kortopates

That doesn't make any sense, not doubting you, but I did some quick googling since CO detectors have become required in most every home in CA for a few years now. The real issue seems to be that the law requires that units sold in CA are all listed as approved by the CA Fire Marshall. Thus this one didn't meet the CA requirements and is simply not on the approved list and therefore can't be sold in CA. Don't know why this one isn't approved but there are lots of battery powered options starting at less than $20 at the local HomeDepot. Plus there are other options on Amazon that will ship to CA. Flying high, i take the threat very seriously and use a CO Guardian panel mount unit: https://www.guardianavionics.com/aero-553-panel-digital-display-multi-function-co-detector-tso-certified-aircraft

Don't know but we have lots of airports with AWOS without 3-letter designators. "fess"???

That will be amazingly lucky ending to a power off landing in the dark with a sleeping pilot! And explains the wife's comment on CO poisoning. Here is an update in the news that affirms this: http://www.kttc.com/story/34416465/update-pilot-walks-away-from-plane-crash-near-ellendale

More info here: http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2017/02/accident-occurred-february-02-2017-in.html FAA report indicates serious injury's - which I was surprised to read after reading the pilot walked 500 yds for help. News sources now say he is in fair condition. But apparently those were 500 difficult yards for him since they also report he was airlifted out to a hospital. He survived a dark off field landing and looks like he did a good job yet the cockpit damage suggest his head took out the windshield - he said he thought he passed out for awhile too. His wife has already said she suspects it may have been from CO poisoning? That's rather curious. He was in the air over an hour.

Hard to tell without touching them, but that looks more like corrosion treatment spray (e.g., AC50, Corrosion-X etc) wicking up through the rivets and seams which is normal after treatment for quite some time. When you look at the seams, you see the same oily looking residue on both sides and that's what what leads me to think that. If the a rivet is indeed smokin, it'll be a bit loose in the hole - these don't have that appearance nor the smoke trail that teg916 is showing - which is what you should see.

Better yet, attend a MAPA PPP, the flying by the numbers presentation will provide this PAC information for most every Mooney and the provided book has all the details.

I use the LOP Mag test in the air as well but I never skip on the run-up. I've managed to foul a plug in the descent once when I got a slam dunk approach and I've managed to lose a magneto on startup. If I shutdown, I perform a run-up. Its a simple cost vs benefit - I am not that much in a hurry. But as has been mentioned, my runup is based on being in normalize mode looking at EGTs and if I look what i see wrt to EGT rises I don't much care about RPM drops. I've caught other non-ignition issues from the runup including a partially blocked injector in a company aircraft not long ago. If I am departing from a dirt strip, then I'll do a rolling run-up, preferably while back taxiing again to check for EGT rises. A lot can happen between starting the descent and the next takeoff and as 201er points out there is a lot of checklist items that should be checked before departure to avoid creating an unnecessary emergency. Its really another topic, but instructing I see too many pilots that don't know how to properly use their analyzer for the runup and are only focused on looking for the RPM drop rather than the EGT rises and don't take advantage of normalize mode to ensure they don't miss an issue. At least its very rare these days to meet a pilot that doesn't believe they need an engine monitor; even though most of survived fine without one years ago. But it really helps opens up our situational awareness of how the engine is doing which translates into safety - if we use it.

I would suspect the ignition switch isn't grounding the left mag when in the right position. You can confirm it with an ohm meter after disconnecting the p-lead. If so the bendix switch can be dissembled and cleaned up and you'll probably be good for a long time.

Your decision is mostly personal preference. As many of you know, I analyze data professionally for Mike Busch. All of these units will provide equivalent analysis and diagnostic ability. It comes down to how much panel real estate you want to provide and how feature rich you want to go. The MVP50 is by far the most feature rich, which appeals to many pilots, but in my opinion is largely superfluous. I personally only recommend the GCR-30's in the tightest panels for their smallest foot print. But if that is not a concern, I would go with a larger display. My personal preference and it is only personal, is the EDM-900. its a large enough display that I can see everything easily for my turbo charged engine and doesn't take up so much real estate that I can't still easily keep it close in view. I also prefer JPI's choice of grounded thermocouples over EI ungrounded ones, at least for CHT, for their greater accuracy. (You might google around for a DER report that Cub Crafters did a few years ago citing differences in CHT indications between the grounded vs ungrounded probes.) The truth is though any of the ones larger than the smaller GCR-30's will do you well and EI still makes great products in my opinion. Plus I have found both to offer good support, and I use a combination of JPI and EI in my aircraft since I kept my original far right side MAP and RPM for redundancy, but just replaced them with EI digital units with identical form fit of the OEM gauges. The far more important thing IMO is to learn how to read or interpret it your monitor. Its providing very valuable data quite capable of saving your engine and avoiding putting your life at risk in addition to paying for themselves time and again in their diagnostic ability.

Although I have to agree with the total sensibility of that. But it's still a very fun personal challenge for oneself to make if off by the first exit by simply nailing the speed and not dragging it in.

How about some real data on the topic: http://www.avweb.com/news/savvyaviator/savvy_aviator_48_reliability-centered_maintenance_part_2_195969-1.html WRT to specific engine, the add mentions only 1750 SMOH without regard to calendar time. If the engine has 20+ years on it, I'd personally would value it as a runout engine, not one with 250 hrs left to TBO, but 0 hours left, because of calendar time. But I'd still fly it hoping for the best, yet primed ready to overhaul. That really reduces your risk too; providing you can afford the down time possibly sooner than later for re-doing the engine.

There should only be two sonic horns in C model. They are all the same decibel level. The stall horn is a continuous tone while the gear horn is a pulsating horn. So your "pretty steady" horn was likely the stall horn. Chris may be right, but I kinda recall there is too much distance between the pitot tube and the stall warning device but I am probably wrong as that is otherwise a likely scenario if it can reach. But it also could have been stuck in the up position on its own. Modern Mooney's will have a third and sometimes 4th Sonic horn. The third is used by some autopilots, including the popular BK ap's and not having the electric trim turned on will sound a continuous horn.

Yes, I believe that's all accurate including the flight time, which was only 13 min on the radar track plus the time to depart and climb 1260' agl for the first radar return. The TSP reported weather was overcast ceiling at 10,000 msl with field elevation of 4001'. There is an 8000' mountain just to the south of TSP, so the finally initially turned south east towards lower terrain and at an altitude of 7259' turned south to LHS VOR, and continued climbing to his high point of 7559' at 3+minutes after the first radar return. Then the plane began a gradual descent and leveling off to 5791' after 9 minutes. A minute later the plane began a gradual climb to its final return at 5991' which 0.3mi NE of LHS VOR. At that point if the mode C was accurate, the plane was level with the reported terrain height, and the reported impact site was only 70' below that. Which is still well within his altimeter error; especially if he was using TSP setting since he was not talking with anyone. This was 9 am so if the terrain was not obscured by clouds/fog he would have no problem seeing it and turning away from the highest terrain - which is what the plane impacted. He apparently flew this route 3 days a week to his job in Torrance, so he was very familiar with the route and terrain and his colleagues said he rarely cancelled because of weather. He was instrument rated, but fightaware shows no IFR flight activity over the last couple years. Very recent engine overhaul in December as Anthony noted, but no good evidence yet that it was related given the reported slight climb at the end of the radar track and severe damage to the airframe and prop all suggesting a CFIT.

The preliminary report is finally out https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/ReportGeneratorFile.ashx?EventID=20170118X72227&AKey=1&RType=Prelim&IType=FA Unfortunately it doesn't tell us much about the weather except that the TSP was showing lowering ceiling just before departure. Mostly it covers that the plane went down right by the Lake Hughes VOR LHS: LHS VOR is situated on a leveled-off mountaintop; its elevation is 5,793 feet. The wreckage was situated on the north slope of that peak, about 70 feet below, and 380 feet from, the LHS VOR. ....... The last radar return was received at 0904:52, with an indicated altitude of 5,991 feet. That last return was about 0.3 miles north-northeast of LHS VOR

Because the requirements are different for serving as a backup to glass than replacing gyro's since there is more at stake. Plus the STC's the primary's (Garmin and Aspen) have their own requirements for backups. The L3 LSI-500 was actually designed to be a full backup to EFIS panels, unlike the G5. And no, you can't install the G5, and call it your primary and your G600 and call it your backup. Placement position of your G600 settles that debate right away. In case you were wondering

But I am sure we all know scores of pilots that got their Instrument rating years ago and am not current and can only get it back legally with an IPC yet never do year after year. For these people, even after getting it, its clearly not worth the hassle to them to maintain it. They have other flying interest that keep them motivated without the need to go anywhere IFR. Just IMO though, these are the same folks that are more likely to push it VFR into IMC though. They have a trip and need to get somewhere and either push it scud running and even pushing through layers illegally neither talking to anyone. Maybe as an instructor I suspect I probably hear more confessions and more unapproving pilots telling on their friends. But I personally think the number of instrument rated pilots that have not been current in over a year is a very sizable group.

