kortopates

Exactly, pop up work fine when the controllers aren't saturated when they often are when the weather goes south; especially in a busy TRACON area like where I live in SOCAL. In which case the controller is most likely going to ship you to FSS or maybe take 10+ minutes to get you into the system. However, pop-ups are much easier for the controller in the situation Bradp gave. If you are VFR and going to a TRACON's airspace where you need IFR for an approach and that you will also be terminating services in the same facility, (i.e. landing), the controller doesn't need to enter a full flight plan for a intra-facility strip. Peevee could explain this better than I, but the controller only needs abbreviated information like you N# and type to enter you into the facilities system when they won't have to hand you off to a center facility like they would if you were transiting their airspace. For the later they need more info for a inter-facility strip which may take a busy controller awhile or be reason to ship you over to FSS to get you into the system. Where pilots cut it short is they think they can hold out till they are talking to their final TRACON, where they can be pretty confident of getting a pop-up as then enter their airspace. But instead find they need IFR before they get to the TRACON's airspace or well before their destination and then need to get a center or another tracon to get them into the system; but find the controller is already busy. That's were the pre-file'd IFR flight plan can be so critical. It need not be a composite flight plan - in fact those are more complicated than they are worth IMO. Just a filed IFR flight plan that starts anywhere near where you intend to pick it up at the approximate time you expect to be there works quite well. Just tell the controller well in advance you are requesting IFR around xyz and have a prefiled flight plan from abc to zzz,

Negative, only IFR flight plans go to ATC facilities. VFR flight plans stay with Lockheed Martin in their computers where progress reports to Flightservice will update them or if you don't close it, the data will initiate efforts to contact you or your plane at the filed destination and failing that ultimately leading to its ultimate purpose of initiating a SAR mission.

Mine is working too, flew with a IFR student yesterday without any problems. Thanks so much for letting us know Chris! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, I was referring to https://www.1800wxbrief.com and Skates97 nailed it. One just needs to go to their site, register, set up notification preferences and then when they file a VFR flight plan through LM, they will get the email or text msg's to activate and close their Flightplans. I don't know if this has been integrated into Foreflight. It isn't yet in Garmin Pilot or WingsX. So when it comes to filing VFR flight plans, which frankly isn't that much for me except working with primary students, I go directly to LM. But IMO this is too good of a feature to miss out on from being inconvenienced by not being able to file from my favorite ipad app. In the busy airspace I fly, trying to get a Flight plan opened before talking to SOCAL to get class B clearance actually alters my flight path. Opening and closing right on the runway is very slick.

I love my IA rating, I use it all the time. And love teaching IA clients; especially in high performance aircraft. But allow me to be the contrarian here. Of course just my opinion, but from what I gather of the OP and interest in the IA, neither the value, need, nor interest are there yet to make an IA a worthwhile pursuit. Sure there are all the benefits to the IA that folks have enumerated above. But to realize these benefits its much more of an investment than just getting your IA. The IA is just the rating that opens the doot into the IFR structure where you continue to learn, grown and stretch your legs or minimums as you build your experience base in the amount of weather you are able to handle from maybe a thin layer to more challenging conditions. We all have limited flying time budgets, if not also limited flying hours budgets, and if we have neither the time nor interest to dedicate a sizable chunk of our flying time budget to maintain and build our proficiency flying in IMC conditions we really ought to think twice before starting such an endeavor; rather than feel forced to use it after we get the rating. This is the toughest rating to get and requires the most perishable flying skills to maintain. We really have to be motivated to get through the training and enjoy it enough to want to keep doing practice approaches every month. Otherwise we're kidding ourselves. We may say we never intend to fly in hard IFR, whatever that means, or stick to easy IFR, but we should never use that rational not to train for very challenging IFR. I think most of us never go looking for "hard" IFR, but it finds us one way or another if we fly long enough. It could be much worse than forecasted or some kind of equipment failure like a gyro or even a vacuum pump; but likely something unexpected. That's when all of our proficiency training and hard work pays off and we feel we gained some valuable experience or we might all read about it. But when we enjoy the challenge as well as the utility and am committed to continually learning and working on our proficinecy it can be one of the most rewarding kinds of flying for all the fringe benefits it brings up. Just realize its more than a rating and something akin to pilot lifestyle. Many, many of the post above are pilots that have eagerly embraced that as any IA pilot should IMO. You'll know when you're ready.

More comprehensive information source here but apparently : http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2017/01/mooney-m20j-fatal-accident-occurred.html Although what happened isn't all that clear other than likely VFR into IMC. One thing it illustrates all too well is that days can go by when a plane goes down without a flight plan filed. The planes was believed to depart KTSP on Thursday morning the 12th headed for KTOA, and the search effort didn't even begin till Tuesday evening the 17th and then found the wreckage site morning; apparently an hour after they started looking this morning, Wednesday the 18th. These days it's so easy to activate and close a VFR flight plan on the runyway with a smart phone by clicking in an email message or text message. No radio calls necessary, just the click of button with data access on your phone or ipad. But it makes so much difference from a SAR perspective. It may not have made any difference in this scenario except for the pilots family. But imagine surviving the accident only to perish from lack of timely first aid because no one was looking for you. Flight following won't get the search team out either unless you get a mayday off.

