kortopates

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

Dead? I don't know, but I'd be surprised if they are still selling it. You'd have to keep the GNS firmware at a level that does not meet ADS-B Out location requirements for one, and you wouldn't be able to utilize the improved capabilities available for advisory VNAV and many more. Flightstream though is really cool and really helps to modernize our GNS navigators adding airways and would have hit a home run IMHO if they had just integrated the GDL 39 capabilities into it. But they claim you can interface an Android or IOS device to both simultaneously.

The shops download the s/w update for free from Garmin, they do need a separate program card to make the update. But my avionics shop updated both of my GNS430W's for free after I pulled the units, dropped them off at their place and then picked them up a few hours later along with a free zerox copy of the new AFMS which did cost them some money to duplicate/print. Although I am an A&P and did the paperwork myself, this falls under the guidelines of allowable owner preventive maintenance. Just be sure to replace the older Garmin AFMS, that should be in your POH, with a reduced copy of the new one and log the update in your Airframe logbook. If you have a good relationship/history with an avionics shop they may not charge you like mine.

I use the same O2 backup for flying in the flight levels when getting down is going to take some time. I have never needed to use it, but it provides peace of mind. I whole heatedly agree with the comment by M016576 to equip yourselves with a CO Monitor, but the $2 version is a joke. I started with a Home Depot unit that got great reviews from one of aviation/survival type of websites for more like $40. But I found that with a portable unit it just wasn't getting used reliably like it needed to be in order to provide realistic protection; especially after the novelty of acquiring it wore off. Maybe I lacked the discipline to make it a regular part of my flying but our plane and avionics is already more complicated than we'd like so I bit the bullet and installed guaranteed protection in the panel by replacing the clock with a TSO'd Guardian CO Monitor. That's a serious commitment of $ since the unit's ICA requires the sensor to replaced every 5 years. But our Mooney is serious travelling x-country machine and therefore we take the threat seriously. Understandably those that use their Mooney for short scenic hops are not going to be as concerned about the threat. CO poisoning is very insidious. At lower concentrations its not going to kill you till after many hours but will cause headache, VERTIGO or dizziness, a general flu like sense of malaise and it does impair judgement. So its possible the pilot did became handicapped from CO poisoning. You'd think though if the pilot was feeling sick and therefore wanting to get on the ground asap, he'd opt to go the 20+ miles away to MVFR airport. But maybe his judgement was that affected. As Bonal said, we'll have to wait for the report. Don Muncy is also right on about the 02, but its even more than that as its considered the anti-dote to CO poisoning. Pure clean air isn't adequate to get rid of it fast enough since as Don explained due to the bloods greater affinity to CO over O2. So saturated O2 is needed and typically administered in a hyperbaric tent. His other good suggestion is opening the storm window. Opening the storm window will evacuate smoke in seconds, unlike the vents, therefore its got to significantly dilute the CO levels as well and provide the next best protection in addition to O2 in mask. I'd like to think some medical issue, like Fantom suggested, such as CO poisoning was the result of this tragic loss. But it seems the majority of these accidents are from the more obvious simple issues - like the extreme example provided by AirFrance. We'll have to wait for the report though to see - probably sometime in early 2016 unfortunately. And I'll be very curious to read if they learn anything about the status of autopilot prior to the flight i.e. working or not. You'd think a pilot having a hard time would use it, even more so if not feeling well if that was the case.

Assuming you have an airspeed switch on your Mooney behind the ASI, did you consider using that in lieu of installing another switch - since it does the same thing?

For those that don't lock your baggage door before departure - I was the same way at first. I used to keep it unlocked, believing I may need to leave it open for an emergency responder to get me out if I couldn't get myself out (i have the emergency release pin on the lock allowing me to open the baggage door even if locked from the inside but that doesn't help someone from the outside if I can't get to it.) It was really hard to believe a properly latched baggage door can come open in flight or on the takeoff roll. But after many year of working with the MAPA Safety Foundation, initially as a participant then as an instructor, I have learned of first hand accounts through other longer time instructors that it has happened after they insist the baggage door was secured closed yet not locked. If the door isn't secured properly, its very unlikely its going to stay closed in the takeoff roll, but to open well into flight is really pretty strong evidence the door was indeed secured to stay closed that long before opening. In one of the instances I heard, the baggage door departed the aircraft and hit the tail doing some very expensive damage. Anyway, the first hand stories made a believer out of me. As a result of this past history, its been a MAPASF rule for quite awhile now not to depart till locking the baggage door and most instructors won't fly with you if you don't. Anyway the reported history is something to consider. Plus although I have never tried it, I understand the plexi-glass in the side window can be kicked out pretty easily if necessary, so my initial reason for keeping it unlocked is probably not as important as I thought it might be. Damage to the tail in flight is now my bigger concern.

JL, I don't think you mean to say going LOP results in increasing EGT's (I assume in response to Anthony's comment about his reducing), Perhaps what you meant, as suggested by your later comment, is that a typical LOP setting for the same (high cruise) power level will be less lean of peak (~60F) than the rich setting is ROP (~150F) and thus higher? That's certainly true. Also I trust when you say power increased you are referring to airspeed and not the power level indicated from the JPI as this is a algorithmic calculation assuming ROP operation. I should clarify I didn't mean to suggest a change in fuel flow will create a significant change in MP, just that a significant change in MP (or RPM) will create a significant change in fuel flow. However, i understand you're saying with the Merlin, it does. To get to a given LOP power level such as 55%, the challenge of course though is to keep fuel flow the same while increasing MP if you want to watch and collect data to see cylinders lean to peak and then track degrees of EGT below peak. (Even if you started at a higher fuel flow, once you leaned to the desired fuel flow with mixture, you'll likely need to continue leaning with more air at some point.) So have you collected any data on your JPI which illustrates the difficulty you are having trying this that you can dump and share? (e.g. savvy analysis perhaps)

The official source for the Mexican approach plates is their PIA which was available from www.eaipmexico.org.mx/ However, It's been since 2013 if I recall correctly since the last time they let us download from the site. Originally anyone could create a login ID and then download - but not now. Yet perhaps worth monitoring - I am hoping they turn it back on. Currently the only other official source is to pay the mexican gov for a subscription and maybe that's why they changed their minds on allowing free internet access. So that leaves you with a Jepp trip kit. Their electronic trip kit is what I use if I am going south for an extended period, It gives you the plates on a iPad with their JeppFD app and in the panel if you are so equipped. Mexico and Canada and really opposite seasons for the best flying. Save Mexico for a winter trip and do Canada in the summer.

The first statement is absolutely correct - but not the second. Any increase in MP or RPM will increase Fuel flow, and decrease in either will be accompanied by a decrease in fuel flow as Schule made the point in the first paragraph. This has nothing to do with the type of wastegate. Its controlled by the fuel pump and the throttle body. The fuel pump is providing fuel pressure primarily proportionate to RPM, while the throttle body is metering the fuel based on throttle position. So increasing throttle to increase MP gets a corresponding increase in fuel flow. Increasing Prop RPM increases fuel pressure put out by the pump also increasing fuel flow. The only thing different among the various Continental installations is that our turbo charged motors have a altitude compensating aneroid in the fuel pump to provide an auto-leaning feature - it senses ambient pressure. All in all the Continental fuel injection system is the simplest. In contrast the Lycoming RSA system uses venturi to schedule fuel flow proportionate to mass air flow; compensating for air pressure and temperature unlike our simple Continental Continuous Flow system that operate on RPM and throttle body position only. A bit verbose to make the point that fuel flow will change in response to a MP/Throttle or RPM change in any installation but hopefully the explanation makes it clear why. All of the wategates, either air pressure based Merlin or the TCM hydraulically controlled unit in the TSIO-360-MB and SB engines are merely trying to maintain the same MP. The primary difference between the Merlin and TCM hydraulically controlled wastegate is that TCM will do a much better job of maintaining constant MP as you climb and descend, but even the TCM wastegate will vary a bit in setting below max with altitude changes and is only a truly "set and forget" device at max power while climbing. So there is nothing unusual about needing to continually tweak fuel flow as you increase throttle to lean the mixture going further LOP. Assuming your engine analyzer has MP in addition to fuel flow (and preferably RPM) this is very easy. There is no need to twist both throttle and Mixture knobs simultaneously. As you increase throttle by about 1/2" MP, you do need to lean the fuel flow by the couple tenths it went up. But this hardly invalidates the process. As Anthony pointed out, the JPI probes are fast acting and you see an immediate temp change. This tweaking doesn't require a lot of time, but its also why I suggested starting at a low power setting of 50-55% power because one does need to learn the process at lower power levels so they can move through it faster at higher power levels when higher temperatures are more critical and need to be avoided. The fact that the EGT's will vary a bit up and down as the mixture fluctuates is not going to invalidate your engine analyzers ability to continue to track for peak EGT and then show you the delta from peak. Its not that hard and we're only talking about 10-15F temperature variations. Of course power and speed will not go up with further leaning past peak (on the LOP side) - just the opposite. But power and speed will go up by just increasing MP or throttle without adjusting back the change in fuel flow, since the increase in MP also accompanied by increased fuel flow. That's why it's so critical that your engine analyzer includes fuel flow. If you are also correcting to maintain constant fuel flow to increase leaning with increased throttle, I am very puzzled since if you keep increasing throttle to further lean the engine is just going to stop or get very rough.