kortopates

I went through the sales tax exemption process in CA too as Jerry described. But this was over a dozen years ago with an aircraft purchase price of over $200K - so I was very motivated to make the effort for 8% savings. My purchase was entirely for personal use so I followed a different protocol which kept the aircraft out of state for over 3 months. The rules have since changed and as far as I know the exemption is only good for business use today. However anyone interested in this only needs to go to the CA BOE website and read up to find out if there is anyway they pull it off. Well worth it if you can. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

From a SAR standpoint its best to always leave your cell phone on while in flight. If you go down and SAR folks can get your cell phone (e.g. Flight plan, friend, relative etc.) and have the phone company ping your phone for a GPS position before the search even begins. It can be very helpful in getting help to you much sooner if your 406 with GPS position source failed or you don't have one or just to corroborate the other data. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I hope you're aware of engine corrosion risk issues from a plane that likely sat longterm and either got a very thorough PPI on it or valued it as a runout engine. Don't mean to sound doom and gloom but the oil leaks and governor may be the least of your concern if there is internal corrosion. If there is, it typically shows up 1.5 to 2yrs after being put back into normal use with spalling cam and lifters. Good to have a plan. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Besides cleaning out the holes, don't rely on the springs to push the pins into the holes - make sure the seat occupant positively pushed the lever down as well to ensure the pins are seated, if the holes are overly rounded then the rails should be replaced just like Cessna rails. They are available from Mooney.

Its been awhile but if you look the part # up in the IPC you should be able to find it on the web. Its a Goodrich part if I recall properly and last I saw it was $800+ a number of years ago.

I agree about the poorly written article. It really looks like self serving sensationalism to me - aimed entirely at scaring people away from trying to fly into Mexico alone without hiring their services. Fact is its real easy and the rules are surely not hidden in spanish on some mexican DGAC site, they're readily available from many aviation web site like Baja Bush and others. For all the good Rick Gardner does, especially as the AOPA Mexico rep, its really frustrating too see this kind of stuff. Its just like at the start of the Mexican APIS thing, Caribbean sky tours was virtually as bad as FlightPlan.Com insisting that you better file a Mexican APIS through their fee based ARINC interface when the truth was no one in Mexico cared, nor had the majority of any GA airport Commadantes even hear about this new policy/law being implemented - they had been out of the loop. But more importantly there was no enforcement of this new law simply because they still have a lot of work to do to implement the infrastructure. Its over years later since the laws debut and if you file a Mexican APIS today it still doesn't go beyond Mexico City; nobody really cares and there sure hasn't been an attempted enforcement of private GA flights. Eventually this will change and with the new free email filing method by sending a spreadsheet its foolish to ignore it since they're making it so easy. Anyway, WRT crossing the southern Mexican border, Mexico's policy is virtually identical to the US. Note from our Northern border you are not obligated to stop at the first AOE airport and can continue further south - same in Mexico. But not so coming into the US from the south. Same thing in Mexico except they have such a smaller border on the south they only have two AOE's they let us use; which isn't a problem if you do your due diligence. If you ever entered Mexico from the south you'll understand why they do it. Lastly since the last CBP fine that I have heard of recently was for a US pilot re-entering the US that didn't declare he had a couple of oranges on board was fined $500. Based on that, do you really think a US pilot would get fined for less than a couple thousand dollars if they failed to stop at one of the border airports like our hapless pilot above did in Mexico?? I doubt it; especially after trying to tell them their rules didn't apply to him. Really???

Inbound, you'll only need to file a US ICAO flightplan if you are entering VFR. If you enter on a IFR flight plan they'll hand you off at the border and you'll always be on squawk code. If you are entering VFR you need to file a ICAO through any of the DUAT providers or Lockhead Martin via their website 1800wxbrief.com or you could even do it over the phone using skype (which usually works well from Mexico providing you have internet access). Don't rely on Mexico to get your flight plan to the US - often it works but when it doesn't you have you have to file a full flight plan over the radio with FSS which is painful from the air. Remember you can update your eAPIS arrival time in the air on a FSS radio frequency as long as you contact them at least 30 min out from your arrival time. Often that means you can't be very low and reach them that far out. DVFR flights plans are no longer used, they have been replaced by ICAO International flight plans.

A lot of money for a couple pieces of paper that no one will ever ask to see. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Parker is of course exactly right. The red gear unsafe light should on be on during transit only and the green gear down light should only be on only when the gear is down and locked - any discrepancy should be checked out with the plane on jacks right away. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Too high of a vacuum would be caused by the vacuum regulator on the manifold; not the pump. First step though would be to put a gauge on it and check. The annunciator could also need adjusting if sensing a high vacuum prematurely; but more likely the vacuum regulator needs adjusting. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You can order them individually from O-Rings Inc in LA over the web and inexpensive. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Throttle position really has no effect if just purging the lines. That's right about boost pump usage. Per the emergency procedures, which frankly are not well written in the 231, but improve in the later K model years, you use the High Boost for an engine driven fuel pump failure and you use the low boost pump for when air gets in the line causing roughness or engine surging when hot or following like your example of accidental exhaustion. The K model POH's don't call for using the low boost pump when changing tanks, but ironically they do with the bigger bore Continental models (as do the Lycoming installations) so even though its not in the book there would be nothing wrong in using it for switching tanks.

Good info on your options for repair. I'll only comment on the hot start. I recommend, per the TCM maintenance & operation manual to use the High Boost pump with mixture at Idle cut off to recycle the hot fuel in the line with cool fuel from the tanks. In a Lyc you are only purging air by pressuring the the fuel line, but in a Continental you are also able to recycle the fuel. At Idle Cut Off, it prevents any fuel from going into cylinders and just sends the hot fuel back to the tank at the fuel valve. Using high boost will recirculate it twice as fast than using the low boost. Of course its the same pump just running on less volts in low boost mode. I use 15-20 sec on high boost.

Maintenance manuals are inexpensive, and available here: http://www.continentalmotors.aero/Support_Materials/ Of course the overhaul and maintenance manuals also need to be accompanied by the SB, SI etc which are all free. there probably are scanned PDF versions of these, but not from TCM (unless they just started) so why risk working with out of date documentation when the official material is very reasonable.

Several things could cause this, but I can't imagine how rain would be one them: 1) the induction boot between the cowl and air filter could be pinching off blocking air flow as you climb to altitude - as the difference between ambient air pressure and the upper deck pressure that your turbo is trying to maintain increases. This could be from the boot not being re-installed properly - not being pulled up tight enough allowing it to be pinch in from suction, or a combination of that and a worn flimsy old boot that should be replaced. Also the Air filter attached to the turbo inlet has to oriented with just the right angle to allow the best possible fit for the boot to line up with the fitting on the lower cowl so that it goes on nice and tight. 2) there is also a magnetic on the alternate air source door that could need adjustment if the door is opening with too little required suction (and the induction boot is not pinching in from suction). The service manual calls for it to open at so many inches of vacuum - look there for specific's. But most likely is #1

Agreed, the POH shows installed equipment, but it is also easy to ascertain OPTIONAL equipment, which is what I referred too. Optional equipment is not X'd in the original master list (before its modified for your serial #); hence its optional. Now its also true being standard or non-optional does not make it Required, but optional equipment can not also be required. If it wasn't optional, then yes we would have to dig deeper beyond the POH find it was required. You're quite right about how its is an obtuse process to look up and the TCDS is where to start. Mooney wasn't nearly as friendly as some manufacturers that added columns to their equipment list for what was required for Day VFR, Night VFR and IFR like for example Cessna does on their AFM's.

Yep, you could do that all right. But that is pretty much reserved for when the IA and owner are in disagreement and want to end the inspection and complete repairs elsewhere; perhaps a disagreement of method of repair or cost. But it is not a return to service signature like an airworthy plane would get: - 43.11(a)(4) "I certify that this aircraft (or engine or prop) has been inspected in accordance with a annual inspection and was determined to be in airworthy condition" instead - 4311(a)(5) ...If the aircraft is not approved for return to service because of needed maintenance, noncompliance with applicable specifications, airworthiness directives, or other approved data, the following or a similarly worded statement -- "I certify that this aircraft (or engine or prop) has been inspected in accordance with a annual inspection and a list of discrepancies and unairworthy items date, (date), has been provided for the aircraft owner and operator." As noted the actual list of discrepancies does not get included in the logs, its a separate piece of paper. So as a result, the return to service signature comes from any A&P that signs off on each of the items on the list. In this particular case, since its an item that is permitted to be inoperative under 91.213(d)(2), then the IA must also ensure its placarded "Inoperative" and as stated any A&P could then sign it off with a maintenance log book entry that either fixed it or removed it. Although it never got to this point in this, if it had, generally speaking though, as long the relationship isn't soured its going to be better to just defer his/her airworthy sign off till after you complete the repair or removal so that you can avoid having the unapproved annual sign off all together - at least I wouldn't want the inspection signed off with a list of discrepancies noted in my log book as long as there were reasonable alternatives since its going to raise eyebrows down the road about the owners maintenance habits. But that's my opinion, YMMV.

Even better than George's is to send your Electric Cowl flap motor back to Globe Motors (the OEM) and they will "rebuild" it to new at the current spec/newer part no (that uses larger pins to secure the shaft ) for a fraction of what new cost from Mooney. See the details of doing this in another thread on Cowl Flaps in this forum section. Its takes about a week.

Thanks Anthony, Of course its always the owner/operator that is ultimately responsible for the maintenance and airworthiness of a part 91 aircraft. And certainly an IA shares in that when (s)he signs off on an inspection or annual and doesn't want to risk their livelihood or certificate by ignoring discrepancy's - but I am sure we've all seen some of these rules stretched one time or another. You scratch your head though when you read some stories such as Eric's above.

Amelia. I hear you.What I wasn't sure of was if the 231's had prop heat as optional added equipment. And now I recall a few clients that did not have prop heat so I also just looked at a early 231 POH and sure enough, Prop heat was optional. It did become standard equipment later but that's irrelevant, point is the certification didn't require it. Anyway this reasoning is just to say that you and your IA could opt to remove the prop heat and be done with it. But as mentioned previously that would be silly since removing it would likely be more expensive than fixing it and would certainly cause a hit in resale value. But it really has nothing to do with being FIKI or not. Consider your other anti-ice device on the pitot tube - pitot heat. You could placard and in-op pitot heat for the same argument you make on the prop heat under 91.213 but come the next required inspection, your annual since you don't fly for hire, 91.405 requires that it must now be fixed.Or hypothetically speaking, one could probably get approval to replace it with unheated pitot tube i.e. remove the heated probe. But of course it would be preferable to fix it and that's the intent of 91.405. Your IA was just trying to do the right thing. Anyway, I am betting it must be the brushes that are worn since you mention it happens every few hundred hours. If so, the brushes run ~$70 (i recall from the last time I replaced mine using the RAPCO PMA part) and your regular home based A&P/IA should be able to change them for you. Its also been shocking seeing the cold spells out east this winter, hope you see spring real soon!

