kortopates

I am looking to head down after the holidays myself. Costa Rica has 4 international airports, 2 of which are logistically feasible to clear and get fuel from, Liberia and Pavas. Pavas (MRPV) is the preferred GA airport that is the most efficient for us to clear and is right next to San Jose/Cocos (MROC). (However, it has no approaches, but is so close to Cocos that you can use an approach into Cocos to get below a reasonably high ceiling to cancel and then VFR over the less than 5 miles to MRPV). However, the really big problem in Costa Rica right now is parking fees. All of international airports charge huge parking fees after the first free 90 minutes. I recently calculated approx $175 per 24 hrs at Liberia the cheapest with others going to $225+ a day ! So the only way to make it work is to fly into one of the international airports and then immediately fly into a national airport and park there. Another option I haven't seriously looked at is to call FBO's and discuss their hangar fees etc rather than park in transient. Costa Rica has a very large network of national airports. Most are all 800-1000 m x 10 m and uncontrolled without any services. Not large by any means, but many are serviced by one of the commuter national airlines like Nature Air. You can download their airport info from their DGAC site in English here http://www.dgac.go.c.../aip/index.html. I am sure you're in disbelief regarding the parking, so you can verify the fees for the different airports on BajaBush or even call one using the phone numbers from the AIP you’ll download. Apparently Greg had a bad experience in Mexico as I don’t get his comments. I’ve flown all over Mexico – mainland and Baja – and have never even considered a handler, nor have ever felt extorted. Mexico is as easy as it gets. Coming back into the US is much bigger challenge! Just be prepared and know what to expect. It also helps to be able to speak a bit of Spanish. I don’t, but my pilot wife does and it has proven helpful at times but not necessary.

Accurate through what range though? If it was just same at 98 or 99% that's not saying much. Some of the cheap ones have been reported to never go below 90 when their SP02 was actually in the 80's. Drop the unit and it should be re-checked.

Indeed, that picture you found was taken the very same day of the accident! (on his leg out to furnance creek). It sure seems he came down pretty fast given the number of G's its takes to brake a wing spar, so you're probably right about it being more like a 100 or more.

Regarding the survivability question, I can’t believe the NTSB omitted whether the pilot was equipped and wearing a shoulder harness. There was no mention of seat belt at all that I could find. Anybody see anything to the contrary? Being a ’78 J, there is good chance it didn’t have shoulder belts – although I thought everyone had long since retrofitted them and was surprised to see that's not true from at least one post above. From looking at the debris diagram and picture though, I agree with Byron in that it looks like the plane came in too fast to make much difference. But It also appears the pilot wasn’t committed to flying the plane through the landing sequence by doing everything he could to put the plane down as slow as possible (and into the wind if there was any). The report indicated the engine controls will all still forward (engine was making partial power) the flaps were up along with the gear and it supposedly came in with both the left wing and nose low. But I think I too would have kept the gear up once I realized the roughness of the terrain. But coming in with a low left wing (and nose) appears to have likely sealed his fate causing the plane to roll sideways by about midway along his 160’ debris field. I’d like to think it could have been survivable if the pilot had been able to fly it through the accident sequence by stalling it in with full flaps, wings level. Obviously we can’t really know for sure, but with the nearly a 5 kt lower stall speed advantage with full flaps – (although that’s also with the gear down and the POH doesn’t tell us exactly how much with the gear kept up); that’s got to help quite a bit. Its certainly possible hitting a flap could have twisted the plane around too, but if he had be able to hold it off till going slower at slightly above 50kts with wings stalled it seems it would have been much less likely to turn out like it did. In addition to shoulder belts, I am sure more altitude would have really helped this pilot too, but given the accident occurred only 7 miles away I suspect he may not have gotten than more than 3000K feet of altitude at best even if he had full power to climb the first 5 miles. Thus really very little time for him to respond and commit to the landing as I mentioned above – maybe way too little time for pilot with 20hrs in the last 6 months if he wasn’t feeling totally comfortable in his Mooney. I suspect the whole flight was only a few minutes long. Incidentally, the report clearly states the proper hardware to secure the magneto had been used to comply with Lycoming SI-1508B . Its concludes the “magneto clamps were not securely fastened to the mount, which led to a partial loss of engine power and a subsequent forced landing on unsuitable terrain”. It had only been about ~10hrs since its annual.

I don't recall what year Mooney abandoned the squat switch on the gear in favor of the pressure switch activated by pitot pressure, but it was by the time the mid-bodys were in production if not sooner.

Byron, I presume you're more comfortable with a lengthy over water crossing just from acquiring all the oceanic experience you have from your day job. Its not knew to you by any stretch. And I imagine you have access to resources not available to the GA crowd. So where would you go to get decent weather products covering the gulf? Would you be able to call up one of your company dispatcher friends and get more reliable weather products covering a route like this? I don’t see anything beyond satellite and analysis charts covering the oceanic area, but no experience there either.

Yves, PM sent

Baja is great fun and San Felipe is the most popular Mexican AOE for US pilots clearing headed south from CA. San Felipe is actually a privately held airport and because of it, it has its own associated pro's and con’s. The only con is slightly higher fees for fuel. The pro's are that they have literally an assembly line of staffed officials (DGAC, Customs, Immigration) to walk you through the paperwork process and get you your (multi-)entry form, declaration, visa's, flight plan and on your way very quickly. They are also very popular. Thus during the winter whale season lines can form. Since I have the range, I more often than not clear further south in Loreto. I would not personally recommend San Felipe as a destination and instead would encourage you to go further south. Even If your available time is short, you can enjoy a truly memorable experience petting the California Grey Whales in their winter habitat at Laguna San Ignacio - if visiting with these remarkable creatures appeals to you. My wife and I go pretty much every year end of Feb/early March for 3 day weekend and usually with other Mooney's from the CA/AZ area (including some on Mooneyspace). We usually stay on the baja side in Mulege for the hotel and fly over to San Ignacio for the day of Whale watching. Nothing wrong with San Felipe by itself and there are a number of hotels on the beach not far from the airport. Its just that Baja gets much more interesting or adventuresome further south. Although at the very south, Cabo is an entirely different experience from the rest of baja and fascinating in its own way. If you'd feel more comfortable going down with a group, check out Baja Bush's web site for organized trips down there, including whale watching - they walk you through the entire process. Or you're welcome to join us for whale watching if the timing works out. If you want to keep to a destination like San Felipe, also check out Rocky Point (south of Yuma) and Guymas (on mainland side). But BajaBush is the better website for Mexico information.

Thanks - Now I see what you mean - google map's runway picture really changes my perspective. In fact, re-looking at the video its really appears at ~7 sec, the plane is on the asphalt before the painted numbers and I was mistaking being anywhere on the asphalt for being on the ruway - despite your clear comments about the 400' displaced threshold. I understand the student trained out of that airport, if so, he had to very familiar. Still it will be very interesting to see read the NTSB's report.

Amazing to me how we all can look at the same video and draw entirely different conclusions. To my eyes the real fault goes to the driver and the pilot was fine, the plane had cleared the fence and then it really looks like we see the nose and left main gear of the aircraft come down on black asphalt. That wouldn’t happen if the plane was going to land short since the impact would further shorten its approach path. Although that's a bit challenging to say with certainty due to some camera shake occurring, but it really appears there was no doubt it didn't and wasn't going to land short. Does anyone have any factual data to the contrary? Lets also not forget that the telephoto view through the camera gives the illusion of things appearing much closer than they are. Sure, he could have/should have been a bit higher, but all he had to do was clear that fence. The car was suppose to stop and wait, which we clearly saw didn’t happen. Although the very poor marking on the surface will no doubt prove to be a major issue. It’ll be interesting to hear what the NTSB comes up with in addition to the obvious lack of real stop signs. Grateful nobody got hurt, but saddened the student pilot is throwing the towel in. Any way you look at it, GA suffers.

I've been to Isla Mujeres too (to swim with the whale sharks - nothing like fantoms pictures) and I am pretty sure Dave was only kidding since its not an International Airport or airport of entry. Of course Byron is welcome to fly over to MMIM after clearing customs and filling up elsewhere to enjoy the quiet island - a huge contrast from Cancun/Cozumel. But be careful for the intense Nordo traffic in the pattern; Flocks of Flamingo's that is! Yves, every Mexican airport has some contingent of military stationed at it that lives on the airport 24x7, towered or not. They were placed there to combat drug trafficking and will greet you on arrival to see your Mexican flight plan and at departure again. They actually do help reduce crime in the area. But nobody is interested in your Mooney down there. They want C210 and C206, but have been known to take a C182 as a prize of last resort when they couldn’t get their intended target.

Hawthorne has many advantages - they even used to have a Jag for a crew car! However, IFR service in and out of there got very bad since they lost their LOA with SOCAL - they no longer own the airspace for their loc approach. So if you go IFR be prepared for other options if you hear you could be delayed due to LAX traffic; especially if less than VFR wx. Or better yet, call the SOCAL Tracon at 800-448-3724 and ask a controller what you can expect - they are very helpful. As jkenny said, for sure you'll enter socal at LHS on V459. If you don't fle that way, be ready to copy as you approach. My guess is you'll probably get V459 - V186 - V394 to the HHR Loc for 25 since the Loc-D isn't approved to start at SLI coming south on V459. Enjoy your trip!

or http://www.swta.net/monthlyspecial.html which has them for $90 each with full set of 11 or $990.

JPI's display upgrade cost is $1200. But from Spruce its only $1065 http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/inpages/jpi730830upgrade.php?clickkey=4571 Do you expect JPI to beat that?

If you add MP & RPM, you'll actually be upgrading to the 830 configuration. I am in the same boat and looking at going from the 730 to the 830 (same cost as going from 700 to 730 since no change in sensors/functionality). I recall till the end of the year, JPI is giving a $200 rebate on the display upgrade which is $1065 from Spruce. In your case you'd also have to acquire the new MP & RPM sensors for probably around $500-600 if you can get them both from Spruce (they'remore expensive directly from JPI).

I think Cris has the right idea, the Maintenance Manual suggest the issue is an inoperative pressure switch which can be overidden with the red overide button. If your mechanic didn't yet get the gear to come up normally by blowing into the pitot tube to raise airspeed within limits, 65 Kts +7/-4, then I'd suggest diagnosis to eliminate the pressure switch is incomplete.

We had a similar issue about 5 years ago at one of our San Diego GA airports, Montgomery Field, when a developer insisted on building a 180' tall building, directly under the circling approach pattern for our ILS/LPV procedure that would have penetrated Part 77 Obstruction Standards. The city had already issued a building permit citing it was the builders responsibility to follow all applicable laws including the FAA. The builder, Sunroad, did file a request to the FAA for the 180' building and the FAA deemed it was a hazard to air navigation. The builder then filed a subsequent request for 160' which the FAA did approve and the builder said it would abide by the 160’ limit. The problem was the builder decided rather arrogantly to ignore the 160' height limit and continue with their 180’ plans. They hired an aviation consultant whom filed on their behalf a new request for 180' the very day the building reached a height of 180' (20' above approved height). IMO it was really the unrestrained arrogance and dismissive attitude of the builder that got the pilot community vocal enough to get both the Mayor and City Attorney involved. At a well attended Airport Advisory meeting that the builder was invited to explain their position, Sunroad explained the air hazard would simply be eliminated when the FAA raises the circling minimums by another 20' to accommodate the building; after all the FAA had already immediately notamed higher minimums because the building’s penetration of the required obstacle clearance and the FAA would simply merely need to make the higher minimums permanent! To make a long story short, the Mayor and City Attorney eventually prevailed and Sunroads literally removed a floor of their new building to bring it back to 160’ without the city paying for the builders expenses to lower the building nor loss the loss of future revenue they were seeking. Score One for the GA community of San Diego! It was actually a pretty fascinating story over a few years and is chronicled here at: http://www.sdairfiel...96/Default.aspx

Correct, you'll have to press the overide switch to raise the gear if below the minium airspeed. This of course is to protect you from raising the gear while on the ground. This is in your maintenance manual gear checks section 32-30-01. Assuming a K model iike your name implies, with the plane on jacks, master on, raise the gear switch to up and have your able assistant gently blow into the pitot tube. The gear should raise at 65 +7/-4 KIAS.

Scott, Yes until recently my shop on the field, CrownAir, borescoped every annual. Although I took over most of the maintenance a few years ago, this was the first year I did my own annual (with an IA) and I procured an Autel 8.5 borescope to keep it up. My engine was majored with J&J overhauled Cerminil cylinders (from Texas) that have 1225 hrs on now. Although the pistons and everything else in the cylinders were replaced with new (except for the rocker arms which were rebushed), the cylinders themselves were not new and I have no idea how many hrs the cores may have had. That's always given me some concern for their longevity but I've been pleased so far - knock on wood. So far though I am pretty impressed with J&J cylinders and they are very competively priced. WRT to burn pattern, I didn't have any center orange/red going near the edges and the orange/red centers were pretty symmetrical as best as I recall. Given these new borescopes have video and picture capability it really makes sense to capture pics for historical purposes; especially as I learn more about what to look for. I just need to put a memory card in the scope to do so.

I just couldn't put my finger on the disconnect here till now about whether it matters hooking up the landing light wires. It matters on mine, and Don's, but not all of your birds. I miss assumed it may have been because of upgrading to HIDs - but it mattered before when I had incandescent bulbs too. I was thinking all of us mid and long bodies had the same cowling light configuration. I have 2 lights -landing and taxi lights - in the cowl. In later year models they got moved to the wings, includings J's & K's. But it finally dawned on me the earlier J's must have only one landing light bulb in the cowling. I have enough hours in J's to know better. Sorry for the disconnect.

Mine is no exception either, including the landing gear actuator yet all are ty-wrapped to keep them locked in place.

I really don't believe ROP per se is burning up cylinders any more than LOP does. Its all about how much ROP or LOP in the context of power setting. I can't tell from MP and fuel flow alone what power setting is being targeted for cruise. But it appears near the POH's recommended MAX cruise. If so, FWIW, I found the POH recommendations for fuel flow at max cruise to close to peak for my comfort. To get all the cylinders > 100F ROP, (mostly near 150 ROP at max cruise), I found I needed to add ~1 GPH - thus my ROP max cruise @78.6% power is with 13.6-8 GPH vice POH of 12.5GPH. (On the other side, my max LOP cruise is 70% at 11 GPH, 80 LOP - limited conservatively by JPI TIT of 1575F.) If you haven't already, you may want to check just how far ROP your cruise settings really are. Overall though, our TSIO cylinders really take a beating operating at max cruise power levels, but I didn’t get a Turbo to fly it like a J. So I too planned for a cyl replacements but so far I have only had an issue with my coolest front cylinder that probably hasn’t ever gotten above 350F. Go figure. All the others, including my middle hottest running cylinders are all doing extremely well at 1200+ hrs. Incidentally, there is much more to the TCM SB mentioned, including real minimum pressure based on the calibrated orifice reading, not to rely on the first low reading as you pointed out and the need to borescope etc.

Yes, my 2 bulb HID landing lights care - and I forget not everyone has upgraded to newer HID or LED lights. Sorry if I come across a bit nit-picky. Having gone through the gauntlet of A&P school so that I can legally maintain my own aircraft I’ve been brainwashed into the mentality of following the rules which are entirely nit-picky. The guidance on electrical connectors is simple. Per AC 43.13-1B we are advised firstly to follow the manufacturer’s recommendation and secondly to use only mil spec derived connectors. In this case the factory specified MS connector does a great job, is cheap and readily available – so I personally prefer to comply and won’t suggest anything that isn’t approved. You just won’t find an approved knife disconnect despite their popularity. None of this is meant to be judgmental – only meant to be helpful to my fellow Mooney owners/pilots by pointing out the factory specified connector I found in my IPC – yours may vary. But what you use is entirely up to you. After all, the context of this discussion has only been about a landing light which isn’t even required unless for hire. So what is an improved connector? One way to determine this is to go to the manufacturers web site and look up if it’s spec comes with Gov/Industry qualification – here is a link to the popular PDIG connectors, formerly made by AMP now Tyco: http://www.tycoelectronics.com/catalog/feat/en/s/10333?BML=10576,16358,17560,17698

What Mooney refers to as the Hour Meter is what we've been discussing as the Mooney Hobbs meter installed by the factory - as you site from your J service manual - it runs off the tachometer. The "Hobbs" meter they mention would be the option a flight school would want to install to get total elapsed time of engine operation - not likely anyone would have this, nor want it, unless their Mooney was in a flight school at some time.

As easy as the knife type are, the AMP connector is much easier since a single connector includes both wires and guarantees the wires can't be connected incorrectly - while the knife type requires you to chose the correct pairings.