kortopates

True, but if the weather isn't low and still daylight, and I am coming in from the opposite direction to the landing traffic, I'll routinely ask for an approach to the opposite runway closer to me and then just circle to the landing runway for landing along with everyone else. That way I'll avoid flying past my destination to join the approach 5-10 miles out. If its not busy I may not get that, but I often do and it saves a few minutes. I haven't seen how the IDF boxes sequence to the missed yet, but you have me curious.

What if you're circling? Can the IFD recognize the difference and not resume sequencing? Honestly I thought these kind of protocols where from the FAA, at least that's what Garmin has indicated over similar things they have changed over the years.

I guess that's positive proof they really work as designed. When I went into the Medeco dealer to get more keys, they didn't use my original other than to look my registration up and then cut more keys using the codes and that way their same as original.

Have you unsuspended the GTN-750 by activating the Missed Approach (at any time before, at or after the MAP)? Have you switched the KFC-200 from APPR mode back to HDG mode with the GPSS in GPS mode to enable the GTN outputs to direct the AP on the missed?

No, but security comes with a cost of some kind! If I only flew in the US I am not sure I would bother with the Medeco locks but they help protect the huge amount of glass I have in my panel too - so maybe. They are a huge step up from the OEM Chicago cabinet locks! Now, aren't you the one that showed us your impressive security device of metal plates covering your entire glass panel???

I really don't think they'll fit any better in the 182 - not on the back seat anyway.

I read that too. But if this was his difficulty in his final startup, I also read he had previously taxied to the runway to take off with a VFR on top clearance and then decided for whatever reasons he should file IFR to his destination - maybe he got a tops report he didn't like. regardless he then taxied back to the ramp. So I thought the hard starting later after he delayed to refile etc could have just been from the pilot havng a hot start challenge or even flooded the engine. I just wouldn't take hard starting alone to be indicative of a real engine issue. But not to say its not indicative of a real problem either. I don't know what to think about the low tail. But my first thought is that if the tail was practically hanging on the ground wouldn't the pilot be unable to taxi with the nose wheel practically off the pavement. i.e. you think it would be obvious to the pilot. Other reports are in conflict with the heavy rain on departure at that time. I recall only light rain. Anyway suspicions are neither engine was making power on impact. The propeller on the roof appears to be fully feathered and not bent in fashion consistent with making power from the better pictures we see in the news. So one of the good theories IMO is this could be a miss-fueling with JetA. And after suggesting above the hard starting could mean nothing more than something like a hot start, it could also help give credence to a miss fueling event (but I haven't had that experience with that and hope I never do!). If the registered owner was flying, its hard to believe an ATP rated and CFI endorsed pilot would take off with such an an out of CG condition that would lead to a stall that some others have speculated. I hope he didn't not bother to sump his tanks because of the weather or but if it was JetA he apparently didn't notice it was clear rather than blue. Here is an article on the JetA theory based in part on witness accounts of black smoke in trail as the plane went down, or possibly a ruptured fuel line: http://www.sbsun.com/general-news/20170302/engine-problems-smoke-hint-at-riverside-plane-crash-cause But of course we still don't even have the preliminary yet.

If it works on the ground but just not in the air and you don't feel any resistance in lifting the vane that would hang it up, I'd start with adjusting it per the service manual. it probably moved. But its no longer airworthy or doing you any good if it doesn't go off at least the number of kts specified in the manual before the wing stalls.

When I had my engine off to address an engine mount issue, I replaced the brushes and bearings in my #1 alternator and cleaned it up inside. My #1 which is gear driven and really hard to get access too when installed on the engine. It was all my own labor anyway and the parts aren't expensive. It has given me many years of trouble free service before and i expect it will again for many more years. But I would never replace a good working alternator with O/H exchange. Its too easy to just replace the wear parts and clean them up. In addition to the unwarranted high expense that seems like unnecessary risk as well. My #2 which is belt driven, and is easily accessible in about 10 min so in that case since its my second one, it can wait till I see a problem. I can still dispatch with one.

Neal Aviation at KSEE in San Diego also CNC's custom panels, then power coats and silk screens them when they do major panel upgrades. I am sure they could do exactly what you want as well.

