kortopates

More details for anyone not on the Savvy mailing list and interested: http://mailchi.mp/savvyaviation.com/update-for-continental-520550-owners-c0g58ikfud-888817?e=9f5c8eb3fa

It makes sense that the s/w would automatically determine F or A and changes altitudes to hundreds. But it really sounds like that build of their app has a fatal bug they need to fix asap for you and all their other users trying to file below FL180.

I am not a FlyQ user but do understand the ICAO format. You didn't say specifically which flight plan field but F080 indicates an incorrect format for a flight level which begins at F180, and then you do say "BTW the software initially showed the flight level as 08" you must be referring to altitude & flight level. The ICAO format requires altitude to be specified as "A080" for 8000' or F180 for Flight Level 180. Since you appear to want to 8000', it needs to be A080 and not a flight level. Hopefully you can tell FlyQ this is an altitude and not a flight level.

The change, if there is one would be based on how far in advance you filed. If over an hour it used to be the central ATC computer didn't pass it on to the system and the departure facility until 1 hr prior. But if filed under an hour from departure it's processed and issue to the system and facility without delay other than required processing time. No mention above with respect to how far in advance these were filed. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That red knob can cause commanded structural failure in turbo's in seconds. Not so easily in your io-360. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, I do the entire Mooney fleet world wide and many other turbo's. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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.