kortopates

The KFC servos' have become insanely expensive to repair because of the unavailability of the electric servo motor. Bendix King has long since run out of them. Not all servo issues are due to an electric motor though and only if the armature has gone do you really need to have new one built. A couple years ago you were totally out of luck if the issue was the motor. But thank fully we have a few places that can build new servo motors. AP Central now quotes $5K to have their source rebuild the servo motor! If you send your servo, or any component to BK for repair, their policy requires them to apply every past mod to the unit before they even get to repair. That could be a several mods. Some of those mods are very expensive, some aren't but you don't get choice other than to deny the the repair estimate and go elsewhere. When you are confronted with a huge repair estimate one of your better options is to find a salvage servo and have a shop yellow tag it for you and also re-set the clutch tension. The problem is that you are looking specifically for a Mooney BK servo, because nobody but BK has the ability and data to legally convert a Beech or Piper BK servo to the Mooney configuration. And at the age of our BK AP components its very unlikely you'll find a Mooney Servo sitting at salvage yard anymore. I am sure they're gone fast.

Too funny - except that its for real so my sympathy's in having to deal with the jerk. Yep, he got what he finally deserved. But the crazy thing is that a Mexican A&P is not licensed to work on an N registered aircraft. I am sure he/they know that too. We only have reciprocity rules with Canada (not counting annuals). That said there are FAA licensed A&P's in Mexico but I doubt you would have found one in baja - but I am not sure. Probably easier to bring one down from the US. I wonder how far he would have pushed it if you called his bluff, Luckily I've never had an issue with many trips to Loreto.

27 years of flying, 26 as instrument rated. M20K owner for 14 years, as well as CFI-II & A&P with many 2,000nm trips beyond the borders of the Continental US. I love instrument flying but then my interest in flying grew out of interest to travel. So I could not imagine having flight limited by clouds given my utilitarian use of the airplane. Plus I am something of amateur meteorologist and get a lot of satisfaction out of planning my way as safely as I can through and around weather; not by ignoring the risk but planning for contingency's all along the way. Diverting isn't frequent but its happens from time to time. But I have lots of VFR pilot friends and I know full well that instrument flying is not for every one. It certainly has nothing to do with their skill set either but their different interest in flying. Trying telling a pilot that loves to do aerobatic flying or the super-cub pilot who's flying enjoyment comes from a sunday breakfast outing flight with some formation flying on the way there. Of course there is much overlap were the lines get blurry between the extreme examples I am trying to convey. But I have known and worked with several VFR only Mooney pilots that have no need for instrument flight either. Which is absolutely fine. But just like that there are a few in the VFR group that I think are far too brave at scud running rather than getting their instrument rating there are also probably more instrument rated pilots that don't take their proficiency requirements seriously and get into trouble. And this is why the "proficient" instrument pilot is so rare. As hard as it was for so many to get the rating, some pilots taking many years to get it, that was the easiest part by a long shot. The hard part is truly embracing that the rating is merely a license to learn and that the skills you learned to get it are most volatile pilot skills you'll ever have. To be a proficient instrument pilot is an entirely different mindset that now requires most of us to devote the majority of our flying to maintaining and building our instrument skill set. Yet with so many just barely ticking off their 6 approaches within the last 6 months how many are still maintaining their partial panel skills? Sorry to get off topic but all too much I hear the phrase that goes like "I don't do hard IFR". But these are often the same people that get into trouble when their AP fails in IMC or heaven forbid they have a vacuum failure and have no extra redundant instrumentation like a standby AI. Just a recently as this last May we saw a V-35 break up in flight after a vacuum failure that happened while VMC on top at 7000' while on an IFR flight plan. But the radar track implies the plane broke apart within about 1000' of descent. The plane was piloted by a pilot with an ATP and expired CFI from the late 90's IIRC; that ended with 3 fatal's. I also had an instrument rated Mooney pilot friend, not current for probably some years, with questionable instrument equipment, die with his pax from VFR scud running in the mountains - for a short 45 minute local flight. So although I agree the more tools we have in our pilot tool kit the more potential we have to be better pilots. But what makes us safer better pilots is not the rating's we've earned perhaps, long ago, but how much we invest in maintaining our proficiency for the kind of flying we do - especially including the unexpected emergency procedures, upset recovery, x-winds, emergency engine out landings, etc etc.

That should be for your Low/High vacuum annunciator. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

http://www.oasisscientific.com/vividia-va-400-rigid-usb-articulating-borescope-videoscope-inspection-camera.html Good news for us Oasis Scientific Borescope users! They fixed the IOS issue by providing a USB to Wi-fi adapter and their IOS software app. Its works very well but it cost $ though but its articulating capabilities are critical to see valve faces and seats. The accessory so far is only available directly from them at VA-B2_WiFi_AirBox_USB_to_WiFi_Converter Note: If you are willing to jailbreak your ipad then I'd bet you could get the Oasis Borescope to work with your iPad using the newer Apple USB 3 camera connector with the powered USB port and additional s/w including iFile - but I wasn't willing to go that route, but its been done with other webcam types of devices.

They haven't changed since the long-body's went to dual puck brakes but the middle door is trimmed to fit. You are probably ok on the outer door, but the middle door has several inches of excess material. Being hand made, this is not at all uncommon since many parts are custom fitted. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Those gear doors come over size from the factory ready to be trimmed to custom fit your Mooney. You probably don't want to paint them till they have been fitted to your Mooney. See your maintenance manual for details. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Plus the magnet makes getting the washers on first trivial. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actually to answer your question directly the LOP EGT temperatures are exactly the same degrees cooler than Peak EGT as are the ROP EGTs - it's really that simple. 50 LOP is the same temp as 50 ROP. But when you read up more on it you will learn that CHTs are cooler and ICP are lower at 50 LOP than at 50 ROP as well as many other important relationships to help you manage your engine better. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks, There couldn't have been a better write-up to help me see the light! I think Rod was writing directly for me on this one I would still like to find a FAA source which makes it clear too but am still looking. But maybe I am expecting too much since " Direction of holding from the the fix ... " is really that simple. I realize I am guilty of over complicating it and get Midlifeflyers point now. And now that I do, I also see how this does simplify it. Good learning discussion for me. I have gotten a fair number of holds in my flying time (27 yrs), but I live where a marine layer is very common and on weekends its not that unusual to get planes stacked up on one of our more popular VOR approaches. But virtually all my real holds have been as published. My most recent exception was in Cuba which was a random waypoint not even on my course; it wouldn't have been a problem getting too and holding there except it was solidly in red/severe precip so we declined - another story for another day.

Fantastic! I wish you the best Jolie in keeping the momentum up to get through the IFR practical soonest!

Like Amelia, my wife and I flew in with our 252 this last January. My wife, also a pilot, was probably the second women pilot to visit. We flew into 3 airports there. Only the two were planned Cienfuegos and Havana. But just like Amelia, we ran into severe rain and turbulence trying to get on the approach into Havana. We couldn't negotiate a good place to hold outside of the weather (they were taken) so we just diverted to a another airport east of Havana and another $350 landing fee. Most expensive diversion I've ever made, but it was definitely the right choice - another plane, a Beech-18 also diverted right behind us and followed us in. 2 hrs later both the Beech and us landed in Havana in beautiful VFR conditions. It could have been earlier but Cuba's bureaucracy takes time to work through. Only a couple of Cuban airports have avgas so one has to plan their fuel very carefully. We spent most of a week their and had a great time. But the really big adventure for us pilots is to fly your own plane in. Yeah, you bet its an expensive adventure by private air, especially for us coming from San Diego. But the cost of adventure is not always cheap but the experience and memories were certainly worth it. As Piloto said, there is no such thing as an FAA certified A&P there, nor parts, but that may have changed with our american carriers now providing scheduled service there. If you had an incident there, I am sure you would be flying in a mechanic and parts from a neighboring island or FL to get the bird flying.

I would say there is no ambiguity in any holding instruction that only uses the 4 cardinal compass points such as "hold east of the XYZ VOR on the 090 degree radial ". Its a given when the fix is a VOR or any GPS waypoint that the inbound course is the reciprocal of the radial provided in the holding instructions (assuming a radial is provided). For the most part the ambiguity only comes in when all 8 cardinal compass points are used; since only then would one be trying to use the second half of the cardinal compass point to resolve if the controller is truly referring to right turns by default or implying left turns. Of course if the controller includes turn direction the problem is solved or an immediate discussion will ensue to resolve. So to comment on the picture posted, I would most often expect to the controller to issue an instruction that says simply "Hold West on the 310 degree radial". If the controller went a step further, I would expect, "Hold South West on the 310 radial ..." since the direction from the fix is south west - not north west. But if he said, Left Turns, I would then expect North-West or just North or just West. I certainly understand the ambiguity of this once you include all 8 cardinal compass points because I have seen nothing in the FAA literature that clearly points this out beyond the words of the AIM that say " Direction of holding from the the fix "; which is why so many of us interpret it exactly as M016576 stated so well as "based upon the direction of turn departing the holding fix". As a CFI, that is continually learning, I've looked at all the obvious FAA sources of this and have found nothing that entirely resolves this or goes a step past what the AIM states to make the bit of the leap that M016576 words do as the direction departing the holding fix. But I have felt that is most consistent with the AIM, the least ambiguous and if we can assume is correct says, it says it better than the AIM does IMO. But I would sure would like to see a more detailed FAA written interpretation that clearly makes the distinction if either of you know of one.

Actually per AIM 5-3-8: i) An ATC clearance requiring an aircraft to hold at a fix where the pattern is not charted will include the following: 1. Direction of holding from the the fix in terms of 8 cardinal compass points .... 5. Direction of turn if left turns are to made,.... I too would conclude the direction of holding is South West of the fix - since I also understand the cardinal direction is also taking out the ambiguity between 4 possible holding patterns at the fix described. To use it as implied, the cardinal direction is only helping to identify which side in which case West or East would be sufficient.