Technically, I believe your IA was right originally; since the aircraft was certified with the prop heat (unless I am wrong it was optional equipment - I am not certain). With respect to the regs - seems like many of us just refer to the ones we want to make use of. Most owners understand 91.213 which allows us to operate with an inoperative instrument or equipment. But fail to understand that this is not a permanent authorization to operate with the discrepancy. 91.405© Maintenance Required spells it out "Shall have any inoperative instrument or item of equipment, permitted to be inoperative by 91.213(d)(2) of this part, repaired, replaced, removed or inspected at the next required inspection. (91.405 d goes on to say the inop instrument/equipment needs to be placarded as as such, but it is referring till it's fixed at the next inspection). So I am sure your IA was reacting to 91.405 as he was taught to do which requires all previously allowed inop equip to be fixed or removed if they are optional equipment. I really wouldn't want to see it removed if it was mine, as I would expect to see the plane take a substantial hit in resale. In the case of the Bravo with a TKS retrofit, that is entirely different because the Type certificate has now been modified by the STC for TKS and the STC (whatever it says) governs the prop deice issue. But it sounds like all has been removed except for a button on the panel so still very different. So what has been the problem with getting it back to working? Brushes are cheap, boots aren't that bad, the ammeter was $800 last time I saw but the timer I imagine would be the most expensive to deal with. Hopefully its not the timer.

I agree with Cruiser (Tom) above. To demonstrate meeting the "performance requirements" of a TSO is akin to getting a TSO Authorization which is an FAA design and production approval issued to manufacturer that has successfully demonstrated meeting the performance requirements of the TSO - see CFR Part 21.601 and 21.603. Do you really believe the FAA is going to allow manufacturers to claim they meet the performance requirements on the honor system?

The "DGAC" quoted fee looks suspiciously close to the DGAC's Multi-entry fee which is again 1441 pesos this year and at the current very favorable exchange rate it should come out to $100 US if you pay in pesos, but of course you'll never do that good paying in dollars as they'll always exchange at a more favorable rate to them. You still have to pay immigration fees each time you enter, regardless, the multi-entry fee waives nothing officially, IF you check the Crew box on the immigration form rather than Tourista and (only if you aren't staying more than 7 or 10 days) then the pilot will only pay a very small immigration fee (~60 pesos). Pax will normally pay a 366 pesos immigration fee at arrival (entering the country) and then a small fee at departure (leaving the country) at around 5 US. At the great exchange rates going on right now, gas in Mexico is a great deal at just over $3.52/gal US based on a 14.8 exchange i.e. pay in pesos! (BTW, its always a challenge to accurately post fuel prices since whether you buy 1 gal or 100 gals you always pay their Wing tax of ~$10US on top of the per liter price and vat. In this case, the quoted example price was for 32 gal with taxes)

Cabo San Lucas used to be a great flyin destination for GA but that was ruined in my opinion when it became mandatory to hire a handler and pay the exorbitant fees. I haven't been back since before the mandatory handling fee. I recall when this first started, they took and gave you a nice 8x10 glossy of your plane landing at the airport as some justification of the charges. I guess enough people complained about that that and they have since dropped the picture and increased their charges. At least I haven't heard about the picture in years anymore. Although I have been sticking to La Paz and Punta Pescadero ever since, I understand the preferred airport for the south cape is now the big one at San Jose Del Cabo - but you have to ask to park in the public transient parking area to avoid FBO handling fees. Jack at Baha Bush is always willing to step you the process if you are a member and give him a call. I'd recommend that since I last heard parking was very reasonable there at MMSD. These days though they have such great care rental deals at La Paz that most folks are drawn there. As for using Ensenada to enter - why? Although I have never used them, they have a reputation for being very nice but very slow and have recently been requiring advanced reservations to land there do to construction going on at the field. Hopefully you are aware of that and know how to call to make one. That said, you should have the range to make Loreto and I would suggest clearing there and if not, then San Felipe which is the most efficient place to process through but fuel prices are bit higher. Anyway, the scenery is far superior flying down east side of baja plus there are landing options along the east side every 30-45 minutes as well.

Its also available from Amazon a bit cheaper. I prefer the 2" width because 1" requires 2 overlapping pieces to cover my cowling. Other sizes such as 1.5" are available, but i only see the 1.5" available in 5 yds and slightly wider ones in 36 yds which gets expensive. http://smile.amazon.com/dp/B000SPLDI0/ref=biss_dp_t_asn