kortopates

All of you should have gotten this by now, but here is Mike's update: update-for-continental-520550-owners

Mike had a 1 hour call with the FAA on this topic with some other stake holders representatives. He's going to be issuing an another e-blast update over the weekend. Although nothing has been resolved yet and it doesn't look like we'll see the FAA do so till May, but right now I think Mike was relieved and happy to see the FAA's attitude on this. Mike will share the details very soon.

Get yourself a copy of CMI Operations Manual for your TSIO-360. A digital copy is free as an engine owner from CMI/TCM online. After you register your engine serial number you get all the documentation for free. In the operations manual is their recommended hot start procedure which has more detail than the Mooney POH's. What's missing is the following method to replace the heat soaked fuel in the lines with fresh cool fuel from the tanks by: 1) close throttle and mixture to idle cutoff, then run low boost pump for 1/2 minute (preferable) or high boost pump for 10-15 sec. Deakin has written this up in an Avweb article as well. years ago. Now with the fuel lines flushed of the hot fuel, follow the Hot Start in Mooney POH. But as others have mentioned, if you didn't just shut down a few minutes ago, you may still need a couple seconds of prime (about 3 sec is what I use) and then slowly push the throttle forward while cranking till the engine catches (if it doesn't right away) being sure to pull it back once it does before RPM spins up above idle.

Dan has told me they have phone problems just like this in the past - months ago, so it surprising they continue to have them. But I am sure that's all it is. I'd suggest emailing when you can't get through.

Hi Bill, You had me wondering how that could be true; especially if the second alternator was still optional on the Encore, since it would make zero sense with birds produced with only 1 alternator which is always going to be the engine driven and therefore has to be #1. So I looked at your Encore POH and sure enough, see top page 7-27, it clearly refers to the optional alternator as #2 and says it carrys most of the load do to its higher RPM (from being belt driven) as I said above. Makes me wonder if your leads are reversed on the Load meter or alternator switch on the panel to cause that but something is not right. I'd suggest pulling the #2 field CB on the far right panel and see if that causes the #2 to drop out on the load meter - i.e., to check consistency. (I assume you are already failing #2 at the alt switches on each run-up and seeing #1 take the load).

Interesting and good to know.

Not exactly true Hank, but almost. The 252' with Dual alternators have a Dual Load meter between the clock and key on the left that showed simultaneous outputs on each of the two alternators as well as total load and pushing a button it showed system voltage rather than total load. Then there is the added CB for Alt 2 and a over voltage light for Alt 2 on the far right. There are also 3 separate fuses for the Load meter below the quarter panel on the far right. Perhaps the single alternator would share some of those fuses -I don't know. The Dual alternator option should have been a no brainer but some new owner pass it up sadly. It has so many advantages in addition to the obvious redundancy. The #2 is a belt driven alternator which turns faster than the engine driven alternator which does 2 things. First it absorbs most of the load because of its higher output from turning faster. Secondly it's coming in speed rpm is lower so you don't have to idle as high to turn off the low volt light or ride the brakes on taxi to keep the light off and thirdly the #2 by taking more of the load helps extend the life of the more expensive to maintain engine driven #1 while the belt driven #2 is much cheaper to maintain.

I don't see any difference and think your over thinking the concern. The other most important thing to do is communicate early. Don't wait till you're a minute away from having to deviate. Communicate to let the controller know your plan and will need to deviate soon. Plus I find it much easier to deviate say 10 degrees away than wait till the nearly the last minute to deviate 30 or 40+ degrees. When you wait to the last minute, the controller may have a genuine traffic conflict and may not be able to approve your request immediately. As PIC, if you screwed up and truly are out of time before you must deviate e.g., about to penetrate a big buildup, don't just penetrate something you know you have no business doing and instead don't hesitate to use the E word and the controller will move the other traffic out of the way. Professionals never wait till the last minute, neither should you. But it happens a lot on departures where the SID or departure procedure is about to put you into weather and you are asking the controller to deviate as soon as you are checking in with them. This is one of the most common causes of pro's using their emergency authority to deviate when the controller first says unable; their out of time. The NASA database is full of such examples too. So don't hesitate when needed but learn to communicate and deviate sooner rather than waiting. That's when you have time to negotiate, such as taking a different altitude if need be along with the change in heading etc,

If I understand your point Clarence, let say Superior did get FAA PMA approval to manufacture their version of 656818, which they provide as SA656818. If so why would any of the documentation cited in the MSB or forthcoming AD need to be updated since under the PMA, the Superior p/n SA656818 could be used to substitute for the OEM required p/n 656818; just like SA parts can be used to substitute for any of the required CMI replacement part numbers at major overhaul as specified now in Appendix C of M-0. In the FAA eyes they are interchangeable. Am i missing something?

Be happy to give you all a group overview of the procedures and rules etc. I don't recommend using either Ensenada or Tijuana if avoidable because they have some issues which make them far less friendly. Depending on where you are heading, Ensenada may be merited, but that is usually only true for the volunteer aid groups like Ken referred too above. (I have one friend that uses Ensenada for surfing trips that aren't far away and he is the only one I know that uses it). For us tourist, San Felipe (45min) or Loreto (3hrs) is much more preferable. All 3 of you have the range to make Loreto which is usually more efficient and cheaper than using San Felipe; if for example you want to go pet the whales at Laguna San Ignacio or if you want to head further south to the cape. But some folks prefer to clear at San Felipe and follow the coastline down pretty low and it does work out well if headed for Mulege. With some clients I go over all the paper work and procedures. This includes flight planning in both directions with emphasis on fuel planning with contingencies for fuel availability issues and what challenges you can expect getting required border crossing US squawk codes while south of the border depending on your last point of departure and much much more. Also with some clients, which have been those that want to take their family down with out surprises, we'll made a day trip to San Felipe to get their Multi-Entry out of the way and go through all the procedures live in both directions. That has included sampling the fish tacos too. So a day trip is an option too.

Fake news! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, there is what seems like endless paperwork going to Mexico. But you're on Mexican time when south of the border. You have to leave living in the fast lane behind you and accept it as part of the adventure. Otherwise you won't have a good time. BajaBush has everything you need to know and much more. I am a longtime member. AOPA has all the essentials too. I also do Mexico checkouts too in San Diego for anyone wanting a helping hand. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Andy nailed it above. As aviators we don't need to put up with the bouncing for very long; as well as watching the instrument panel vibrate from it. Get the nose off asap and as the lift builds we feel less and less of the bumps. Personally, just my opinion, but I don't think us pilots should ever be complaining about the runway. I am thankful for every airport we still have. Some of the most beautiful places I get to visit by Mooney are only made possible by a dirt or gravel runway. (Although these are mostly south of the border.) The Mooney, although far from ideal for them, can do them just fine with good soft field techniques and proper speeds. Still, I won't go into any dirt or grass strip - I have pretty conservative limits; but many are just fine. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I assumed that was you firing up your Mooney at 6am; since you had the longest to go. Sorry I never got to chat while we were there. Hopefully next time. The PPP weekend goes by so fast! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Of course I have no idea, but I'll guess you have nothing logged in the log book on this because it was done as unsupervised owner maintenance. Just can't imagine a certificated A&P doing that. But finger pointing at this stage does nothing to help your situation. But maybe your posting of this will prevent another occurrence. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe a little good news on this should the FAA go nuclear and adopt a rule requiring the new gear before overhaul as TCM advises. It is possible to replace the camshaft gear in situ without splitting the case. The engine still needs to come out with enough removal of things to drop the oil pan to give access to the gear. The rub is with the permamold cases that require just a little machining of about .060" of material that will interfere with the new gear. Continental wants the case split and a specialty shop like DIVCO to machine it. But someone is already producing a jig to position a grinder to accurately remove the very little metal that needs to come off. It's in a very small area. If this method is approved then the sting of replacing the camshaft gear can be tremendously lessened since it won't require splitting the case and R&R cylinders. Therefore far less invasive and requiring far fewer replacement parts - if approved. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Seriously??? As for what others would do - I would hope most Mooney pilots would have reviewed their POH and realized that only Emergency procedures call for usage of the Boost pump and that even the High Boost pump is incapable of providing enough fuel to make full power. Perhaps it would help if ever in a situation where you're wondering if it might be okay to push the limits is to just think how the newspaper headline will read if things don't go well and what all your peers will say or be thinking when the accident report comes out. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

99% percent of the time its because the flight plan was filed with an unintended time - like local instead of Zulu or vice versa.

Yes, the third device is great. If only that was available a few months ago on our renewal date and we could have saved an IFR subscription for my wife. But also very cool is the added support for Jepp products with the DB Concierge service. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

100' below you sure looks like your ghost! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Personally, I would abort any takeoff where my max FF was showing 5 GPH below max spec. This is one of the easiest and fastest ways to burn up an engine; especially a turbo. Please read the following article on Detonation, on page 5 of 6, Mike is speaking directly to you! https://www.savvyaviation.com/wp-content/uploads/articles_eaa/EAA_2010-09_destructive-detonation.pdf Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As Steven said, it's very fortunate you didn't damage gear doors or worse. But personally, I don't think I would have put the wheel back on without at least a dye penetrant exam but I am not sure what Parker calls for in such a situation. You could still follow up with them to see what they recommend. Otherwise flats happen, but luckily they are very rare in aviation. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The KAP and KFC work identically the same with the exception that the KFC has the very desirable Flight Director. But both hold altitude by holding pressure altitude references to the static system. In truth its only capable of holding a pressure altitude. This why you have to update the altitude hold after every altimeter change. In contrast the next generation of digital AP like the KFC225 allows maintaining the desired flight level using an automatic Baro correction capability that allows it to hold the same altitude after any altimeter setting change.

Glad to hear the fix turned out to be very minor!