I think pilots flying in the US are not too worried about aircraft theft. When I fly south of the border and park on unsecured fields, including dirt ones, I take a light prop lock and also use a throttle lock. I also use Medeco locks on both doors. Nobody really wants a Mooney anyway, they're after the C206 or C210's. But having the Mooney visibly protected pretty much ensures someone looking to steel an aircraft is going to go after one of the unsecured planes next to me. Generally people with sought after planes like the C206 go at least a step further with protection that is hidden.

I think you'll find the Garmin G5 is not approved as backup for glass, just primary. I have similar panel and went with the LSI-500 https://www.l-3avionics.com/media/8189/ESI500_Sales_Sheet.pdf , With the LSI-500 you can also ditch all 3 of your backup instruments (IAS, Attitude, Altimeter) and with the NAV function upgrade get backup for both GPS/RNAV and ILS.

I had to add it to my K about 15 years ago. But you'll have no problem getting the parts through your favorite MSC. The step bolts on and uses a fairing to reduce drag to minimal. I really don't understand why people thing they are going faster without it and although I live where it's warm, getting out at my favorite ski area is an accident waiting to happen without it jumping onto ice. If you want to save some $, I'd start with the salvage yards - probably the same part #'s used on the longbody's too and you'll need to have it painted to match anyway. BTW, I am 6' and don't relish getting out of a Mooney without the step! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Those are the "horn" like feature characteristic of Clear ice. Clear ice forms in warmer conditions and runs back further creating these horns that form typically after 20+ minutes of ice accumulation. Clear ice is the most dangerous because it forms in greater thicknesses than Rime. Consequently it creates the most drag and greatest loss of critical angle of attack.

+1 In fact, NASA provides some good quantitative data on this showing only a couple minutes of all kinds of icing (Clear, Rime, Mixed) all reduce the wings max AOA down to about 2/3's of a clean wing. For the GA example they provide, the clean wing max AOA is about 19 degrees, then with just a couple minutes of icing exposure it drops to about 12 degrees. after that point, another 20 minutes of typical exposure reduces the max AOA only a bit more (11 degrees rime to 8 degrees critical with clear). The key point is that just a couple minutes of exposure can double the drag, reduce the max lift by 25-30% and reduced the critical AOA by about 8 degrees. All this good data in in the online NASA icing course. And it points out among other things its useful to know were 8 degrees less (or more) AOA is from normal critical AOA is on your display so you can keep a healthy margin away till landing should you find yourself with a contaminated wing emergency.

I don't recall, but not what I would consider expensive. Precise of course will be be able to tell you.They make these up order based on your type and serial # as I recall.

If the vacuum system is fine and they hang going down I'd bet you'll find the cable sheath's are coming apart. The spring to retract them can be an issue too, but they usally work fine till they break yet they are also available from Precise. The cables sheaths though just don't last 30-35+ years, they get brittle and crack and then the brakes don't go back down easily. You can still get replacements from Precise Flight. But the first step is always to inspect the entire system and see where the issue(s) are. You can examine your cables from the rear of the wheel wells. You can also check your spring by pulling the speed brake up with your fingers and see how well they retract back down. (Don't do this on electric ones). They shouldn't, the cables don't go into fuel bays. With Monroy's they are sealed off. But if the sheaths have lost their integrity that will be your problem and their replacement will get them going again.

I believe we are talking about the same thing - after all there is only one o-ring in the system. Disconnecting that line will de-pressurize the high pressure line and if the needle valve in the regulator holds pressure as it should you should be able to let it sit and see if you stop loosing pressure. There is no where else left to leak IF the regulator is shut off and not leaking (except at the bottle neck which you have presumably already checked). If leaking stops while disconnected, and you have truly eliminated leaks in the back, then that points to a leak in the cabin. I never used this trick, but then I have never had a leak in the cabin area either, but would want to try to isolate it if possible before pulling side upholstery off next to check there.

There the low pressure line isn't getting O2 with the regulator off it shouldn't be the regulator leaking but a high pressure leak. If the o-ring is leaking it'll blow bubbles. You could disconnect the high pressure line to the tank for a couple days, replace the o-ring, and then reconnect the high pressure line. If you did not loose any air over the time period it was disconnected, you'll then know its a high pressure leak. (there is a needle valve in the inlet to the regulator that will hold the air in the bottle with the line disconnected).