kortopates

But since none of your LPV approaches are good down to precision minimums of 200 1/2 the infrastructure improvements will also provide for better minimums on your LPV approaches. For example you need a approach lighting system to get minimums down to 200 & 1/2 so i bet these changes will help the GPS approaches too

Personally, I ditch the 900 and put the money towards upgrading to a WX 500 if you can find one. A far better solution that is integrated with your panel GPS and PFD. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don’t really know how reasonable it is, only that the crew did it twice before the accident successfully during Day VFR and both times in front of the hills. The FAA doesn’t have an issue with it though since they provide for both category C and D minimums with 3 mi visibility on the approach. Circling wider a bit behind the hills is fine too as long as they don’t get too low and stay above the hills. Category C/D minimums are 500’ higher to reflect this as well. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, the 27 Right VFR pattern is Left traffic SS to SR (27L is closed) and Right Traffic SR to SS. Unless forced to extend for traffic, left traffic always turns base in front of the two little hills. Right traffic must go around the big mountain without prior permission to do a short approach. But circling to 27 L/R on the 17 approach is always done to the south (left traffic) due to circling restrictions which is NA at night.

The last one in particular is an example of how insidious a legal VFR METAR can be and fail so terribly to tell the whole story. The Lear was coming back to its home base and although it came in on the RNAV 17 approach, RWY 17 being wet, made it too short for the Lear. But circling to 27 IFR is not permitted on 17 approach at night. So it cancelled IFR first. Despite the fact the METAR reported a ceiling at 2K, the Lear descended 400' below minimums in front of the MAWP and continued to descend as it approached the airport at less than 400' AGL over the runway. The pilot asked tower to turn up the lights which were already on high. The pilot flying, apparently right seat, while circling left, was unable to duplicate how they has practiced circling in the past before in Day VFR conditions. Surveillance video caught the lear going through some small clouds while circling which where probably a factor in the accident. Since this time they went too wide (for the altitude they were at) which put them behind a couple small hills just before the final turn onto final. Then the lear from getting too low found it boxed in a bit below the small hill with much higher terrain directly in front forcing the pilot to both pull up and over bank in order to turn onto final. Of course it stalled out instead. I'll spare you of the radio audio from the last couple seconds. The accident highlights in my opinion how critical it is to have a plan for how you'll go missed any where along the circling maneuver; and especially for once you descend below minimums far way from the MAWP. In hindsight their only chance to survive was to go missed when they were directly over the airport. Trying to continue to get home while 600+' below circling minimums was a terrible lapse in judgement and good lesson for us all.

Is the runway fenced off, or does that not prevent deer getting on the runway? So glad it was as a miss! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Easy peasy, it’s to far LOP when power drops off such that you can’t sustain level flight! Or maybe you just don’t want to go that slow. Now if your a turbo pilot you have much more air to work with and can run deeper at higher power settings unlike the NA engines. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You’d be surprised. All it takes is a trace of ice to block your pitot tube and then have your pitot heat fail. We shouldn’t forget the legacy Aspen STC allowed no back up’s with multiple Aspens yet when lost pitot pressure the entire Aspen Red-X’d out entirely - didn’t matter how you had. Never understood how the FAA approved no backups on multiple Aspens. It was only fixed by the newer Max Aspen. At least Garmin only lost attitude for a few minutes to re-align and now that’s fixed without having to buy a next generation unit! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

With all that time in a K are you sure you want to go back to NA? I would not. I’d think if your willing to go NA that you’d want to wait for a nice J. Or remembering the challenges of a fixed or manual wastegate, go for a 252/Encore. After all this should be a long term commitment. Lastly, an F will be much more familiar than a E. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

True, but that’s a mode most others didn’t support and my BK KFC-150 didn’t support it till it was driven by my Garmin GAD-43e, using pitot. Do any support IAS or FLC without pitot? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What are you thinking is different with Garmin AP’s? Most autopilots installed by Mooney where the BK variety which Garmin pretty much copied for their installation. Your Century was the exception. Quite possibly the BK might of performed better if they used the pushrods install method that Century did. But BK still had the superior performance. Given many porpoising issues where fixed by better lubrication of the pitch controls it seems control stiffness and free play could be a factor. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think you nailed it. Mooney installed all the AP at the bottom, so those of us used to that after decades of use probably would find it odd to have to reach up. But if that is what you’re used to, familiarity is key. With the new GFC AP’s there is much more interaction with heading and alt bugs than ever before making easy access even more important. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

very true. should have been more specific. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I personally don’t see any relevance in the question of how long between radio calls is too long. The only relevant point here is why did the pilot failed to respond when ATC was trying to contact him? Had he switched frequencies believing he was out of range? Was he trying to re-establish communication? Apparently not. In fact the quoted pilot remarks sounds like the he thought ATC communications were optional. Thus far I can’t imagine the pilot was legally instrument current to be flying IFR. I am sure there is more to the story we have yet to hear and i’d bet there is more going on than missed radio calls. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Remember at least the first year of 231’s came with IAS and POH in mph, not knots. So their advertising would be in mph as well. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You’re still PIC as sole manipulator of the controls regardless of VMC or IMC. But of course the CFI is also PIC. Of course you want a Mooney experienced CFI in your model since they should save you time and money and provide better instruction. I’ve checked out many part 121 and 135 turbine pilots and just because they have 10,000+ hours doesn’t mean they’ll be competent to instruct in your Mooney without adequate Mooney experience. In fact many many will already be having a single engine emergency as soon as they hop into your cockpit … kidding of course The insurance issue is really for the CFI. You are covered regardless as long as the CFI meets the Open Pilot Clause. But many of us consider this inadequate since if anything goes sideways, the CFI can expect after your company makes you whole they will subrogate there losses against the CFI - cause we’re not covered by the open pilot clause - just you and any other named insured. That’s why many of us will insist on being an additional insured for providing instruction with a subrogation waiver. Younger time building CFI’s used to instruction at a school or club where they are on the insurance policy, don’t even realize the financial risk they’re taking when they jump into a private owners cockpit - but then again they don’t have much assets at risk either. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And it will work for you in your G1000 when you upgrade it to the NXi … someday:) Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I feel for you, that's pretty much why I upgraded to the GFC-500 but for a slight but noticeable porposing with the King KFC-150 AP. If you've down all you can to make sure the trim system is fully lubricated from cockpit to tail, I'd be scheduling a flight to Kansas to get them to resolve the issue; especially given how bad it is. They're not that far from Il at Mooney speeds!

I don't think the center radio stack with the GTN 750 + 650 + GFC-500 will fit if you add the PS Eng audio panel on top, but it all fits fine with the Garmin integrated audio panel and it has a similar feature set including Intellivoice. I did already have my Mooney annunciator moved to the right from a previous upgrade and not sure if that is still really necessary with the GTN stack. Some people are placing the AP at the top of the stack, but with all the knob twisting I do on it for the Hdg and Alt bugs I am glad I have it on the bottom. But that is more a personal preference thing.

The simple solution that eliminates programming data cards is the FS510 card that also gives you bi-directional flight plan transfer and logs your flight data to the Garmin Pilot logbook. Also needs Garmin Pilot for the database concierge functionality. Once you have it set up it’s really helpful. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I understand getting upset if they can’t get it too work. But I wouldn’t expect a technician to provide root cause. That’s an engineering function - not a technical support function. Technicians are trained at following their troubleshooting checklist, checking configuration requirements etc. Perhaps you may not have meant root cause literally, but still their function is only to get it to work. I also worked on large DoD systems. I assume this is in connection to your data card failing earlier? They certainly are a weak point of the GNS navigators and $$. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quite true and there is plenty of blame to go around. In truth I should have more empathy for these issues. Technology can be a bitch; especially when it crosses multiple OS's and hardware, but seems when some folks have issues they just want to blame their favorite vendor for them.

Really? I thought the solution was to reload drivers and s/w on his PC after re-booting. That's sounds like the PC to me. I have almost zero problems, but the data is downloaded to my iPad Garmin Pilot and from there WiFi transferred to the GTN which then disburses it to my other GTN, G500 Txi and GI-275 and I don't have all these problems, nor do I have to handle any cards. In fact for me, Garmin's technology makes it trivial for me compared to the old days of having to carry my PC to the airport and needing to pull out the cards and re-program them every few weeks twice for a pair of GNS's.. Its especially painful when one of those old proprietary GNS card stopped working as they often did from just pulling and re-inserting them into the navigator. Boy an I glad for the modern technology improvements; especially since the number of databases has more than tripled yet my workload and time to do it has become greatly reduced..

Thanks for explaining some of the thought process behind the panel selection. Curious why you went with two G3x screens rather than say upgrade the G500 to the TXI version? For example, do you fly routinely with two pilots? Also would like to learn more about the battery backup on the G3x’s, like Tom asked plus is there anything that allows you to monitor the charge status of the backup battery like you can on the G5 for example? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I like that approach as well for the obvious reasons. But I still have little confidence in this since its a lot of work for someone to make rugged shippable boxes for some of the delicate bigger tools - like travel boards. Seem like it would need someone willing to put the time and investment in to make it work as a small part time business and get a reasonable fee out of it..