Curious if the electronic mag replaced a pressurized magneto (vs unpressurized) and to what altitude you have been able to observe their performance? Also what your original mag setup was, like Bendix or Slick and both impulse or something else?

Absolutely, that eliminates your ability to remove the vacuum pump unless you are motivated to replace your step with a fixed one. With a fairing too it has negligible impact on airspeed. Not that many of us also have that issue. But my 252 has vacuum speed brakes so I have retained the engine driven pump after going to a fully glass panel. I was able to remove the standby electric vacuum pump in the tail which actually gave a sizable increase in useful load. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly, but some of the engine monitors actually do provide TAS, not common on certified units, but more common on experimental.

I don't disagree with you at all. Maybe complexity isn't the best word to describe it. I think there is lot to learn coming from VOR & ILS only as we both did - but none of it what I would really describe as adding operational complexity than what we already had with ILS & VOR - in fact I feel GPS simplifies things greatly from before GPS. What I find is clients/students being overwhelmed about using the GPS properly. But as CFII we know the avionics really well, or should, and can show how to simply usage of the box and break down when to do what so as to stay ahead of the plane. For example, having the expected approach loaded but not activated before we leave the enroute portion, then activating the approach as soon as we are on our first vector for the approach. The GPS is especially valuable when we get to partial panel training. I still require my students to know how to use the compass per ACS standards, but partial panel approaches are done using TRK and DTK GPS data (not following the magenta line) which allows them to fly partial panel to ATP standards. Very little understanding of TERPS complexities are needed to be safe. But I really stress survival tactics, and an example one important one is VDP. But what I stress is its the absence of a VDP which is so important since it means we have obstacles to avoid in the visual segment. There are additional survival aspects of the VDP which include recognizing when flying an LNAV approach to minimums that there is no TERPS requirement that the charted required approach visibility is enough to see the threshold from the VDP at minimums - so what will be our plan? To sum it up, rather than harp on complexity, I try to stress how to use the box to simplify our workload, rather than be consumed by it, and then do my best to make sure they understand the important gotcha's and survival tactics that at least I've learned over the past 27 years of flying and still learning.

This repair station specializes in O2 equipment and is very good. I really doubt that will be your problem, but easy enough to tell. This is the little o-ring on the high pressure connection to the regulator - its a MS28775-006. This should be replaced every time the bottle is R&R'd and therefore shouldn't leak unless it was damaged on the install and thus leaking from the start. oops- I see the repair station didn't get included above as intended - this is it: http://www.c-l-aero.com/

Are you sure you aren't missing parts that got left off from previous bottle R&R? Did you check the IPC to make sure? What you describe really sounds like it didn't entirely go back together right since the cable is normally well secured i.e. not really flimsy.

Regulators can be rebuilt/repaired/overhauled- but it's very unlikely that's the problem. Don is most likely right but that is extremely common; especially after the tank is re-installed. It's also very easy to test for. After a period of time with it off, plug a cannula into a port. If you feel any pressure and hear any gas leaking as you plug it in you just found the leak. Next see if you can get it to shut off completely by just pushing the lever further/harder to off. If that fixes it then you just need to correct the cable rigging so it's pushing it closed in the off. That's the cause 99% of the time. For finding high pressure leaks brush or spray O2 leak detection fluid on every connection, port and seem were the regulator screws on to the tank. Don't forget the servicing portal from where the Scott adapter screw on to the O2 port. Bottom line, no wrenching till you find the leak. You'll find it. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

One simple solution is to put a pulse circuit on the recognition lights you will no longer be worried about using them. I am pretty impressed with how effective they are straight ahead, unlike the strobes. Precise Flight sells the pulser and eliminates the heat issue if you forget to turn them off on the ground. Simple elegant solution. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yikes, Don't let those partial panel skills die! Or are you simulating e-vacuum failure?!?

I sure didn't look lower than LPV but your example brings up an excellent point we should be considering when flying an approach. First off though its very rare to ever see an LPV approach minima offered when its higher than LNAV/VNAV - really there is no longer any benefit. But it happens because of a quirk in the different TERPS geometry used between LPV and LNAV/VNAV. Its actually much more common to see this between LNAV/VNAV and LNAV but in this case the two approaches are of course flown differently. Design criteria for the two VNAV approaches are very different. LNAV/VNAV originated as LNAV with Baro-VNAV - not GPS at all. Using GPS with these is really more like the early GPS overlay approaches years ago; except we get to avoid the cold weather baro limitations. LPV though is designed much like an ILS approach. Both approaches are flown the same way though to DA rather than a MDA, but the geometry quirk that can cause LPV minimum to be above LNAV/VNAV stems from an obstacle near the runway. Close to the threshold, the OCS (Obstacle Clearance Surface) of the usually higher LNAV/VNAV actually passes over or higher than the surface of the LPV, and thus an obstacle right in this pretty brief zone will have a larger impact on the LPV than the LNAV/VNAV since it hits the LPV surface lower. (Eckalbar explains all of these TERPS requirements in detail in his book). But getting back to why it's really a good idea to recognize higher than TERPS minimum DA for LPV and LNAV/VNAV is it also indicates presence of obstacle near the runway that we'll be flying over during the visual segment (after the MAWP). (Obstacles before the missed approach waypoint would have been dealt with higher/steeper glideslope and/or a final course at an angle off center line). LNAV approaches provide the same very important clue in the absence of a VDP which also tells us there is also an obstacle that penetrates the 34:1 visual area. So we need to be extra vigilant not to drop below the visual glide path of the VASI; especially if there is a note that the VGSI is not coincident with GS. As for Cliify's comment that GPS approaches have really added complexity. I agree and see this working with clients that learned in he days of ILS, VORS and NDB's. Or more recently opted to get their IR ticket with the "simpler" VOR ILS only thinking they would catch up on GPS after they got their ticket. There is so much to learn regarding GPS I don't understand why students would want to rob themselves of a good initial training experience but happens. Albeit less and less these days since most training aircraft are equipped with WAAS GPS. But the complexities of GPS approaches begin with flight planning, understanding the meaning of GPS NOTAMS, alternate airport selection with WAAS vs NON-WAAS GPS etc. And then we should know and expect the changes in CDI tightening and bounds of the protected zones change as we start down a feeder route to an Initial segment to an intermediate segment to the final segment - since this is unique to GPS. But when we're flying the final approach the rules between how we fly to DA and MDA and either continue or go missed have not changed. So I don't see the concern for "flying to a difference of 29'" -we just ensure our altimeter setting is correct and fly to the target altitude. If we do our part, the TERPS guys have provided the obstacle protection. I am not sure I understand the point on estimating visibility. Its importance was in the ATIS or AWOS reported visibility being hopefully greater than the approach visibility minima before we start (and more important to the commercial ops that can't start the approach without the required vis). But once we start the approach, we know that for a VNAV approach the required minimum visibility is always at least the distance from the DA (on GS) to the threshold. We don't need to estimate visibility, we either see any of the prescribed criteria of 91.175 to continue descent or we must go missed. In contrast, an LNAV visibility minimums can be much less than VNAV minimums and we can also find ourselves much further from the threshold at MDA than our required visibility - whatever it is. But on a LNAV approach we level off at MDA and continue following guidance to MAWP hoping we'll see one of the prescribed criteria of 91.175 in time to allow descent to the runway or we go missed. Practicality speaking, that is so much easier to do when you have one pilot flying on the gauges with another pilot calling the airport or lights in sight. I really don't want to be doing that to mins single pilot. Thankfully its very rare when I am single pilot.

Yes, you can operates the GTN's same as the GNS using the knob or use the touch screen. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'll bite - Is that for the higher minimums when using the Raleigh/Durham altimeter adding 81' and 1 1/4mi vis? Or is there more?

Nothing except that as of February 6, 2014, there are 13,134 RNAV (GPS) approaches available for general use in the U.S. National Airspace System. In contrast to 1285 ILS approaches. Roughly 2/3's of those offer VNAV of some form. Of course GPS approaches have been growing the last 3 years while ILS have not. GPS with VNAV beats ILS by nearly a 10 to 1.

The chosen plates are actually a really good example of different GPS glideslopes and you should see a GPS glideslope on both of these approaches (with a WAAS GPS). Its very important to understand the differences between them because you could be seeing true VNAV in the case of the R28 or just +V in the case of R10 as well as possibly just +V on R28 also. If that is clear, feel free to skip the rest of this post. But given the confusion I thought I'd elaborate beyond the basic that you need WAAS to get any GPS glideslope. First note that the RWY10 approach depicts a calculated GS taking you from TONSR at 2800 to the threshold at 40' of 3.04 degrees - this is what the box uses to provide you +V or advisory GS, or otherwise referred too as LNAV+V. This dosen't change the minimums, depicted as LNAV nor your need to level off by the MDA until you have the criteria prescribed in 91.175. The WAAS box simply gives you the 3.04 degree glideslope as advisory information only - which is very valuable since it gives you guidance to fly a constant descent rather than the dive and drive method. On the R28 you could see either of the three possible GPS glideslopes (LPV, LNAV/VNAV, or LNAV+V). The GPS is going to always give you LPV if its circular position error is within tolerance or requirements for LPV, but if not, it will degrade to LNAV/VNAV, and if its really bad, such as a WAAS outage which isn't that uncommon operating on the fringe of WAAS at a coastal airport, you may not get any. Therefore we need to verify the mode the box is enunciating for which minimums. For Example, it went from Enroute to Terminal mode as you got close to your destination and we saw a tightning of lateral limits of the CDI. Before you pass the FAF you'll see it change from Terminal to LPV to indicate you are good for LPV minimums. But it may only enunciate LNAV/VNAV indicating those higher minimums, or even just LNAV in which case GS displayed will only be advisory +V (if it can even display +V). So much like the need to identify the proper frequency and GS intercept at the FAF on an ILS, with the WAAS GPS its very important to verify what minimums the box is giving you (as well as the GS intercept).

Forget the contact cleaner! Isn't the answer you've been waiting for is that its time to upgrade to the GTN-650 or IDF540! Maybe not, so hopefully the contact cleaner works. If not you might get lucky with an avionics shop taking the faceplate off to better get at trying to clean it. But sadly Garmin is the only one that do any real work on them. They purposely don't provide documentation that would be required to allow anyone else to work on them legally.

I am surprised your J doesn't have the baggage light. I can't recall if it was on my prior 231, buts its on my 252 and I thought it was standard on the mid-body's. But since you don't have one it must have been after your year model. Assuming it is on later J's, copying what's in the current J IPC would give you an easy no questions asked minor mod approach as Anthony said. I've thought about adding the Mooney timer circuit myself but am afraid to ask what the part cost. I should go Don's route.

I was referring to this faq Q&A that included this bit on partners (https://avemco.com/owned-aircraft-insurance/faq.aspx Question #9) . I think they are referring to the latter if you have an injured partner on board. I assume too that they would also be a named insured - but I interpreted this reference is to say pax partners are covered for a liability claim against the pilot who is likely also a named insured but I assume could be a pilot operating under the open pilot provision of the policy too. Q: Is there liability coverage if I injure a co-owner of my aircraft? A: This coverage varies significantly among insurance companies. The Avemco policy does provide liability coverage between insured persons like partners or flying club members when they fly together. This is a very important feature to look for since it is likely a partner or another flying club member will be with you in the aircraft on numerous occasions.

I vote for the new engine analyzer with downloadable memory - especially with a turbo! But it needs MAP, RPM and FF too. But so far there are no signs of a sticky valve. At least not yet with the limited data. Also no data to discern whether its a mixture issue or ignition issue but you can give the ignition issue a good preliminary check in the run up using your EDM730. Really what you should be doing at every runup if not already: At run-up RPM, let EGTs stabilize and the put it into normalize mode. Select a single mag e.g. Right and look for a good rise on every plug, then back to both allow EGTs to drop back down and then select the other Mag and once again look for a good rise on every cyl. See one go cold or one without a rise and then you know you have a or fouled bad plug. Your A&P is got the right idea - he is thinking of things that could go away as the engine warms up. Ignition is also a possibility if an oily plug bottom at startup is being cleaned off by burning it clean. An o-ring on the fuel selector is seems less likely to clear up as the engine warms up. Eliminate the easy ones first. I assume you don't have ability to download data which if adding to your diagnostic challenges.

Indeed you are right, I did some more digging and found this at http://avioninsurance.com/faq/ which shows third party liability is covered under the full limit rather than sub-limits: What is the difference between a Smooth Liability Limit and a Sub-limit? Sub-Limit The most common liability limit for Pleasure & Business aircraft in today’s aviation insurance market is a liability limit of $1,000,000 per occurrence limiting each passenger to a maximum of just $100,000. This limit allows for Property Damage claims or Bodily Injury claims to non-passengers (People on the ground or in other aircraft) of up to $1,000,000 limit, however your passengers in your aircraft are limited to just $100,000 per passenger. This is called a “Sub-Limit” policy. This liability limit is less expensive than a ‘Smooth’ limit for the obvious reason that the insurance company’s liability exposure is significantly reduced. Smooth A “Smooth” Liability limit is $1,000,000 Combined Single Limit ‘CSL’ per occurrence including passengers. This limit allows for Property Damage claims or Bodily Injury claims to Passengers or Non-Passengers of up to $1,000,000. The ‘Smooth’ limit does not limit your passenger liability to any lower sub-limit. This option is more expensive than the sub-limited liability option, however, is greater protection and always recommended, if available, for aircraft owners who carry passengers. I also saw Avemco mention its covers liability between other insured like plane partners, flying club members and any family members as you mention but I couldn't tell if sub-limits applied. So it appears to boil down to passengers that are only covered by up to the 10% sub-limit. But it only takes one critically injured pax to possibly easily go over the 100K.