kortopates

So when your pitot tube freezes or anything happens that takes out your ram air to the IAS, and your Aspen goes big Red X, you sure don't wan't to see your G5 attitude do the same! Good find Chris, its critical to know the failure modes so you know what they can be and then train/practice accordingly.

Good point because I have yet to review the parameters to see if another one needs to be enabled as I suspect there is. But to answer your question directly, no, we don't even file flight plans to do IFR approaches here. For IFR flights that begin and end anywhere within specific TRACONs airspace, its is possible to get an IFR clearance without pre-filing by asking the tower for an IFR published TEC route (Tower Enroute Control) clearance. These are in the published in the AF/D and we have TEC routes here in the SOCAL and NORCAL TRACONS as well as the north east coast. For even shorter routes such, such as between nearby airports, they are not published in the AF/D, but prescribed never the less and provided to you when you ask tower for IFR to the a nearby or same airport. For these flight plans, they only care about your airplane type and equipment suffix, e.g. M20T or M20P and /G or...

I suggest you try asking the controller that "Zero Romeo Alpha request commencing the GPS XRAY runway 24 approach at VISTA, full stop ( or missed)". That should work; especially if you are coming from OCN. But because of the 5.8 nm leg between the JABAL and KANEC, after the RF leg, our controllers aren't thrilled with this approach if they are sequencing you in with other straight in traffic so that could have been the issue.

I can't say but can imagine installs cost really varying depending on whether its being connected to an existing compatible GPS or if yours would need their optional GPS antenna installed.

This seems like a lot about nothing. When you look at the details, all you would get is GPS track on the HSI page; which you already have at the top of the G5 display. Its not like G5 users are missing out on Heading info, which is only provided in the G5 experimental version if you have both the G3 and an optional magnetometer. And its still only a backup to the G3. So frankly, even if they didn't hide the HSI function on the certified version, wouldn't that be a waste of glass real estate to display the same GPS track info already displayed. But of course you got a great new glass certified primary attitude display with all the other nice features IAS, altitude, VSI etc is all great stuff - and it looks nice in your panel. You did good and got some excellent capability for half the cost of anything else and that's the real point of the matter! On the other hand if anyone really want the whole enchilada, certified to support navigation, synthetic vision, obstacles and even heading - that's available too, starting at couple more AMU's - the L3 ESI-500.

Another option, especially if Ariel Avionics at Reid Hillview Airport does not have the King test harness equipment is going to Sacramento Executive. They do have the test harnesses and are very good at diagnosing and repairing. I finally flew up there from SD after sending my servo's and computers to Auto Pilot Central but they couldn't find the issue but I still spent thousands on the repairs. In truth, I wanted to send them anyway in anticipation of getting a G500 & GAD43E installed and wanted to have the AP components gone through anyway so that it was perfect intime for my new panel. But I still had to go in to Sacramento Executive where they could install the test harness to get to the bottom of my issue. If Ariel Avionics also has the King test harness equipment that great, since then we have at least 2 places in CA that have the added diagnosis capability that it provides - which is pretty essential IMO. BTW, bench testing the components individually is entirely different from testing the system in its entirety with the test harness in your plane.

Between the GTN and the GNS, the older GNS really do provide the same enroute and approach capabilities except for one. Only the new GTN boxes support the new RF leg approach types. But these are new and rare and probably most people don't even know about them or care. I have one near me, but not a big deal. Otherwise as Athony said, for everything else the GNS does what the GTN does just not as efficiently as the newer GTN boxes (i.e. programmable holds, airways). But add in a Flighstream 210, as JohnB suggested and voila you just added a new iPad interface and solving the missing airways dilemma. But no arguing that the newer GTN & IFD do it all with much more G-Whiz bang and with beautiful color maps and touch screen. But as Teejay says, given install cost is the same and significant for any of these GPS starting from scratch, one would really have to be strapped to install the older GNS boxes. My sense is the more complex the install (more interfaces to wire) the less palatable the savings from a GNS box will be. A simple interface to one VOR/GPS head makes its the most attractive. But don't be dissuaded by stories of Garmin is not updating the GNS boxes because they continue to be supported. They have added and continued to update them for LP approaches and continue to update them to interface with for ADS-B as well as interfacing with their other product updates. But I recently went from a GMX-200 with dual GNS430W's to a GTN750/GTN650 w/FS510 combo because I was modernizing my panel with a G500 and wanted to simplify. Plus I traded in my GNS430W at 5.5K each and then am getting another $5K in Garmin rebates - so that helps too. But if you are starting from scratch, it makes the Avidyne solution really tough since their advertised pricing starts at $17K and $15K plus install for the 540 and 440 respectively. That's great for people already coming from a GNS solution which won't pay for install - which is where most of their install base comes from (that and early adopters that got big discounts for deposits before their availability). Contract that with the GTN750 which advertises starting at $17K with install and starting at $12K with install for the 650. (I assume an AP interface and any other interfaces to existing avionics will drive install cost up.) That's a pretty big difference between the GTN650 and IFD440 for a new installed cost. I was also surprised to learn the IFD series doesn't support the new RF leg approaches. I wonder if that is a temporary thing or more a sign of a lack of future capability like the existing the GNS boxes. If it was only temporary, why didn't they just get it in so it they wouldn't suffer the negative marketing?

When Bennett is receiving traffic in the hockey puck of the aircraft near him, that is not ADS-B air-to-air. the only way he is receiving it is from the ADS-B/R rebroadcast from the ground tower. There is no other way for him to get a Mode C target in his ADS/B TIS-B feed. But yes, I would have to agree with you, it unlikely his ADS-B Out is being picked up by a local ADS-B ground tower, its more likely he is picking up the ADS-B/R rebroadcast from the ground tower courtesy of other enabled ADS-B traffic in the pattern or nearby. Out west here, we do have a few airports where people have claimed of getting FIS-B on the ground, so it is possible but that is what I would consider the acid test of whether you could get reception from an ADS-B tower on the ground.

I think its more likely as Jose points out that you are within range of an ADS/B Tower on the ground at KSQL. Have you checked? You'd have no problem picking up air-to-air ADS/B traffic from the ground anywhere which is something we call look forward too post 2020 (under what we currently call the mode C veil where a transponder is required) but to pick up a mode C target now our ADS/B in receiver must rely on an ADS/R transmission from a ground based tower. I agree with Jose that using a ground based towers for all this really limited the low altitude capabilities for traffic and weather. But at least with almost everyone going to ADS/B by 2020 will eliminate the traffic deficiency's for the most part, but we'll still have the FIS-B limitations down low. One of the things I've enjoyed with XM when trying to beat some weather approaching airport is being able to startup and get an instant update as I taxi out to the runway and hold for release. I sure I don't have to wait till I get airborne and up a few thousand feet, which could be a half hour since I last saw the nexrad display on a computer.

Managing the annual and its cost is exactly why SavvyMx.com is in business. With SavvyMx, each cost is authorized before the work is done. First the base price inspection is authorized which is just the inspection and AD search but sometimes it may include some routine maintenance like an oil change, re-packing bearing, performing the landing gear rigging checks, etc. But every shop prices them a little differently. But at the completion of the inspection the shops we work with are required to provide a list of discrepancy's with the estimated parts and labor to correct them. An account rep then reviews the list. Often he may first go back to the shop to get clarification or ask for additional test's before making a recommendation. An example might be to ask for a borescope exam of a cylinder that had a low compression. But when satisfied with the discrepancy list, the account rep will then make his recommendation on what is required as airworthy items and which items are discretionary that the pilot may defer. The account rep will give opinions on these as well. Only after the list has been reviewed and approved is the work done and then billed. Clients like the service because they aren't surprised by the final bill, shops like us because they know customers are more likely to return when they feel they were treated fairly and frankly we do a lot of business with some shops. But there is nothing magical about what we do other than represent our clients interest fairly by insisting on the same business models required by automobile service providers. And no question many GA maintenance providers do this on their own. But without the account rep brokering the process both the shops and the clients get busy and some parts of the job slip through the cracks and then surprises happen; especially when the surprises aren't minor items. But then there are some shops that refuse to do business this way and obviously we can't work them nor do they want to work with us. But more and more are coming around. Anyway, the point is that you don't need to hire Savvy to follow the same process model of inspect, review, authorize the work while communicating all along the way.

Absolutely I would. The reason being is that I have yet to see Continental publish a bulletin on the importance on torquing the 2 through bolts as soon as the cylinder is removed. Their documentation only specifically addresses single cylinder replacement or overhaul - it doesn't really discuss these added issues for multiple cylinder replacement or performing tops. Another related issue is that even if just one cylinder is removed the through bolts must be torqued from both sides of the engine. This has gotten into their recent Service Bulletins (SB')s and now part of their M-O Maintenance Manual (A generic standard practices for all piston engines) but its still not present in the original engine specific maintenance manuals (some say to just hold the opposite side of the through bolt - which is a far cry from torquing the opposite side). Until the manufacturers document this need for multiple cylinder replacement I think it very wise to have the conversation in light of the several failures we've seen from improper torquing procedures. Many mechanics are using cut off cylinder flanges to make this easy. But just using washer gets the job done and with only two through bolts per cylinder, its not much effort to do it right.

Although I share the sentiment, the terms valuable, and better apparently don't translate well into improved fatality statistics - sadly. Statistics are kind of mixed. Looking at some of statistical studies done on pilot fatalities we do see IFR rated pilots are only half as likely than non-instrument rated pilots to die from Stall/Spin/Loss of Control type of accidents; which is the largest group of VMC accidents. Supposedly, the training really improved our stall awareness/recovery skills. In the second largest group, essentially CFIT, instrument rated pilots only did slightly better statistically. But it ends there in that the 4 remaining lesser VMC categories of Fatals the instrument-rated pilots did significantly worse than the non-rated; especially with mid-air where instrument rated pilots were 6x more likely to die in a mid-air. Maybe there is some truth to the frequent criticism of instrument rated pilots being too distracted by their in cockpit gadgets preventing them from looking out of the cockpit enough. On the IMC accidents as a whole, we see the same larger group of VFR rated pilots die from stall/spin IMC (from VMC to IMC events) as we did in the VMC stats as well as similar numbers between both hitting terrain or obstacles (CFIT) in low ceilings. But instrument pilots more uniquely have IMC fatals with the biggest group being from improper procedures - which I think we can assume was unintentional and therefore blame lack of proficiency as we would for stall/spin too. One of the most interesting statistics for all those that question IMC in a single, is just how few fatal accidents there were from engine loss, which I'll quote: "On a more positive note, it was encouraging to discover that engine failure (Malfunction category) was an infrequent cause of fatal accidents. There were only 5 fatal accidents (3 IFR-rated and 2 VFR-rated pilots) total for both groups of pilots in these aircraft. Review of the NTSB reports indicated that of the 5 accidents, only one was deemed in an area unsuitable for landing. Had the pilots maintained aircraft control in the other 4 cases, it is very possible that fatalities could have been avoided."

You bet. I have the calibrated dipstick which has kept me in the ballpark for years. But I have the CIES fuel senders going into my plane now with a EDM900 to hopefully get much more accurate fuel remaining numbers. But it remains to be seen though that given there are no fuel senders in the extended tanks, that CIES senders will eliminate the dipstick and my desire to top off the mains only after they are below half full when possible. I am expecting though that my CIES senders will be calibrated based on fuel in both mains and extended tanks but we'll see how well that goes.

Indeed about Fltplan.com - I have used them for some time. In fact they have some nice ios apps that I still use primarily for weather and Wt&Bal, but I have recently replaced the latter with Garmin Pilot. I have used their flight planning and think they have the best ATC integration of any, but I really don't like their web applications. I don't care for their interface at all. I do like WingX and Garmin Pilot. In fact, WingX was my favorite for domestic use, but its lack of international support and garmin integration has pushed me to Garmin Pilot. But given that these days, the iPad apps have caught up with the capabilities of all of the free web based flight planning capabilities I understand your question why even bother with a web based app. Plus I personally think Garmin Pilot has now surpassed all of free the web based apps (at least for my needs). But I have been a hold out myself, but primarily because I prefer a purchased Jepp flight planning s/w that still does considerably more than any of the free products and even Garmin Pilot. Yet I am always looking to ditch it and am getting closer. But I think a lot of us prefer to do flight planning on the PC where we have virtual unlimited access to whatever we want. Otherwise you could ask the same question as to why Foreflight just introduced their Web based flight planning s/w. But for myself, I think I'll likely always use multiple apps and platforms for different things. For example, I prefer to file VFR through LM website for their easyactivate, close, and wx updates. I'll probably stick with Jepp for international flight planning for awhile since I prefer features that include allowing me to print out the filled in ICAO flight plan form to give to official; which has always saved time and simplifies getting what i want. But I am constantly re-evaluating as the technology changes.

Ron, I am not sure what your question is. But you'll be fully compliant with the GTX-330 ES + GNS430; as an ADS-B out only solution. And you already have ADS/B In with your portable XPS-170 and perhaps WingsX (or the like) solution. However, if you have not yet purchased your 330-ES transponder, I personally would spring for the 345 (I already have) since its far more capable and will outlast the already obsolete 330-ES. For starters it will add the AHRS now and it will add weather and traffic displays to your GNS430 if you want (might as well, they'll need to wire it for the position source anyway). In the future, when you do upgrade your panel, it will feed wx and traffic to the GTN's, G500, and I think Aspen is in the works as well. The downside may be that if you are a WingX user, the 345 won't play with WingX; pushing you too perhaps Garmin Pilot or Foreflight (if you wanted to ditch the Dual XPS-170 in the cockpit).

Yep, even in China at upto 320 kph with electric outlets at your seat and very inexpensive. Although not quite all over yet, it does span most of the country - which is huge! We seems to be a long ways off here. But even on the coasts, I think we may lack the density to make it work successfully here.

Great to see the AOPA flight planner continue to mature and really like the integration with EFB's. After doing a quick test run, my wish list is more integration with https://www.1800wxbrief.com for nextGen weather briefings. And really looking forward to a web based flight planner that does table based performance modeling as Jeppesen has been doing in their product all along and as Garmin Pilot just introduced to the iPad recently. With that and Winds aloft calculations that give time and fuel for different altitudes like so many are doing now on the tablet now we can really do accurate fuel planning. Ability to plot multiple weather layers on the map simultaneously (nexrad, winds, sigmets airmets, metars etc) rather than one at at time will be a plus too.

One more point I think is missing in the above. Now that you realize that after filling your mains alone, that the fuel will quickly settle into the outboard/Monroy tanks. One of the most important things you'll want to know now is how many gallons does it take to be remaining in your main tank so that the outboard is now dry. That isn't till about 1/2 capacity on the mid-body's through the current production Acclaims. Which translates to 18 gal on my 252. Therefore, if you want to top off the main's only, the only way you can do that by just filling the main tanks is to ensure you don't have more than that much fuel remaining or you will end up with more weight and fuel than just the mains filled - you'll have the mains full plus some unknown quantity in the Monroy's. Then you'll have to go by actual fuel added from the pump as Mike said and wait till a future fill up to in effect zero-out the error in how much fuel you think is really there.

Not at all. But perhaps its your unsatiated hunger for adventure that brings you to that - its does for many of us here. Obviously Mike (201er) and Kelly (thinwing) are and I am sure several others like Jose. But I wish there were more; especially with a travelling bird like a capable Mooney. One thing that appears we all share though is a wife or girlfriend that loves to fly with us which is pretty important to be able to take multi-week flying safari's together.

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