We have lots of G1000 data on Savvy. Put in a request for help with a detailed description of the problem and someone will get back to you. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly, see Tetraphobia as you point out it exist in Japan and throughout much of eastern Asia but its probably strongest in China.

Very true, that's because 4 (si) is very close to the word death in Chinese (si) - only the accent or tone on the i is different between them. Indeed, if he was, he wouldn't have that N number. It wouldn't exist in China since Tetraphobia is very real in China. Chinese even avoid telephone numbers with 4 and building's skip the 4th floor and 14th etc, like we skip the 13th floor. On the other hand, their lucky number is 8; Chinese phones numbers with 8 are in demand. My Chinese cell number has several 8's!

$149/yr http://www.sportys.com/pilotshop/pirep/cat/pireps/post/three-rules-dealing-airplane-breakdown-home/

Interesting, it's looking like Turbo Plus speed brakes were originally Spoiler Inc brakes. No wonder they were expensive though since they automatically retract in a stall and at approx 2/3 of full throttle. Our Precise speed brakes sure don't do that. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

+1 And when an approved certified crimping tool is used with approved terminal ends the resulting connection is proven to be stronger than the wire itself. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Did you download your engine data from your flight. If so, you can upload it to SavvyAnalysis.com for free and take a look. I'd be interested to take a look as well. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am also a strong believer in spherics devices. They are less popular these days only because the cheap availability of satellite or ADS-B Nexrad in the cockpit has reversed the trend to make Nexrad the primary solution, delegating spherics devices to the secondary supporting role. Originally it was the other way around. But they are no less important if you intend to fly through clouds. That said, Insight units work fine, but these days I would never invest in a CRT type display especially without heading stabilization which makes the display useless after each heading change. These days IMO there is only one worthwhile option, which is the WX500, which provides the complete solution except the data is displayed on your existing moving map/GPS display which makes it much more useful. This could be a small GNS430 or larger GNS/GTN or moving map like the GMX500 or G500 or (I assume) Aspen too. If you have no such avionics I guess you need to ask yourself your long range panel plans to determine if its worth spending the money in this area for a temporary solution vs the more long term integrated solution. For example, my WX500 investment has stayed in my aircraft through multiple panels dating back to its original use in a MX-20 with Nexrad, to a GMX-200 and now into a G500 & GTN Navigators. Once you have any one of those devices you'll want the WX-500.

The cycle date(s) are listed in the Garmin Pilot downloads section under "Terminal Procedures & Airport Diagrams". At the main heading, as just specified, you'll see either green "Current(count)" or red "Expired(count)". If you see green you are essentially done verifying right there. If you then follow the arrow it will give you the actual "Valid to Date" in green or red "Expired on date" and its size. IMO, looking for a cycle date on the chart itself is vestige of paper charts. We should and can be looking at the dates of all our databases as a pre-flight action as we plan for the flight and make a final check the day of the flight. We should not be waiting till we bring up charts individually to verify we have current data, like picking up a printed chart binder, but we should be looking at the digital database valid dates before we get into the aircraft. When we use our installed certified panel equipment, at startup, we also have the opportunity to verify the database dates for currency. We don't wait till we load a chart. In comparison, Jeppesen has been doing digital charts for many years. They never have had cycle dates on paper nor digital plates (although if you printed a digital plate they would print its DB valid valid dates on the printed copy). Instead, their's or Gamin's software always make it clear what the Database dates were even though you could not gleam this from the chart itself. One thing they did benefit by was that they used only one date for your entire coverage area whether it was one state or half the world, their chart filtering s/w managed your chart DB by that coverage area for you so that it was impossible to have mix or valid and expired data. WingX Pro7 uses this same technique to manage your NOAA chart coverage and is able to also show you a single expiration data for all charts. Even though Garmin and some of the other NOAA chart hosting apps allow us to pick and update coverage selectively, it really doesn't complicate our task of verifying digital chart validity if we merely verify at the database level. Until this thread brought up the chart valid dates I had long since forgotten the (paper based) "cycle dates". You may prefer the older methods that worked for you dating back to when you grabbed a binder from the back seat, I personally prefer verifying it at the digital database level.

If I understand you correctly, the date information is still there in two places. See the top right hand corner of Chris GP chart - "16259". The 16259 is the chart date code for 2016, day 259 of 365/366. The second date is much more readable on the lower left bottom. It shows "Amdt 1b 15Sept16". So although it doesn't show the print cycle, it shows the revision date of the chart. FWIW, Jepp charts do not have a print cycle - just a revision date.

I popular option near me for exhaust repair work is http://www.customaircraft.com/ But they are not an FAA repair station, so you will not get a 337 form back with the repair. They actually used to be years ago, but the FAA requirements to separate their experimental work from certified work made it too difficult for them and they dropped their FAA status. So you would have to rely on your A&P's approval of the work. I will add they do a lot of repairs for certified aircraft including even the military. Plus they have made the very repair you need now a number of times - unfortunately its very common. Make sure the installer follows the maintenance manual on re-installing the heat shield not to tighten both fasteners tightly; one side needs to have some play as the exhaust pipe expands with heat.