likely to be an AD. Here is the complete MSB: SB632_Connecting_Rod_Identification_and_Removal_0 (003).pdf

And it only took another week for us too see another gear up in a vintage model. This one in a 63' C J bar Mooney that was auctioned last fall - see http://www.asias.faa.gov/pls/apex/f?p=100:96:13652792576812::::P96_ENTRY_DATE,P96_MAKE_NAME,P96_FATAL_FLG:17-JUL-17,MOONEY But that was just 1 of 3 Mooney accidents and incidents over the past weekend

I guess the problem I have with this line of reasoning is that you always have options. And this was no exception. The Cirrus POH (actually FOM) is one of the best most detailed ones out there and I believe it and their standardized training program have been very responsible in greatly improving the fleets early higher accident rates. They devote a separate document to just CAPS deployment. Although they don't specifically cite an absolute minimum altitude for deployment because they say it depends on several factors and they say they have only demonstrated it to within 400' AGL and then add as of 2013 a pilot successfully deployed it at 444' AGL and their were 5 fatals with CAPs deployments too close to the ground to deploy, Cirrus has also said it should work to 300' AGL if maintaining straight and level flight but if the aircraft is coming down they say it can take 400' to deploy it and 920' if in a spin. There other key point with their training and POH is the need to perform the industry standard safety brief before departure. This may not be universal but Cirrus didn't invent this, its being preached by the majority of training organizations and is prudent for all of pilots because just as Cirrus underlines, its too late to be on takeoff and start making unanticipated decisions about if you are high enough to deploy or even high enough to turn back and just which way you will turn or where you might land. But in performing a pre-takeoff brief, the pilot verbalizes several key decision points such as what minimum airspeed he/she will continue the takeoff run past the half way point of the runway, what minimum altitude he/she will deploy the chute if a problem and what minimum MSL altitude he/she will turn back to a runway and which runway taking into account the airport physical environment as well as weather conditions while their is time to give it some thought. I doubt the pilot would have briefed deploying the chute below the min demonstrated deployment altitude of 400' when he had wide open space ahead. But we know the NTSB is going to say the pilot deployed the chute below the minimum demonstrated altitude. How can we not conclude that better emergency training and following procedures to self brief would have helped this pilot survive the accident? To me this is a wake up call to any pilot not yet self briefing each departure to go over their emergency plan before taking the runway.

And @gsxrpilot The Mooney wing tip recognition lights available from Whelen for about $100 ( these: http://www.skygeek.com/whelen-01-0770303-00-recognition-light.html ) are 14V 25 Watt PAR18 Halogen projector bulb. http://www.topbulb.com/err-bulb-25w-14v-par18-halogen-ansi-err Yes - 28V Mooney's use a 14V bulb (in series with a large voltage dropping resistor which is also in the wing tip). If you are willing to dremel down the sides to the proper shape and solder on two wires to the terminals and cover with heat shrink you can fabricate your own for under $10 - okay I exaggerated by a few bucks. But that's still 1/10 of the cost from Whelen. There used to be two flashers or pulsers available from LASAR and PreciseFlight. The LASAR was ideal in that it fits right behind the rocker switch but is no longer available. The Precise Flight is still available and fancier (does more) and I recall it was $359 last time I checked - but not sure. My LASAR works by turning the recognition light switch on for just 1 sec and then off and that puts them in pulse mode and would expect the Precise to work similarly. That is the only way I ever use them and in pulse mode they improve recognition over than without pulse mode. Plus while pulsing they don't get that hot to melt the lenses Thus they are a win-win IMO plus strobes don't flash straight head either, but you can of course do similar with pulsing headlights too. But I don't think you can pulse the much brighter HIDs that I use - since they say to leave on for 30 seconds minimum if just turning them on to test. BTW, I am not the first to mention this on MS, if I recall correctly one of the European Mooney owners posted the info on the projector bulbs a few years ago here.

So does the M20K - no different than J really (except the wet area in the K is a bit larger) but the issue is with the small holes in the top of the ribs, not the bottom. They get mistakenly or accidentally blocked by patch repairs and then trap air and prevent people from getting rated fuel capacity. And without the knowledge of the pilot if they don't drain the tank to empty and fill to see what it really takes. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's only true if filling above the factories definition of full which is at the base of the filler neck. After you're recent re-seal didn't you find you got factory rated capacity at the base of the filler neck? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, I see now both wings are pretty damaged as well as the front of the fuselage. BTW, meant to include this link for the witness account of the low and slow approach: http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2017/07/accident-occurred-july-15-2017-at.html?m=1 Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Will never happen because their are only a handful of Mooney owners to buy them. Plus several of us just buy the $5 projection bulb so don't find them expensive to replace and use the pulsing system which eliminates the plastic lens melting - both issues solved! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

IMO this is hardly an indictment of the dangers of a short runway but purely a reminder of the perils of dragging it in or the low and slow short field approach. Sadly way too many pilots are taught in their ab initio training the very poor and dangerous method of dragging it in on a short fields when they should have learned to do a more precise steeper approach with less power that never gets on the backside of the power curve. It's not only safer but also provides shorter rollout. I have never been to Washington Island but we have a similar popular runway on the west coast (L52) that is very popular with Mooney fly-ins which are attended by all models of Mooneys a few times each year. It's paved but has a steeper obstruction clearance slope than this one yet so far we've never lost a Mooney on it (that I know of). But of course very glad their was only damage to the bird and not people!!! But I hope this bird flys again someday. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk