kortopates

I totally agree, I think where I am disagreeing (perhaps) is that even though the accident totals may not show improvement with the high tech safety tools available to us now, due to a lack of proficiency and mis use of the tools, it doesn't mean a great proportion of the pilot community can't benefit from them - those will always be the ones that seek training, work on their proficiency, and learn their proper use - anyway you want to put it. Do you really see no value in these technological advancements if the population as a whole doesn't show any improvement? My choices only come down to if I can see value to my own safety and benefit.

Just because the accident record doesn’t provide sufficient details to ask and answer such questions about avionics safety advantages doesn’t mean there aren’t real benefits. But the fact remains the overwhelming number of fatal IMC accidents are from lack of proficiency which will continue to drown out benefits of modern glass avionics. The accident record data also doesn’t bear out that having onboard traffic and weather are improving safety either. But nevertheless nobody can argue they aren’t very helpful safety enhancing tools - when not mis used. So much so the FAA wants to make AdsB-In a requirement. But i think the problem is some pilots feel emboldened by the technology to launch when they wouldn’t have otherwise and then take bigger risks either not understanding on board weather product limitations or just don’t care. Further i’ll argue a modern engine monitor is a very underrated safety tool that can not only save your butt but also your engine and airplane when you know how to use it. I rank its importance up there with traffic, GPS and weather. But like every other tool you need to know how to use it. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

in addition to what others have said: - close and re-start the app - make sure no other apps are running, close any that are That has never failed to work for me and been using it a long time Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Fatals accidents are far more about lack of proficiency not the equipment. Even with the first generation Aspens that were based on a single integrated chip and would red-X out everything with some ice on the pitot tubes yet the few pilots that experienced this still made it down using an ipad if needed. But vacuum failures have and continue to kill pilots, which isn’t going to happen with glass, yet the biggest contribution remains a much larger group of pilots that are not even legally IFR current, let alone proficient, that fly IFR when they have no business doing so and get in over their head during a high workload period and loose control. Their equipment typically had nothing to do with the accident. But if your looking for improved safety with modern avionics it comes from eliminating the many kinds of accidents that wouldn’t have happened if the pilot was using glass, including the non current pilot that has a vacuum failure, and even the crazy stupid pilot that relies on his VFR portable gps to fly an rnav approach to minimums, or the pilot that has missed radio calls from the wrong freq and then missed the left base vector to the ILS in IMC and just blindly continued straight ahead into a mountain because he lacked the situational awareness to know where he was. But even this comes down to proficiency too. But with glass it would have been far less likely to happen, but you have to know how to use it. So as an example of a pilot that may have the glass but doesn’t know how to use it are two CAP pilots that while flying VFR 9000’ at night in the Las Vegas area still managed to fly into a mountain with a G1000 - just unbelievable! So in sum, you are totally right to prioritize working on your proficiency since that is always the most important factor in avoiding an IMC accident. But glass and some knowledge on how to use it is going to help eliminate many of the loss of control instrument accidents. But that is going to be really hard to show statistically because they’re very small numbers compared to the non-current pilots doing stupid stuff responsible for overwhelming majority of IMC accidents. So keep prioritizing proficiency. But in the end what avionics you fly behind comes down to personal choice and one’s priorities/budget. On topic of emergency/partial panel training Vance brings up very important points in that everyone gets trained on 6-pack partial panel yet very few practice as they should after earning their IR - hence the big emergency when it happens Imc. But glass is very different and more complex because fewer pilots are likely to understand all the failure modes and be prepared for what capabilities they’ll loose- but for the most part the glass panel will have sufficient backups to fly the plane with limited capabilities. For example loose the PFD in a G1000 mooney, and the MFD will become the PFD automatically but with only the #2 COM/NAV/GPS. They get more complicated from there such as loosing Air Data… but depending on cause we still have backup pitot-static instruments. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

IPad yes, but certified Garmin i don’t think so. But if happens i have two! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If the wifi connection shown is to your FS510 at the plane this is not going to work till you go find a wifi connection with internet access. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think your missing the point of a glass panel, and focused too much on the glass. Its really not just the glass at all. But I get it, your not wrong at all to question putting in a glass panel in an airframe that may not be worth more than the panel to to begin worth. But its all about capability of the entire aircraft package. Although I grew up on IFR with basic 6 pack and limited AP functions these days I wouldn't want to do more than punch through a thin marine layer. Nor would i want to venture to far afield without greater redundant systems. I will accept the risk for flying single engine but virtually everything else I want reliability and redundancy to be comfortable. The modern glass panel not only eliminates the unreliable vacuum pump it provides redundancy in virtually everything including Com, Nav, ADHARS, GPS. And the aircraft will typically include dual alternators or dual batterys and/or a standby alternator and some with many more capabilities for IFR. And of course the modern digital AP's are far more capable and surprisingly cheaper than the 1980's Bendix King AP I had before, which was state of the art when I bought my Mooney. But the cost of the panel vs value in purely in the eye's of the person valuing it. Remember the cost of the airframe is a small cost of aircraft ownership. My annual flying budget is right at half the glass panel cost you use. So for me, amortized over at least a decade its not that bad and I sure enjoy it! Plus it re-assuring knowing its extremely unlikely that I'll ever have the need to use my iPad to get down in my aircraft and its also re-assuring with its avionics that if I had really screwed up and was in weather below minimums without the fuel to get to better options that I could still pull off a landing with the synthetic vision - its that good. Again its purely a personal choice yet the choices we have today are beyond amazing to what I learned on. Thank god NDB's are essentially dead!

But if you ordered it right after this was published it wasn’t very far off. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I looked it up on my copy of the AFMS and I'll just paste in the Limitations section and highlight the answer to your question in bolded text: POWER PLANT LIMITATIONS Propeller Manufacturer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hartzell Propeller Hub/Blade Model Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PHC-J3YF-1RF/F7693DF(B)-2 Number of Blades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Propeller Diameter: Hartzell Min . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 in. Max . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 in. Engine Operating Limits for Takeoff and Continuous Operations: Green Arc - Normal Operating Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2200 - 2699 RPM Red Line - Maximum Limit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2700 RPM Maximum Continuous Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310 BHP Also, in the prior Section 1 under Descriptive, it shows the following for the engine, again in bolded concerning recommended max cruise, and again this isn't a limitation but a recommendation but what "max cruise power" really means is where you can start leaning the engine to best power. But the the TCM IO-550 Maintenance and Operators manual will give much better and more detailed guidance on RPM and Leaning curves in addition to what has already be posted on the power chart. Notice in subsequent pages they say Cruise power should be 2550 rpm and 24" MAP which is actually substantially less than 262 BHP and very close to 75% power - which is a reasonable. DESCRIPTIVE DATA ENGINE Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Manufacturer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Continental Motors Incorporated Model Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IO-550-G modified per STCSE02930AT Optional Engine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IO-550-N Number of Cylinders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Displacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 550 Cu. In. (9014 cc) Maximum Continuous Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310 BHP Maximum Continuous RPM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2700 Maximum Recommended Cruise Power / RPM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262 BHP / 2550 RPM

And unless it’s listed in a FAA Approved Limitations section it’s not a limitation but a suggestion. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No these aren't just case bolts. Surely you've heard of a danger of bearing slipping when when the torque is relaxed after all or multiple cylinders are removed? This is because each cylinder is secured not only by 7 studs in the case but also by 2 thru bolts that help secure a cylinder on as well as a opposite side cylinder AND the crankcase bearing between the cylinders! When you relax the torque on end of these 2 thru bolts to removed a cylinder, as part of the re-torquing process you need to be dissemble the other side enough to get a cylinder wrench on the opposite side of these thru-bolt nuts and make sure they are torqued from both sides. Since your doing a Top, the process requires that as each cylinder is removed that they retorque in particular those 2 thru bolt 1/2" nuts (along with the 7 stud nuts just to keep the pressure even) so that the crankcase bearings can't possibly loosen up as the prop is rotated. Its necessary to rotate the prop to get each cylinder off since each piston has to be moved to top dead center in order to get the clearance to push the piston through to get the piston off. Its not a guarantee that a bearing will slip or the thru bolts will lose torque by not following this procedure but it has happened many times, including by good shops. If you look at the cylinder securing nuts around each cylinder, you'll see 7 nuts of one size (7/16") a two larger 1/2" nuts on one side, top and bottom, of the cylinder for a total of 9 nuts. These large nuts are on the thru bolts that secure the crankcase bearings in the center of the crankcase that need to remain under tension as as the prop is rotated while working on the engine.

My 252 is a converted Encore too. Conversions are very popular. i am not trying to quibble on the legal status or make a representation for sale. Just that i doubt you could even find another short body io-360 powered electric gear mooney that we know as E models as nice as Oscars. That includes paint, interior, avionics and all the many J like upgrades and many more latest tech upgrades. It’s very impressive and rivals a lot of J’s. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I beg to disagree. A go around is not an automatic reflex and the scraping noise of the prop and belly on the runway are unmistakable. Another reason i wouldn’t attempt a go around is for not having enough runway left. That has also proven to be a killer. I’d rather take my chance with a slower slide into a fence or barrier. If we’re talking about a prop strike from a bounce on the runway- many won’t realize till after they land. But not the scraping on the runway. If this discussion changes one pilots mind that wanted to save their aircraft then it was worth it. After all If they have insurance they should be able to buy another aircraft with the same hull value. If they can’t that’s a whole other issue. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

i don’t understand the concern. Mooney builds up the airframe with pre-drilled seat rails. When i replaced my 4 seat rails the pre-drilled seat rails fit perfectly. After all they were identical copies to the ones i removed. As for buying them, your not going to find them on the shelf ready to ship but Mooney is still producing parts and one should be able to put an order in and get them in 6 weeks to 3 months and in my experience Mooney almost always ships them sooner than originally promised for the parts they make. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It was the nicest C model, now it’s the nicest E model! It’s been converted. Oscar deserves a lot of the credit for getting these new airports opened too. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks for that, much appreciated. I notice its a single runway uncontrolled strip. Does it by chance have a separate taxiway so as to not require back taxing. It also appears to closed at night (unlit?). We do try to offer an evening flight for those that want to do some night currency. We have been considering EDDE on the other side of the Alps. Its what we used last time about 13 years ago. Do you have an opinion on EDDE?

Same here on the wheel bearings at my FSDO. And other similar ones like the need to change the oil and filter and screens to check for metal when the list only says “…and for metal particles or foreign matter on screens and sump drain plugs.” But i personally don’t put much stock in an annual that is signed off being in compliance with part 43 appendix D - you can’t get any more minimal. Instead all my annuals are done in accordance with Mooney’s 100hr/Annual checklist which is more thorough and more hours. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly right and improper torquing, the real concern, comes from not lubricating the threads/nut for a wet torque, not torquing in stages , not the correct order as outlined by TCM, not using new nuts to get proper torque, not cleaning the mating surface to be free of paint, sealant, dirt etc (that might have been used to treat a leaky bolt), and a big one is not torquing thru-bolts from both sides which is often missed because it requires a lot more disassembly from the opposite side to gain access. This is why Mike says Be Afraid, paying attention to the details is critical but when a mechanic who’s boss tells him he only has X hours to complete the job can have him/her hurrying to get it done. Me on the other hand i could never afford because i am slowest mechanic ever, triple checking because i have no one to do so for me. but I’ve never had an issue or failure to start right up because i can afford to take my time before i am ready for that return to service flight to verify all is good. But time is a luxury in the real world and virtually every one is over $100 an hour yet the vast majority are still under what a car dealership charges. And try finding a dealership that can actually fix a broken part that easily fixable but is only willing to replace it! It’s pretty amazing what a good GA mechanic can do. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Alternatively you can route it along the existing bundle and ty-wrap your new 4-wire to the existing bundle along the run. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But there is still enough room to fit in with the rest of the bundle; with the right aid or tool. Maybe if you solicit your supervising A&P he’ll show you what he uses. There are many commercial solutions but most use our own home made solution. To just fish a wire through an unbundled run i use nylo flo tubing with one end heated to be stiff. To fish a wire through a bundled group i use a length of piano wire to carefully penetrate it and then pull the wire back through with the piano wire. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Perhaps if you post page where you got this i am sure we can help you better understand it’s a recommendation and not a Limitation. Bob, the guy that developed the STC, really felt from his testing that 2550 rpm was the most efficient cruise rpm. But this was for ROP cruise and for a LOP cruise a much lower RPM will be more efficient. After all Continentals Operating and maintenance manual performance tables shows approved RPM’s settings much lower than that. I would recommend you get a copy and look there. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I first check with McFarlane. i don’t think you can buy just the wire though without the outer sheath but i could be wrong. Look in your IPC for spec. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't know, what could possible go wrong trying to power up and lift off after the prop has been digging holes into the runway? Pretty much no body gets hurt in a gear up landing, but a great many have died trying to go around after a prop strike, here is an article that discusses a few: https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/article/go-around-didnt-go-well/

You’d be surprised, at least i was after i rescued an experimental aircraft pilot of his honeymoon no less in Mexico. He flew it down after an oil change without an any leaks, visited a couple airports before it started leaking. He flew to where he was hoping he could limp home but lost a couple quarts in 20 min. You already know what happened but I didn’t know he had done a recent oil change when i started helping him find the source of the oil leak. I really thought that plane wasn't going anywhere for awhile. But i found the source very quickly and when i removed the safety wire i was more than shocked i didn’t need a wrench on the filter to twist it off. So point is it may not be leaking right away even though it will gush oil out pretty soon! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I hope all the growing notoriety for the E pilot gets noticed by his FSDO so he can get the needed counseling and remedial training. It just might save his life. Many good pilots would/will do this on their own but you can’t be sure. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk