kortopates

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.

I don't expect too, just informally to help out some from time to time. My thought exactly!!

The Chinese Mooney brochure is out and attached. About 7 of your photo's were used - sorry they weren't larger photo's. These used include: N111ZX (APTUS Pilot), N706WC (Whiskey Charlie), N694KT (Rszent), N57CV (jacnolasco) and even last minute addition G-OBAL (Hyett6420), Maggie II (Mooney Girl) and my N252AV. These are all on page 30 of the brochure. mooney brochure.pdf

All of the very few people I knew that installed a wet vacuum pump never got anywhere near 2000 hrs on it. But I am kidding a bit, because they all went back to the dry pumps since they got tired of cleaning up the oil that the wet pump constantly leaked onto the belly. Therein is the con, they are very messy. You may not care but you should be aware. If you can, talk to your mechanic and other local pilots and you may be able to look at a local plane that uses one so you can see one for yourself. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Congrats! Now comes the fun part and the hard part - staying proficient. Don't loose those partial panel skills you worked so hard to get - your life could depend on them. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

+1 Furthermore, have you considered how expensive it would be to even move the heavy equipment from Kerrville to China? Then you still need the technical capability of Kerrville's staff to build them. Then you'll need Chinese production authority for the Mooney TCDS - which is no easy task and probably more expensive their than here at this time. At even much improved production levels than current it just doesn't make any sense; especially at less than a couple planes per month. I am not at all privy to such information, but I doubt the factory is profitable yet; especially with all the capital improvements Dr Jerry Chen made to get the production line moving again with greater efficiency. Certainly, plane sales are not funding the design/engineering team working to get the M10 production certificate in Chino, nor is it supporting the similarly sized team in China preparing to introduce the M10 and M20 to the Chinese market. That's all funding provided by Veronica's Meijing Group. So personally I think we have much to be thankful for regardless if we see much M10 production in the US after China gets approval. But foremost we need to see Mooney become profitable again soon just to ensure continued support and production of our M20's. A lot is resting on getting the M10 approved and too market.

What I am trying to suggest is different perspective that rather than looking at trends or peaks of individual values or channels like CHT, that you need to look at the data in terms of how different parameters behave relative to something else. Because so much is interrelated, we have to recognize very few single sensor values are important independently; especially with respect to their absolute values. An example is EGTs, we don't really care what their actual values are - they aren't even a real measurable physical phenomenon, like Cylinder temperature. Instead EGT is a measure of the exhaust gases for only a very small period of every 2 crankshaft revolutions when the exhaust valve has briefly opened. They aren't anywhere near the temperature of actual combustion. But what makes them important is their temperatures relative to peak. The next thing to realize which goes against the value of just tracking trends, is that because everything is so interrelated we really find very little diagnostic capability by just monitoring cruise data statistics. In order to really learn about how our engine is doing we need to fly some specific kinds of regimens that allow us to look at different things in isolation. Some examples of this are mixture and ignition. We may see things in cruise that make us suspicious of one of the other but to apply the science so to speak we can tell much more when we collect data for a specific flight profile that allow us to isolate exactly what we want too see. So next to actually see how we put this to practice I suggest you read this primer at Savvy on in-flight-diagnostics. It will step you through the big ones. (Of course I am largely simplifying, there are some exceptions to the above, but that's the big picture.) After that I suggest you read any of the many find articles available to you on the internet for free. This includes John Deakin's Pelican Perch articles on Avwebs, Mike Busch's article on Avweb, and in the EAA monthly magazine and all of webinar's archived on EAA's site, and lastly but not least the Advanced Pilot Seminar site. The latter site has an excellent online and in-person class you can take that Paul above also recommended. But I would encourage you to read all about mixture, how it affects the combustion timing and especially from the perspective of ICP (or Internal Cylinder Pressure). By doing so, you'll also learn the relationships between EGT, CHT. ICP, HP and BSFC - just google "Red Box" if the latter is new too you and you'll find some good articles with the graphs to show these together. With that knowledge I think you'll want to concentrate more on actually periodically capturing data for what Savvy refers too as the Savvy test Profile. Savvy didn't invent it, but they put the simple instructions together and that's the kind of data IMO you want to collect and monitor for changes in lieu of crunching cruise data. Hope that helps your perspective on how to use the data and as a disclaimer one of my jobs is that I work for Mike B at Savvy.

If you think $50K is over priced, you should see the for $60K one I just looked at for a friend. Great paint and interior with only 400 hrs on the engine but old tired avionics yet a STEC AP. I get the impression you guys would give it the thumbs down too? [emoji107]I don't have a link to it but it's based at KSEE. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Allow me to ask if you are already familiar with how to analyze your data? I. e. How you would use it to assess your mixture or the health of your ignition system, or your induction system or even the health of your valves? I ask because the really big ticket items can't be assessed by merely watching trends. If not I can point you to some stuff that will help. But for starters normal cruise flight data isn't all the interesting. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk