kortopates

If they are the same 28v system used by my K model annunciator with T-1 3/4 Bi Pin Lamps CM7327 then they just pull out after you open up the box. Check your IPC to confirm. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No indication of a failure from what I am understanding. You have to intercept the GS before the AP will capture. 100' to 400' below is not intercepting it. For example, fly down to the altitude of GS intercept at the FAF well in advance of getting to the FAF; preferably with enough time to be flying level in NAV or HDG mode and with ALT engaged to hold altitude at GS altitude intercept height. Once stable engage APR mode, once you are within 2-3 dots laterally APR mode will engage. As you intercept the GS, ideally exactly at the FAF so you can verify by cross checking altimeter altitude to GS intercept (GS needle centered), then the GS will arm and continue to follow it. But you have to intercept it before it will arm. An important reason for this is that you don't want the AP to fly up 400' to capture it right when APR mode engages laterally. You have to intercept it first. If you cross through the GS (GS needle centered) and the AP GS does not arm/engage then there is something wrong with the AP. Flying a "little left of center" though could be a concern. In APR mode it should be right on. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

After 20yrs properly repaired damage wouldn't mean a thing IMO, there would always be other important differences in engine, avionics etc. most often, "properly repaired" means newer parts than the plane that didn't have repairs. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Indeed Tempest have been including magnets in their oil filters for awhile now. As Marauder explained, the magnet grabs chunks of metal that the oil analysis does not/can not see while the oil analysis is analyzing elemental metals that the magnet does not see. It really helps illustrates the point of why it is so important to open and examine your oil filter for metal with every oil change.

On Fltplan.com's website: NOTICE: Do not download the latest iPad Go update from Apple App Store if you are using iOS 8. (iOS 7 is Ok) Mine was working fine yesterday, (used it on a flight) and have been on IOS 8 for a little while now, but I also see yesterday the offending update (v3.0.7) was downloaded and applied - it was released yesterday. Don't know of a way to roll it back on the ipad so I think we're stuck waiting for another update from Fltplan

Have you tried the obvious things: re-boot of your iPad? Downloaded any updates? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actually I think its because of people like yourself that stood up and spread word to folks at AOPA and other groups including Jack at BBP, that Mark Baker of AOPA was able to get the support of Senators interested enough that CBP has now altered their policy in recognition they have no authority to interdict aircraft without legitimate probably cause. Although we can't be certain its the end of these ridiculous encounters, it is very promising that Mark Baker is able to report that their hasn't been a single such unlawful interdiction since their meeting with them resulted in the policy change. I honestly don't know how much AOPA played a role in bringing all this positive change about, but from where I sit I am very pleased with their performance. Also AOPA's representative of Mexico, Rick Gardner of Caribbean Sky Tours, was able to bring about another great recent change by allowing us to meet Mexican APIS reporting requirements by emailing an excel spreadsheet to an email address at Mexico's INM and get a email confirmation back. This is also great news since it eliminates the need to pay a third party like Fltplan.com to file Mx APIS via the ARINC interface. I am pretty pleased recently with AOPA and Mark Baker and optimistic at seeing continued progress.

I know we all read the stories and theoretically at least per Mark Baker, there has not been a single CBP stop of a GA aircraft ever since AOPA had their meeting with them after taking them to task and getting Senators involved to get CBP to show where they had the authority to do this. But they don't - legally they must have real probably cause. So hopefully this is the end of it. From someone that has been crossing the border in his Mooney for over a dozen years I can tell you the real time consuming issue is merely learning the ropes and perhaps going through the process for the first time to get your decal, eAPIS account and password - but mostly just the initial logistics. Once you know the process and am prepared, it takes 5-10 min max to clear US customs coming home. As Clarence point out - Canadian customs is almost always just a phone call, from which you write down a number and your done. There is really no reason to fear this. Just study the process and abide by the rules and always take advantage of your ability to call Flight Service on the radio at least 30 min out from your arrival to ask them to update Customs with your latest ETA - its that easy to be on time every time. My only deviation from the 5-10 min rule was once at Ketchikan, coming in from Canada, I had to wait what seemed like an hour for the US Customs officer to come across on the ferry, and then the 5-10 min process was completed. But that's pretty unusual. BTW, You do need a decal (or a receipt that you purchased it online) but you don't really need a FCC radio licenses (aircraft station nor operator). AOPA list it because its the law but nobody (canada, mexico, bahama's etc) cares. Also despite the rules on where to place the CBP decal, you pretty much can put it anywhere you like that is visible to the agent. I place mine out of sight under the horizontal stab. I point to it when asked and no one complains.

The drive coupler is a all or nothing affair. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Weak battery can do that. Is the battery good? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I prefer and would recommend the K sized tanks. The K size holds 200 or 220 or 250 cu ft depending on pressure. Their corresponding Pressures are 1800, 2015 and 2265 psi. Our inboard tank pressure max is 1800 psi. They weigh 105-115 lbs which is quite heavy. If you go with the larger T size which is a 300 cu ft, they have a filled pressure of 2400 psi which puts you at risk of over filling your onboard tank plus they weigh in at 135 lbs. I bought 2 tanks from my local gas supplier years ago which enables me to go to in and exchange the tank for a filled one. I am also not limited to the original supplier that I got my tanks from and can get them exchanged at other gas suppliers. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actually the opposite. With 5.1 there is a bug that prevents manually entering fuel remaining, but the JPI interface continues to work just fine. So only an issue for those without any kind of fuel interface. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It needs to stay simple. For random holds, just use OBS mode set to the inbound course after entering direct to the holding fix. Then use your favorite method to determine the hold entry and steer in heading mode. The GPS will tell you both distance and time back to the fix making it easy to determine when to turn inbound. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Looks like a nice clean 252, just without any upgrades except for the single big one on the GTN750. Personally though I'd prefer a Flight Director (KPC-150) and Dual Alternators as must have's on my list. Check out Jimmy Garrison's latest article on the pricing the K's as well as Vref and go from there. But you can't even begin to buy the Encore conversion parts for $5K!! Spindles alone are $3K then add 2 sets of gear doors (Inboard and Mids) before you even start with the brake parts ....

Make sure the emergency gear extension handle is secured Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I thought you had to have an aviation based business before you could establish an account to order from them? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would suspect a short, probably of battery voltage to ground, to cause the battery to overheat like that. I'd follow up with a call or email to the manufacturer for what they suggest next. If it is ACK technologies you'll get immediate input based on my personal experiences with them . Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed, its also my favorite lunch spot for the best meal in all of SOCAL! Very GA friendly airport with the Museum to visit for added entertainment.

Happy to help. You should find the s/w upgrade to be minimal cost; especially if you go to a shop that you already have a relationship with. I dropped my two GPS's off at the shop and picked them up a little later. They didn't charge me for it and included a print out of the 20 to 30 page POH supplement to put in my POH. I then had it copied to a reduced double sided version to fit the supplement into my POH.

Dave, Why do we get Advisory Glide Slopes on the DVO GPS R13? - The DVO GPS R13 is not a WAAS approach as you point out. Its is a LNAV approach. So where does the advisory glide slope come from? Unfortunately, the NOAA plate give us no clues, so look closely at the Jeppesen plate for DVO GPS13 in the profile view and the small table below it. You should see a dashed grey line come from the FAF labeled 3.66 degrees which is a plot of the VDA or Vertical Descent Angle that FAA TERPS'ers designed the approach too. When flown with a Garmin WAAS GPS, your GPS will use this VDA to provide you an advisory glide slope. It still an LNAV approach flown to LNAV minimums, but when flown with a WAAS GPS it is able to provide you with LNAV+V guidance - again it doesn't change the minimums and thus there are never LNAV+V minimums ever listed in an approach plate. The +V guidance provided by your WAAS GPS to a LNAV approach, making it a LNAV+V, is merely your box giving you a glide slope based on the charted or plotted VDA. So to fully understand VDA briefly review AIM 5-4-5 7 k. "Vertical Descent Angle (VDA) on Nonprecision Approaches." (see https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/aim0504.html#BZbKz318mweb)%C2'> charted VDA is what Garmin is using. Note that the AIM also says "FAA policy is to publish VDAs on all nonprecision approaches." Well that was much more true a few years ago when Garmin started using the VDA to provide +V. Ever since the FAA has imposed additional criteria and been removing the charted VDA on many plates - most likely because many pilots treated the advisory glide slope like a precision approach. Obviously when removed you no longer have +V on a LNAV nor LP approach. But the AIM falls short in explaining all necessary criteria. But most recently, we've seen the FAA remove VDA's on approach charts where the VDP or VGSI are not coincident with the VDA - they say in paragraph 2 below K that they publish a note to that effect, but I can tell you they've been on a big campaign to remove the VDA entirely in this case and there could be more criteria to exclude it as well. But the AIM has not yet caught up with these latest changes and not being a TERPer I can only comment on the changes we've been seeing in recent years. You may notice the AIM only makes one mention of "advisory vertical guidance" in 5-4-5 m.1.(d) under LP approaches "... WAAS avionics may provide GNSS-based advisory vertical guidance during an approach to an LP line of minima." Rather odd they don't mention advisory vertical guidance in LNAV approaches where we've had it for many years and only a make single reference to it in the newer LP approach without ever clarifying this is +V but for that you'd likely have to refer to the Garmin documentation. So in sum, a VDA use to be available in most LNAV approaches and has been used to provide +V guidance in LNAV+V (and recently LP+V approaches with s/w ver 5.1). But the FAA has been removing the VDA's on many charts it previously included; such as when the VDA is not coincident with the VGSLI. So to know in advance if you can expect it, you really have to look at a Jepp chart because unlike NOAA, they include the VDA when charted by the FAA and will provide you with a table as to what descent rate you use for your a given ground speed. Hope that helps. As you have noticed, NOAA publishes it sometimes...

I am not sure where your confusion lies since after Jerry answered your question, you quote the answer above and then ask for an explanation. So I'll offer a couple points that may or may not help as it sounds like the concept of an "advisory glide slope" is new to you. - Most importantly an "advisory glide slope", referred to as the +V in LNAV+V, can only be used to MDA - you can not follow it below MDA to the threshold. The calculated glide slope is there only to help you fly from final to MDA (including in a continuous descent when there are intermediate points) - There no such thing as "LNAV+V" approach minimums, it is merely a LNAV approach that when flown by a WAAS GPS navigator, the box calculates an advisory glide slope to enable a continuous descent to get to the MDA. Fly it with a non-waas GPS and of course you will not get the +V advisory glide slope. - Advisory Glide slopes if miss understood can be dangerous. Some pilots don't understand the difference and could end up following it below MDA where terrain or obstructions are an issue. - Unlike NOAA, Jeppesen shows the details of the +V slope so you have an accurate picture of where it goes. I've attached the Jepp chart version of both of these, but see the DVO one in particular since it plots the +V glide slope and clearly shows that it will arrive at the MDA well before the MAP at GOVLE - cautioning you not to descent below MDA until you have a required element of the runway environment in sight. As to the question of why you don't have an advisory glide slope on the STS GPS2 approach - there could be many reasons. For example when the required glide slope is not co-incident with the vertical glide slope, the FAA has been pulling the +V glide slope off the plates for LNAV and LP approaches. I don't see a issue with the chart though and would expect to see a +V glide slope. However, there may be another reason due to your software. Originally when Garmin introduced LP approaches they did so without an advisory glide slope, sighting the FAA required them too for approval. They got a lot of hate mail for that since almost always the LP approach was added to an existing LNAV approach that previously had +V. They were initially giving us new LP approaches at the cost of removing the +V on the original LNAV approach - not good! (since you are loading the same approach regardless if you are flying to LP or LNAV minimums). But finally just around the beginning of the year, Garmin released s/w ver 5.1 to add +V back to LP and hence LNAV approaches co-located with LP. S/w 5.1 also brought back many approaches that had been disabled by the Garmin s/w after the FAA changed the +V glide slope to 0 in an effort to disable to downgrade many LNAV approaches based on some new criteria to make them safer. So in short, check the s/w ver of your GPS and if it doesn't have the recent update from this year (ver 5.1) I'd expect the upgrade will provide +V on the STS GPS2 approach. Lastly, if the concept of +V used in LNAV and LP versus LNAV/VNAV and LPV are not clearly understood, read you Garmin documentation and other literature and talk to your CFII till you understand the differences and most importantly their limitations. DVO GPS13.pdf KSTS GPS2.pdf

To my knowledge the Rocket is using the original K model cowling, either the 231 or 252 cowling - no change. Replacement lens covers are available from Great Lakes Aero http://www.glapinc.com/Mooney/m20K.htm

So without pressing the Gear Bypass safety switch - the gear partially raises and the gear unsafe light stays on while the horn blares till you get above ~105kias. Then gear unsafe light remains on till you recycle the gear suggesting its only partially retracted. You don't say if the gear cycle works normally the second time or if you need to press the Gear Bypass switch the second time to get a complete gear retraction (extinguish the gear unsafe light). Alternatively on takeoff, if you press the Gear bypass switch after you hear the horn, the gear now fully retracts yet the horn continues to blare till you hit ~105kias. That is more than annoying! You have an un-airworthy gear. Some pilots would say often your plane talks to you when something is not right and needs help and that you really need to pay attention and listen to it. But your airplane is literally screaming at you for attention to the gear! Don't continue to ignore it, get somebody to look at it asap. Don't wait till the gear will no longer continue to fully retract on a second or third time. You may then find the manual gear extension will not work either. I wish I could help you to diagnose it over the internet. But it really looks like you may have more than one thing wrong with it. For one, it needs an adjustment to your airspeed switch (or replacement switch) which per the service manual is suppose to keep the horn on only till 65 +7/-4 kias. Another issue may be a wiring issue or ground that is allowing the gear to go up partially or even all the way while the airspeed switch is below its threshold speed (issue 2). Your third issue is the gear only partially retracts and needs a second attempt. Apparently your partner find this acceptable too so you also need to come to an agreement with him as well. I suggest calling favorite Mooney knowledgeable mechanic or MSC and heed their advice to get it in for servicing asap. I personally would only fly it keeping the gear down and locked if I wasn't able to perform a gear retraction and manual extension test in the hangar on jacks before further flight. Good luck.

Perhaps I am miss understanding you. While the gear horn is sounding on take off after raising the gear switch, the gear should NOT retract. With the horn on, it should only retract when you either press the Gear Safety Bypass switch or wait till you get to the airspeed that silences it. If you press the Bypass switch, the gear will retract and silence the horn. This circuit is only operational while the gear is extended. Based on your comment that the horn continued to sound till you got to 105kias, the gear should not have retracted till then. This is why I was bringing Vfr to your attention as you are likely at it and likely exceeding it. IF on the other hand the gear is retracting as soon as you raise the gear switch without pressing the Gear Bypass button while the gear horn continues to go off till you get up to speed, then that is another faulty issue as it should remain down. The point of the this circuit is to keep the gear down if you accidentally raise the gear switch while still on the ground. I hope this clears up any confusion and you're able to get it corrected soon.

Personally I would not wait. Have you looked up your max gear retract speed Vlr ? My K is 107, your will be real close if not the same. Not retracting the gear till over a 100 kias is imposing much heavier loads than you should be. Suggest retract before 80kias after clearing runway obstacles if any, followed by retracting flaps passing 80. You currently can't do that now without the distraction of the bypass switch. I sure wouldn't want that if I was taking off from a high DA field when it takes a lot more time to accelerate to 105kias. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk