kortopates

That was pretty easy to miss. I really doubt he was asked to read back the ODP, I have never heard that being done before and I have heard a number of visiting pilots that have needed to ask tower, ground or clearance delivery, to read it too them and that's all they do. Good point about VFR departure procedures at class B & C airports. I haven't done one of those in a long long time VFR, but its a real clearance, at least in Class B, and one that a VFR pilot can't look up so I assume that makes the read back necessary. S r i r a m and a M20J owner from LVK is familiar. I think my wife and I may have met you hiking around Mammoth Lakes area, this would have been many years ago - maybe a decade ago! Hi.

1) Towered fields with a TRACON. I can't say for every TRACON, but here in SOCAL that is the norm for the airports I frequent. They will either instruct you to fly the ODP or they provide an alternative such a fly a heading. 2) Non-towered with a TRACON, such as the same airports after the tower is closed. SOCAL doesn't as consistently reference the ODP as the tower does. But as you say, its our responsibility to look it up and fly it since it could be a while before we are talking to a TRACON or ARTCC. 3) uncontrolled field under ARTCC. I agree, I have never seen a center reference an ODP in this case. Its our responsibility to look it up and fly it till center gives us a vector.

83 years old

I think you may be confusing the "departure" procedure (although they called it "departure clearance") with the IFR clearance. They already stated the pilot had to read back his IFR clearance multiple times. I don't know if your instrument rated or not, but I'll answer as if you were not so anyone that is not will better understand the significance of this. His IFR clearance would have just begun with "Cleared to San Jose Airport via the Riverside Obstacle Departure procedure ..... followed by his route etc. Its the pilots responsibility to have the necessary documentation on board and know how to look the ODP up. We're told he bought charts at the FBO, suggesting he isn't using an iPad with all of this information available to him. So if he bought the approach plates Iam not sure why he couldn't find the ODP in the Takeoff Mins & ODP section or he may simply have forgotten where to find the ODP's. Regardless, he got to the runup area and couldn't look up the ODP and had to ask tower to read him the "departure" = ODP. If you don't have it on board, then tower will read it to us. That's what the report is telling us when they said they read it too him. He simply didn't have it or didn't know how to find it. As peevee says above, this is really not what you would expect from a current ATP rated pilot. Nor should the taxi clearance have been challenging at this airport, although depending on where he was parked,if it was at near the terminal or transient, his clearance would been which taxiway (e.g. H or G) to get on to taxiway A and then all the way to end of A to threshold. Good thing he was departing from a towered field or he may have needed to call FSS to get them to read it. I pasted the ODP below, he was departing from Rwy 9 and in all likelihood upon reaching PDZ he wouldn't be going east but west and would be climbing on course; thus not have to contend with the hold. Regardless though soon as he checked in with SOCAL and was at their MVA they'd be vectoring him on his way. DEPARTURE PROCEDURE: Rwy 9, climb heading 089° to 1700 then climbing right turn heading 210° to intercept PDZ VORTAC R-093 to PDZ VORTAC, thence … Rwy 27, climb heading 269° to 2200 then climbing left turn direct PDZ VORTAC, thence … Rwy 34, climb heading 344° to 1800 then climbing left turn heading 230° to intercept PDZ VORTAC R-352 to PDZ VORTAC, thence … ... Aircraft departing PDZ VORTAC R-091 CW R-140 and R-231 CW R-280 climb on course. All others climb in holding pattern (hold NE, right turns, 210° inbound) to cross PDZ VORTAC at or above; R-321 CW R-340 7800; All others 7200 or airway MEA.

I responded on MAPAlist as to why I agreed with your mechanic on it being the gauge. Even a pinch in the line isn't going to block 1800+ psi of pressure from getting to the gauge. I suggest checking with salvage yards for a replacement. I have not looked up the park number but I suspect it will be the same gauge used in the same O2 Mooney systems used in many of the models K, M, R & TN and therefore not bravo specific and thus a bit easier to find. No, you will not need to drain the tank to replace the gauge. Your mechanic will simply disconnect the HP line from the regulator on the tank. A HP needle valve on the regulator will prevent the air from escaping the tank (just like a bicycle tube stem valve). Yes, their is a mil standard teflon tape specific for O2 applications that is reference in the Mooney service manual. My recollection is that the standard has been superseded by a newer one, but you'll find with a little searching its commonly available - even on amazon. But there is also a small o-ring that goes on the end of the HP line that inserts into the O2 regulator that should be replaced when the line is opened up. That can be found in your mooney IPC (illustrated parts catalog). In fact, searching on MS you'll find I cited the O-ring part # on another thread about O2 leaks for a K model; but best to verify what your IPC says.

The Prelim on this came out on this yesterday: https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/ReportGeneratorFile.ashx?EventID=20170227X34320&AKey=1&RType=Prelim&IType=FA No mention on a possible miss-fueling. But they did verify the pilot was the 83 year old ATP pilot and registered owner (therefore we assume is PPL wife was not the pilot flying) and they describe the pilot's witnessed difficulty getting the left engine started after the right started. The most pertinent points they made in the report IMO was: " A preliminary review of ATC audio revealed that the controller issued an IFR clearance to the pilot multiple times before he repeated the instructions back to the controller correctly. Witnesses that were listening to the pilot's communications with ATC reported that the pilot required progressive taxi instructions to runway 09, the departure runway. Once the pilot reached the runway, the controller read the departure clearance to the pilot, verbatim. After an uneventful runway departure, the airplane began a left turn as it entered the clouds. A portion of the airplane's final moments of flight were captured by a surveillance video, which showed the airplane descend towards the ground in a slight left wing low attitude. The airplane disappeared behind a residence, which was immediately followed by the presence of fire and smoke." If you also add in what is only rumor at this time, but from comments made purportedly from someone working their, that when the pilot returned after an earlier attempt to depart with a IFR to VFR on top clearance, he went to the FBO to buy charts and asked the FBO how to file an IFR flight plan. This strongly implys he had not intended to make any IFR legs on this trip from SJC and even worse, implying the pilot may have lacked any IFR recency in experience. Only rumor at this stage but the prelim does seem to corroborate to some degree. But its now going to be a year or more wait to get the final report. Also sadly, one of the two woman survivors of the crash died on the 7th. This was the mother that suffered 3rd degree burns over 90% of her body that was pulled out of the burning house: http://www.sbsun.com/general-news/20170308/riverside-plane-crash-victim-stacey-pierce-dies

It is full of legalese but their intent is right on. It's written in a sense to throw lots of caution to an inexperienced pilots. But it also gives lots of flexibility to an experienced pilot that doesn't simple stay in icing till it's an emergency and always has planned to give themselves a realistic out never has to worry about being violated. I.e. If the planning and decision making where prudent one shouldn't have to worry if things should go upside down. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed but I think it's even simpler than that. Once you use your Mooney as the very capable x-ctry plane it is its no longer practical to just camp out unexpectedly for multiple days because there are clouds. As delays mount I suspect the typical pilot will feel the pressure mount to move on and then the risk taking begins. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ah, you mean 91.527? At first it may seem pretty clear, till you look for a definition of known ice or icing conditions. But you'll find the FARs are pretty silent on that. That came from their legal council in a Info interpretation letter a few years back. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am not sure where your bracket is mounted from your description but in all likelihood the required access is from below the aircraft after removing the belly pan. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I can think of 3 other Mooney's in the Vegas area, including one guy that winters his plane in Boulder City. But none of them use a username based on their real names and don't remember their user names (don't recall any recent post by either of the 3 I am thinking of). But I also know there are more than that too. Sorry that's not much help other than saying there are quite a few there.