Are you asking in lieu of the removed Bendix ignition switch? Toggle switches are all that is used on twins - they also don't have rotary ignition switches. Security is limited to the door locks. When security is a concern though we have prop locks and throttle locks. Both of which I use travelling south of the border when the plane is left on a unsecured strip. They just help ensure the less secured plane adjacent to me will get stolen before mine. But generally airplane thieves are not the slightest bit interested in Mooney's anyway.

Actually its not a problem at all for any of us that wants to upgrade. You just need the authorization number or key code which of course you'll have if you installed them. Purchase a Mooney though that has them and if unfamiliar with them its going to be a learning process to figure it out at the least. I'd expect Mooney would give you the key code if asked to make this process easier to get them on your own and ownership is transferable but I have not heard from anyone that has asked the factory.

I've had and flown with 2 good sized labs over the years. Just never together. Labs are very mellow breeds and their disposition makes them great passengers. I wouldn't have dreamed about crating either one, but they have always been secured with a harness (not their neck) tied to a shoulder belt which kept them in the back seat and away from the front seat if we had an emergency landing. But a single lab takes up the entire back seat or it can't lay down which it really needs to do. I just don't think either the baby or a lab sized dog will be happy sharing the back seat together which means neither you and your wife will be either. However I have done my lab with an adult pax in the rear many times, but that takes a willing pax that doesn't mind the dog's head in the pax lap which is really the only way a 70+lb lab can lie down. Before I was a Mooney owner I rented aircraft and had no problem with the dog. Just like with rental cars, we got a cover that would entirely cover the back seat to help control the dog hair. We'd still need something like sticky tape for the carpet. But planes weren't as bad as cars. Cars almost always had fabric seats that attract the hair while vinyl and leather is much more common on older aircraft rentals. So it was really more of a car rental issue. The C177RG does have a lot more room in the back but I don't know if I would want to carry a family lab in the cargo area either. I have a friend with a C177RG that used to carry around 2 huge Great Danes. She had the rear seats removed and it was no problem that way, but not manageable with the seats. But as you must be aware, the C177RG using the same engine as the Mooney J model is going about 40kts less than the Mooney, maybe a bit faster than the Arrow (I don't recall Arrow speeds that well).

Truman is obviously a lucky guy on the hand of your wife Mariana (sp? if I got that right).

I can totally relates to Peter's sentiments. PT 135 isn't air carrier, but taxi ops. Its germane IMO since I could conceivable get a PT 135 approved operation with my Mooney, and then provide air taxi service to my friends willing to pay for taxi service in my Mooney or of course the public at large. So if I take my friends up for a ride in my hypothetical Mooney that had a prop strke without a tear down, the FAA doesn't care per se, but in court the plaintiff likely sues my pants off for not maintaining according to best practices and acceptable industry standards when they find out that is the prudent thing to do and required if they were paying passengers on a commercial op. If that's getting too tangential, consider what your friends comfort would be taking a ride with you in yours or a friends hypothetical Mooney with prop strike sans inspection if you also go on to explain the taerdown is considered the prudent thing to do in the industry even if you may not agree (I don't know if you are disagreeing with that - I am not meaning to pick on you at all). Regardless though. I never understood the relevance to the cost concern this thread is based on at all unless the owner in question has no insurance or shall we say is "self insured". Because no insurance company is going to not pay for the complete engine inspection and rebuild. And they'll certainly pay for any damage found that is sudden stop related. So that only leaves an owner paying for any betterment. Such as if they would opt to major the engine. But what a great opportunity for getting your major subsidized unless your engine was very low time, in which case it gets put back together on the insurance company's nickel except for what almost always includes some betterment for a new prop. So bottom line for me is why are we worried at all whether or not its really legally required by the FARs to perform the tear down inspection; especially when its covered by our insurance.

I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree. I do hear what you're saying about with regard to the challenges in meeting regulatory requirements.- I agree with most of that. And I am optimistic we'll see things improve greatly with performance based requirements discussed in the part 23 re-write versus the past overly specific requirements that really OEM how to build them. I agree with all that. I'll also agree that some of the hardware components being incorporated into portable solutions made ot industry standards is rivaling TSO'd hardware in quality. But you seem to imply we don't need the underlying TSO requirements and there I don't agree. Take the C145/C146 TSO requirements for WAAS IFR GPS. So what if you have a WAAS stratux receiver operating at whatever hz rate it is. Do you really feel as safe if the s/w lacks all the integrity checking s/w required by the TSO that monitoring CEPs and looking ahead on your approach to verify it will have adequate signal and if not compares what it has and what it predicts to what it requires for each approach type and downgrades the approach minimums you can fly. Its all the reliability engineering, systems testing integrity checking that makes the systems superior; in fact its not eveb comparable. Not all iPad apps even have good mechanism of alerting you of poor position solution. These days its getting more and more rare that an airplane doesn't have something like a GNS430W in it - even if its only a C150. But granted there are plenty aircraft that still do not. I respect your avionics development background and would love to discuss this at length over a beer to better understand your perspective, but I also come from similar background as chief systems engineer of large government system programs. I began my career on flight planning systems for the military but also did a lot of commercial projects as well.

I would never expect non-TSO'd equipment to be legal for IFR navigation in the NAS. Not a chance. Just like what you are seeing with ADS-B Out manufactures trying too and the FAA insisting that they have to have TSO'd WAAS position source for valid ADS-B out compliance. Using your EFB with ADS-B In with wx & traffic for enhanced situational awareness is whole another topic and of course and is a big plus, but to say it outperforms GPS equipped panels with the same capabilities is naive. Everything you see on the iPad has been available on panel equipment for much longer and is more reliable. The ipad just brings it into your cockpit for a fraction of the cost.

Its not a loop hole. Firstly, these days, no matter what you filed as (e.g., /A or /G) or what you put in the remarks, controllers will assume any IFR aircraft is a /G and will offer direct when they can. Secondly, Its up to the pilot to tell the controller they can't accept that since they don't have the navigational equipment (IFR approved GPS) to support it in the panel. But the pilot with a VFR only GPS can legally accept a "vectors" in lieu of the direct which essentially means the pilot may need more vectors along the way.

See AC 90-100A. Its spells out what equipment you need to fly what, from DME to GPS including which equipment allows you to fly what in the NAS e.g., Q-routes,SIDs, STARs etc, Everything it list is in reference to a TSO standard. Which is why a portable equipment is never approved for navigation in the NAS; its only supplemental, even VFR.

Nothing could be further from the truth! You need a TSO's GPS navigator to navigate IFR within the NAS period. If I recall correctly its TSO C129 for non-waas supplemental nav and TSO C145 or C146 for WAAS sole source navigation. Even experimental aircraft have to be install such devices to fly IFR. Tell him to call his local FSDO or ask anyone on his local FAASTeam group. he owes you lunch

I assume your Medeco locks/keys were installed by the factory as original equipment? Some of us have installed them as an upgrade as well. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The only high security keys I know of are Medeco keys. If its a Medeco key, you will need to go back to the original Medeco dealer that cut the original keys since they are controlled. Their should be a log book entry with the info you'll need to get them duplicated. Without an authorization card you can't just go to any Medeco dealer.

I should has said T310Q. Its an earlier variant of the Q, before the R, and is also a turbocharged TSIO-520 FAA registration

I am not sure what to make of the grainy video but the descent looks much too steep be a controlled glide or flight. But the wings do look level as it comes in very steeply. But angle looks stalled or the pilot attempting to recover from one. Also can't really tell either but the video looks like one prop is turning slowly but that could be the shutter effect. Guess we'll be waiting on the prelim to even know what kind of accident this was. But this was not a under powered light twin but C310Q with TSIO-520's. Coming down only 1 1/2 miles from the airport with possibly both engines out makes you wonder if it was a fueling issue i.e. Jet A. But we also see a prop on the roof shows signs of damage suggesting it was under power. I also heard the plane originally taxied out intending to do a IFR to VFR on top departure and then decided against it and taxied back to the ramp before the accident departure. Many are speculating that one of the badly burned woman that was ejected into the house was also the pilot. You'd expect a rear pax would be much more likely to be ejected. Plus the Fire chief Moore on the scene said the "pilot did not appear to be among the survivors". If the pilot was the registered owner, he was an electrical engineer in San Jose and ATP rated ASEL, commercial AMEL and a CFI-II. Very sad accident.

Very simple and popular tools out there for plotting visited states, provinces and countries. I think this is the one I used: https://www.epgsoft.com/VisitedStatesMap/ There are others out there too. I've seen people use flags too for countries too, but I would only recognize a handful- or less myself. For myself, I've only plotted places I've flown my Mooney too - that was kinda the point.