kortopates

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.

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.