Turtle, You are making it more complicated than what it is. First, its important to understand that the K factor has nothing to do with your tank capacity - just treat it as an unknown (since it is, till you measure). But what's important is how much fuel has been added to the tanks versus what your GEM says it burned. But the only way to get good data for how much fuel you have burned versus how much fuel you added is to pick the most repeatable filling method you can. This is easiest if you just use the legal POH definition of "full" which if the bottom of the filler neck that you can see easily. Above that point is room for expansion and although you can easily add more fuel you can't be assured you are always filling it to the same point since air gets trapped inside and it can be difficult to burp it without taking some time. Once you know how to fill it so you can be confident each fill is identical in quantity then you'll be able to do this with minimum error. Your repeatable full point doesn't even need to be official full but it does have to be 100% repeatable by you. Next is put a spreadsheet together. Its silly and just adds error if you try to adjust your K factor on 10-20 gallons of fuel. Instead use a spreadsheet to track every time you added fuel and what your GEM recorded as burned via remaining fuel. This way you can re-zero the fuel burned to zero every time you fill it. After you have gone through about 100 gallons you are ready to re-calculate the K factor. Waiting till you have gone through 100+ gallons ensures a 1 gal discrepancy between fills will be only a 1% error. You should be able to fill it back to your identified full mark within 1 gal to get precise data. This is only critical wrt to being identically filled on the first fillup and the last fillup. All the other in between fills can be filled to anywhere you want by anyone. But the last one need to be done identically to the first one, so preferably by you at your home base self serve fuel island where you have the best chance of repeating the same fill point. FWIW, the JPI procedure has you only changing the K factor by 50% of the difference you re-calculate it each time. They have you do this because pilots tend to introduce a lot of error. If you do it as outlined with a 100 gal or more you should be very accurate as long as you can fill it accurately. As a separate data collecting exercise, I suggest at some point drain your tank completely, level it, add the amount of un-usable back in and then see how the actual capacity compares to the POH as you fill it and make yourself a calibrated dip stick. Fill it to the the bottom of the filler neck and see how close it comes to your POH capacity. You can then see how much additional fuel you can overfill it by or what it takes to make up any missing capacity.

Awesome!

You got the first sentence right Henry. But you should have stopped there!

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think the Aspen EA100 adds any AP functionality that the AP doesn't already have unless you count GPSS. It doesn't even add Flight Director functionality to AP that don't already have it. You'll still have altitude hold and attitude hold, but not Alt Pre-select which is an altitude to climb or descent too. The Garmin GAD-43E is as close as you can get to transforming your AP to the functionality of their GFC-700 AP. Edit: Ah, I stand corrected. Aspen offers a separate add on for Altitude Preselect but only for the KFC200 AP and for another $1500 on top of the EA100 ($2800).

I think you search MS you'll see a few post from others that this gets very expensive too add. I know I considered it 15 years ago and decided it was too expensive then. These days you are much better off just updating to the G500 with GAD-43E since it will provide the same functionality enhancements and do a much better job getting you much more value for the $.

That's because 230 lbs of that UL came from the Encore conversion. Its a big increase.

How many of you made it in today?

Someone that has installed one may know. But personally, a seat belt wrapped around the yoke with the seat forward does just the job very well. Just never found the need for something better; especially when it needs to be permanently attached to the airplane.

FWIW, I really like the last option the best because it gets you into more capability with the VFR Aspen sooner, and you'll only have to make a s/w update to get it to the Pro level. But in practical terms I see some needed re-work from that approach. I assume going with the VFR Aspen, you will still need both CDI's, yet when you upgrade to the IFR Aspen you will need some re-wiring on the Aspen to include the CDI/GS inputs and then you will then have a redundant CDI. Perhaps they can pre-wire the Aspen to make that transition mostly only s/w? But yes, it seems you will need the EA adapter, but in so doing you get the immediate relief from no longer having to maintain your old Century AI too. Although its unpredictable when it may fail next, it could put you ahead by not being forced to spend maintenance dollars maintaining it if the unexpected was to happen.

