kortopates

Excellent question, I am by no means an insurance professional but its been my understanding the sub-limits apply to all third party bodily injury damages as well as each passenger - meaning it applies to people in another plane or people on the ground. This leaves you with only 10% sublimit coverage for each person that may make bodily injury claims which is nothing in todays litigious environment; especially if more than one person has severe injuries. Here is the best definition I could find smooth limits, aircraft Some aircraft insurance policies contain a smooth limit, which is a combined single limit that applies to all bodily injury and property damage that arises out of a single occurrence. A smooth limit offers flexibility as it applies to any combination of third-party bodily injury, bodily injury to passengers, or property damage. Also see the following article at the end under Liability which shares my notion that there is a huge difference: http://www.avweb.com/news/savvyaviator/savvy_aviator_54_how_much_insurance_do_you_need_197082-1.html

+1 Its been a number years now, but the best example or maybe just first really big example of this for me was two CAP pilots that flew something like G1000 C182 into a mountain leaving Las Vegas VMC at night at 8 or 9K. I couldn't understand that either. But It was apparently pretty easy since they didn't know how to use the avionics and didn't really need too flying VFR. We've also heard mixed things about how this plane was equipped from well equipped to also having instruments inop per previous post.

The airspeed switch has no associated horn and only serves to prevent the gear from retracting till sufficient airspeed. If it wasn't working, Paul would have had to push the red button override to enable bypassing the airspeed switch and get the gear up.

Yes, I read about those. The gear extension problem I recall was at his home base (it had an FAA incident report) and the engine out I recall was at La Paz. But I also saw comments like you probably did that the plane had "inop instruments and gerry rigged backups". It sounded pretty bad. You could be right about the x-wife's assessment of the planes condition. I just assumed she didn't trust her husband as a fairly new pilot which is not unusual unfortunately. I read somewhere he had about 800 hrs. But now that you bring this up, I didn't really think it might have been descending because of an engine out or the like. Possible though I guess. The report states " In the remaining two and a half minutes, the airplane maintained a 300 foot per minute descent rate with some intermittent climbs. The final two radar targets showed the airplane ascend about 425 feet in 12 seconds." The last 2 radar hits indicate a climb of 2125 FPM, so with the little we know it's sure not looking like an engine out. In fact it looking like the pilot just realized he had terrain directly in front of him and was trying to out climb it. Perhaps he saw a GPS terrain warning or saw the Rim when it was too late.

No, the gear horn is activated by a micro switch on the throttle cable but rather at the cockpit end like some other Mooneys, on this engine it on the engine side like your old C, just right above the MAGs before it attaches to the servo. Sounds like it got loosened up so it not turning off (I assume not closing the switch). Can't imagine how the EDM 900 install caused that but maybe you'll see why when you look at it. But from memory there is at at least one other hose with UDP air coming through the same grommet in the baffling as the throttle cable, but the hose I recall was just to give UDP air to pressurize the mags.

I have the RG24-15 installed in my 252. It one of the two Concordes listed as approved by Mooney in the TCDS - so no STC paperwork needed. It fits fine in the battery box except for the cover. The cover has some square Al Channels riveted to the top of the box. These need to be removed or narrowed/flattened since the Concorde battery manifold is higher. Not a big deal but requires a bit of effort and is normal for a first time install going from the Gill to the Concorde.

The preliminary report on the AZ T210K crash with 4 fatals (2 small kids similar to the WA crash the week before) just came out at https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/ReportGeneratorFile.ashx?EventID=20170103X14851&AKey=1&RType=Prelim&IType=FA Definetly another VFR into IMC. My guess is the pilot was being forced down by a ceiling, perhaps between layers and became IMC. The Mogollon Rim rim was reported entirely obscured at the time of the crash when the plane flew right into it. It hardly matters at this point, but I can't help wondering if the plane was IMC merely for a couple seconds before hitting it or if there was any time to have tried that 180 maneuver - i doubt it. Also in the press was mention that the x-wife had a court order, or perhaps just in the divorce settlement, that their 2 daughters could not fly in the plane unless it was piloted by a commercial pilot and a flight plan was filed. Neither was true in this case.

I was wonder the same thing. I am sure it is, but at what cost? I imagine the insurance would look at it as it's worth it if the recovery cost don't exceed 1/3 of blue book or insured hull value since they expect on average they get that amount of value for salvage. That's why they'll total your bird before spending more than 2/3's your insured value on repairs. And they can probably recover the salvage value for significantly less than the cost to recover it without adding significantly more damage with the intent to repair it. So it could very well rely on concerns for how much structural damage it may have, which makes it less likely. I don't know if ripping the gear off guarantees a certain amount of expensive structural damage or not but that appears all we have to go on presently. And that's still not certain. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks for checking. I had no idea they got it back - in fact if you flew it a couple years ago they had sold it and repurchased it before you flew it. Actually, I just checked the FAA registry and see they registered it 6 years ago. It was gone for about 5+ years before that.

That was years ago - long gone 201DD - unless they have gotten another one I don't know about. Let us know if you check with them. You might not agree with the wisdom of getting a Mooney instructor but the accident/incident rate of new Mooney pilots porpoising to a prop strike, and gearing up record speaks for itself all too often. Yes, its just a plane but very different to someone that is coming from C or P brand, due to is sleek airframe and rubber disk gear which just underlines the need for proper speed control unlike many of the other more forgiving airframes. On the other hand your F is just an early J - essentially same airframe and engine - so I wouldn't have expected your CFI to have any trouble. But I am sure he could have gotten you through the Johnson bar faster if he was familiar with some of tricks that I am sure you know well now. But good transition training is important for more than just learning to land. A good checkout ensures you learn all aircarft system and emergency procedures as well as any additional equipment installed. If IR, a Mooney specific instructor can get you set up with the necessary PAC's that will work with your airframe......

That's impossible to really say. The majority of our clients continue to renew because they value the maintenance oversight and representation they get. But the customer/owner still makes all the decisions. What Savvy ensures is that you are never that guy that read about here on MS over and over again that goes in for annual and then goes to pick up their airplane have a unexpected astronomical bill. As a Savvy client, we follow a step by step process where the inspection is does first before any maintenance is authorized. The completed inspection results in a list of issues or defects that the shop will estimate; plus any squawks or maintenance the owner may want completed along with the annual. With the list in hand, Savvy will advise what discrepancies are really mandatory, what are discretionary etc as stated above. Areas were we routinely save our clients $$ is in avoiding unnecessary work such as pulling cylinders that don't really need to be pulled yet or the shop isn't properly following SB03-3 that provides very specifics and calls for Borescope exams which we always ask for with every annual. Often what is quoted by a shop as mandatory is not mandatory at all. But we are also adamant on counseling on what recommended item should be done for safety; for example we always advocate performing the 500hr MAG IRANs - but that is not an overhaul but an IRAN - Inspect and Repair as necessary. But we would not recommend cleaning injectors based on time or hours alone. A maintenance contract includes Data Analysis and through your actual flight data we'll be able to tell you if your injectors need cleaning. As anyone knows that follows Mike Busch we utilize a on condition maintenance philosophy with some exceptions including magneto inspections. Bottom line is, our IA's will go over the shops provided list of estimate for each item with our recommendations and then you'll authorize each tasks. As a result you'll have a very good idea on what your annual will total too before any of the maintenance is performed beyond the inspection. If you are interested in doing some of the discretionary work on your own after, we'll help you defer those items to do on your own as well. The choice of maintenance facility is usually a joint process. We have shops we can recommend but beyond competence on the airframe all we really require is a shop to agree to our process of estimating all work and requiring authorization before work is performed - to solely protect you! That's how we keep our clients happy.

Very impressive Erik - interior looks awesome as does the 4 blade MT prop. How much harder is it to R&R the lower cowl with the 4 blade prop now? Much of a pain?

Yes, if this is your first airplane as well as your first annual consider signing up with our Savvy Maintenance program - most clients feel they save much more than the yearly cost of Savvy on their annual. At the very least Savvy will help you understand what are airworthy items, what are discretionary items and what items you may like to defer till after annual to either do yourself if you'd like or even do elsewhere etc. See https://www.savvyaviation.com/savvyaviation-home/savvy-services/savvymx/ for details.

It sure looks like the landing gear was lost in the roll out or should I say slide out. There are no signs of deep trails behind the aircraft that would indicate the gear was still there. Snow can be forgiving and also be full of ice chunks much like rocks. But without at least a preliminary report we really can't say with any certainty. We could even learn our hero ran out of gas - but I am doubting it. Going by the news reports, this pilot really stacked the odds in his favor: - He pilot put out a distress signal, apparently before he landing and a mayday after they landed indicating they were both alive. Were they already communicating with Flight Following (probably not on an IFR flight plan given a SR22 with the very high MEA's)? - Given the distress call, the FAA called multiple authorities including sheriff's dept and AF CAP. The CAP specialists using their own radar data, were able to zero in on the crash site in under 30 minutes and give coordinates to local research and rescue teams to get to the couple stranded in negative 18 degree weather. The last radar hit was .7 miles from where they went into the snow. - CAP reported that it took less than two hours for the couple to be rescued by helicopter Pretty amazing, things probably went as fast as they did because the pilot was squawking and talking - but would be even more amazing if he wasn't and still got a call off. But given they were apparently able to get a MAYDAY out after the crash that could be all they needed to be successful. But without it, that would have made the call before the crash that much more critical to a speedy rescue. Performing the flight in the morning which helped to get rescued well before dark took the pressure or need of any emergency supplies they might of needed if they had to spend the night. But seeing a surviving crash reminds us all of the need to carry appropriate extra gear for an off field landing including things like extra warm clothes, water, food, first aid kit, etc. After seeing two family's with 2 young kids each perish from VFR into IMC the last week (The C182 in WA and Cessna CT210K in AZ) it sure is nice a see such a great outcome.

I am tipping my hat to this Cirrus pilot today. His entirely unpanicked yet well thought out decision making made all the difference in the world. In the new ACS, which replaces the PTS for private and Instrument pilot, there is a item under the area of Risk Management for the Emergency Approach and Landing, it lists "Managing startle response". How do you think he did? http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2017/01/n5vk-2003-cirrus-sr22-incident-occurred.html

Glad you found the disconnected line. Sounds like a huge UDP leak. The fine-wires should improve how far each cyl can go LOP before missing, but they shouldn't alter the gami spreads. Have your injectors been recently cleaned to get your baseline mixture distribution? if not, I might be suspicious of a lean outlier just being dirty.

Have you tried adjusting the compatibility settings to an earlier version of windows? If you are unfamiliar these are settings for the executable you get at with a right mouse click. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Go by Mooney's SB20-188A or the Mooney MM http://www.mooney.com/en/sb/M20-188A.pdf note they indicate only 40-65 in/lb

The 252 & Encore was the height of Mooney efficiency! Faster than the 231 and maybe 20 knts slower than the Bravo but the last of the Mooney breed is miserly fuel consumption. For Mooney to remain the fastest single plane they had to give up the fuel efficiency for an abundance of raw HP. The Acclaim though was a big improvement on the Bravo IMO.

Exactly, they are for the extra bay filled by the Monroy tanks. Safety wiring is essentially impossible. The only thing to safety wire the flush drain would be on the inside of the tank. They are not hard to re-install, just use a torque wrench and stop. Too many people, including A&P's, will keep tightening trying to stop a drip and before you know it they have over stressed the 2 little rivets holding the nut plate on. If it's dripping, it needs to come back out and clean up whatever is the problem. Usually it goes easily but with gas pouring out of an undrained tank its a pain. Pull it out on the ramp to replace it and be ready and quick when the old drain comes out - so you don't let gas get all over you.

I have a Guardian CO unit in my panel, it replaced my clock. I personally think serious CO protection is really important for turbo planes that fly high like a few of us. Our pulse oximeters sure can't tell between CO and O2 and we're along ways from the ground if we need to get down. So an alarming or alerting device that you can't fail to notice like on a panel mounted device provides peace of mind. At least we have unpolluted supplemental O2 onboard. The only time I have ever had it alarm (50ppm) was on the ground in the run-up area with door open. My unit doesn't display anything till a minimum of 10 ppm. There is a thread from probably a couple years ago here on MS discussing what might be typical background amounts of CO and what was safe. You might try searching for that. But I would think that normal background should be in the sub 10 ppm range.

Yes. be careful replacing them. They can be easily overly torqued.

I think its awesome we have a controller on this forum - really appreciate your post's -- keep them up!. I also wish we had more adventure travel minded pilots like I expect Paul will be when his 252 is out of the shop - like mine is too right now ;(

Exactly what I have heard as well - that underwriters have an age limit that they will no longer accept new policies for. But it varies with the underwriter but this suggest before you get to that age you want to end up with someone that meets all your needs, like smooth liability limits, territorial limits, etc. or you'll find yourself with no other options.

I am member of my local FSDO's FAASTeam and what Don said above about reporting every issue is true. It used to be they had the option not to report every pilot deviation unless their was a loss of separation. Now the controllers are required to write up every pilot deviation - that includes in the towers and in the TRACONs and ARTCC's - maybe there are some exceptions but that is what I am hearing. And ironically this being done as part of the FAA latest initiative https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/cp/ called their Compliance Philosophy. If you regularly attend FAA Wings Safety Seminar you have no doubt heard of it. But under the Compliance initiative, the FAA talks about how to try to use remedial training rather than enforcement action (e.g. suspensions) which is good but nothing new. But a "pilot deviation" is not an emergency and wouldn't get written up the same way but if they couldn't get traffic out of the way fast enough I imagine it could have resulted in the same kind of visibility. regardless an emergency is an emergency period and not the time to be considering the arm chair scrutiny that will come later; even if its performed by an FAA proctologist!