Ah, that's much better than I thought. I'd still prefer to see the G1 up higher with the key and master switch below. You are going to spend a quite a bit of money on the panel work. I understand your budget needs but I would think that delta in cost for getting a new panel cut would only be in the neighborhood of 3-4 hundred - but that is something you would have to verify with your shop. But my biggest concern is substituting your old AI for the TC. If you were a seasoned instrument pilot, I would not be so concerned about replacing your TC with an attitude indicator but as a beginner you will have a lot of added difficulty doing standard rate turns. As a CFI I can tell you the hard part of instrument flying is partial panel, and the biggest problem new instrument pilots have is over backing in turns even when they have the obvious markings on the TC. Although having the backup attitude being in view of your scan is a big plus for partial panel. But IMO you will have the same over banking tendencies even with all your available instruments since you won't have the very obvious TC marking to help you prevent it. Even if you understand how to use your airspeed to calculate your bank rate now and then roll left or right to the number of degrees necessary on your AI to maintain your standard rate, without the TC to back you up I expect your performance is going to suffer from the added workload for quite some time. Further its going to make times turns that much less precise adding to you workload with bigger corrections. With new TC's starting at under $800, getting a used one is not going to break the bank and help you get through your instrument training. I personally think it takes a few hundred hours of instrument time to be good enough to ditch the TC. You'll find your mind is so task saturated doing the basic things that having to substitute mentally from the get go is really adding to your work load. Anyway, I should add that the substitution of a AI for a TC is a bit contentious in the pilot community to begin with. There are those that think its a never a good idea to ditch the TC. I am not in that camp, but given my experience as a CFI I am of the opinion it take a lot of experience to be able get by without it when the work load is extra high. Just look at all the accident reports from being partial panel and the pilot is doomed when they either can't keep the wings level or they can't turn without over banking. In your defense, your more reliable G5 should significantly help reduce your exposure to a partial panel emergency, but I would not want to bet my life on it. I would also encourage your training to include both partial scenarios you are susceptible too: partial without the G5 and partial without the DG & backup AI (which I assume is vacuum based). I mention that because your panel is kind of interesting from a failure mode standpoint with the uniqueness of the G5 which is only primary for attitude. Certainly not a problem but important to be aware and train for the different failures you will see. The GNC300XL is not my favorite GPS either, the interface is pretty difficult, but I think you totally have the right idea of using it to get into the ground floor of IFR GPS. Its not WAAS with vertical guidance but a huge improvement over no GPS at all. Plus it will put you miles ahead in your training for getting your ticket compared to the pilot that gets his ticket on VORs alone and then needs to make the transition to GPS. GPS seems like it should be so easy given the moving map and magenta line. But initially GPS adds a lot of complexity just in mastering the programming of the box quickly let alone how to use it in the IFR environment with a lot of things to learn (e.g., loading the full approach vs VTF, usage of OBS for intercepting a radial like VORs versus suspending and unsuspending, and the world of GPS approach procedures, Q routes, etc...). Their awesome tools but they take some time to learn as well. Regardless of how you do your panel, the above was just my experienced opinion, so take it for what it is, but have a great time flying and enjoy your training. You should find it great fun.

I thought there used to be a Mooney service instruction and parts list you can order to install on earlier Mooney's without it. No idea, but I wouldn't expect it to be expensive, just some basic hardware with the lever.

Could you clarify the 6K limitation on the VSI? I have never heard of that and my first thought was the range was limited to +/- 3K FPM, which I was thinking is fine. But I gather you are indicating its only good too 6K of altitude or am I miss understanding (I hope so!)? I assume you will have your new panel with instruments lined up in the standard 6 config. So what will go on the far lower left that can still be blocked by the ignition keys. FWIW, I sure would want to interchange the positions of the master and ignition switch to get those keys out of the way, or even better move the keys down. I do note you didn't mention upgrading to a full size TC and I hope that didn't imply keeping the small one and moving it under the key? That won't be standard either unless its where the altimeter is now - which is what I would like if it was me. But since you are going from 8 to 9 holes and if keeping Century AI on the pilot side, that's going to screw up your 6 pack arrangement. If it was me, I would try very hard to move the old Century AI to the co-pilot side out of the way. And only if that was a real problem, I'd ditch the VSI if it was legal with the G5 but I don't think it is. So I'd really get the old AI moved out of the way and for this all out and move the small left hole up for clock/Chronometer/CO meter etc: IAS G5 Alt CDI/GS-1 TC DG VSI CDI-2 Just my opinion of course, but with 27 years of flying IFR experience. BTW, the majority the cost of these is usually the labor in R&R the instruments and making enhancements/changes in lighting etc. The cost of cutting the panel these days is usually very cheap. And if you're instruments are currently unlighted I highly suggest you include at least adding post lights to each unlighted instrument in the panel or practically speaking you will still have a day only IFR panel.

They are always both on and I fail #2 during the runup to verify #1 takes the full load, but with both on line #2 is taking 2/3's if not more of the load. As such, over the years my #1 has done very well. Bearings are getting the same wear, but the lesser load has appeared to allow the brushes to wear at a bit lower rate compared to the servicing I have done to my #2. Buts that's a unscientific observation (I didn't do any measuring).

Yes, if yours are OEM as I assume they are. Since Mooney is the registered owner of the keys, I'd suggest you contact your nearest Medeco dealer locksmith and verify what you will need to provide from Mooney. They may require you to transfer ownership first and who knows and if they do, you're better off just ordering the new keys from Mooney since transferring ownership is ~$50 through a Medeco dealer.