kortopates

He is referring to swapping the 3 backup instruments on the right side to a GI-275. I have a client that has done this very recently. They aren’t integrated with the G1000 so don’t think there is anything special required to do this and i think it’s a great upgrade. Will require some panel work as well. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Absolutely correct! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So it never worked! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you’re also new to the KFC-150, using NAV mode, make sure you first use heading to put you on a heading to intercept the NAV course. Then once intercepted it should track it fine if it’s working. Eventhough GPSS is preferred i assume Approach mode won’t work either if NAV doesn’t and you’ll need that to follow a GS or GP. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed with you there, CFI would be refusing to sign off on someone repeatedly unable to meet the ACS standards and perhaps seeing that as due to a medical impairment. But i don’t see a CFI evaluating any ones medical condition - just their ability to meet performance standards per ACS. A CFI’s greatest liability though isn’t from refusing to sign off someone, that person can find another CFI, but in signing someone off that kills themselves and pax shortly there after. (Or in the case of private student, killing themselves on their solo cross country.) Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Before you go with the wingtip uavonix solution consider this is dependent on your existing transponder. If you had a modern mode S transponder, like the above poster, it could be a fine solution for a J. But i would fear that your old KT-76a days are numbered. If your located under rule class airspace as I am your grounded when either of them stops working. So I would expect a GTN-345 would be a more reliable and integrated option. It does require a WAAS GPS position source or can be purchased with the added WAAS card for $600 more. GDL-88’s lost popularity as soon as the GTX-345 came out and there are probably used ones still available on eBay. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree entirely. But i don’t think we have that problem at SMO. SMO has been using Vector to bill and collect landing fees before we had ADS/B. A student there, a long time tenant there, told me they actually bill takeoff’s rather than landings. The tower is not open 24 hrs and i am not aware of the actual mechanism but never heard of a false positive at SMO. In fact many IFR TEC routes take directly over LAX and SMO pretty low (4K) and i’ve never gotten a bill without landing there. Despite the popular belief that we have high fees in California, virtually none of our other towered airports charge landing fees besides private Catalina and recently Torrance trying to follow SMO. The exception would be our class B And C airports will get you with FBO fees as they don’t have free transient parking areas. I think most are getting by with fuel and FBO/hangar/parking fees instead. My county though just asked the FAA to de-register a popular airport servicing a state park Aqua Caliente L54 because they couldn’t afford to re-do the runway which is in dire need and the airport is as podunk as you can imagine with parking for 4 or 6 planes and nothing more so zero income - only expenses. Sad to see and hoping the FAA pushes back some if even to keep it open as a dirt runway. We have another popular dirt runway without any income as well. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

5 years of monthly invoices to ignore - is it worth it? I just pay mine. The FAA did audit them not long ago and when they found out how the airport had become a profit center of sorts from the fees the FAA got them to drop all there hangar fee’s by 50% to balance things out. So at least we can say that supposedly it goes to airport expenses and helped the local pilots go back to more reasonable hangar fees. Still the bigger factor is that Vectors admin cost is probably higher than SMO’s take. I know we have a few SMO tenants here that know more of the details. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I guess your only option is to return it and have them replace the shaft as agreed earlier, pay for the new shaft but have them cover all the labor to correct since that was what was agreed too - all at another potential 3 weeks of down time. I am not sure though it's going to reduce your cost in the future though which will be the same new shaft (and new spring) next time and it should last just as long till next needed servicing.

Personally IMO this is a total nothing burger. While MOSAIC will allow a Sport Pilot licensed pilot to fly some Mooney's (even if its just a C model) its still up to the Insurance companies to set the real requirements for flying a Mooney. Maybe they do at the same cost as Private with Basic med, maybe they increase the insurance cost substantially or require much longer checkout times before solo. We don't know but those could be incentives for a Sport pilot to upgrade to a Private - its not much harder. Then IMO what really makes the Sport pilot cert so limited is that our Mooney's are most popular with pilots for their efficient cross country capabilities. But that is most dependent on an instrument rating and Sport Pilots are VFR only and can't get an instrument rating till they get their Private cert and do the cross country flights they didn't need for the Sport pilot. I can only see that as attractive to some older pilots that can't qualify for a Basic Med and are willing to go strictly VFR - which will no doubt appeal to a few but I doubt many.

Sorry to hear this. I would have been just as upset as well after not approving what you had agreed to on the phone with them.

That's was fascinating accident case study. Cool that would you bring this one up as its an excellent discussion on its own. Its one of the most studied and one of the text book examples of the swiss cheese analogy of accidents building on several mistakes. The pilots made so many mistakes all in their haste to get the plane on the ground after taking off a few hours late so that FAA pilot rest regulations would not delay their departure on the next leg. And sadly Cali approach radar was down from an insurgents attack and both pilots lost complete situational awareness because they became too focused changing from a circling approach to a straight in approach when they were already too high and too fast to get down to do it; but then they had become to there whereabouts after miss communications with Cali approach and the Captain did a direct to the FAF bypassing fixes that would have separated them from the terrain. What they were trying to do was actually ludicrous if they had some time to think it through but instead they pressed on trying to go direct to FAF and then make a 180 back to start the arrival not realizing they had already passed the starting fix for the arrival. Even the crew acknowledges on the CVR that they really screwed up getting lost which came about from not following airline procedures to have both pilots verify before making the flight plan changes they did. Absolutely there confusion was aided by pilot controller miss-communication and trouble finding the FAF waypoint. The accident report doesn't at all blame it directly on automation out right as you suggest but I'll just copy paste from the report: 3.2 Probable Cause Aeronautica Civil determines that the probable causes of this accident were: 1. The flightcrew's failure to adequately plan and execute the approach to runway 19 at SKCL and their inadequate use of automation. 2. Failure of the flightcrew to discontinue the approach into Cali, despite numerous cues alerting them of the inadvisability of continuing the approach. 3. The lack of situational awareness of the flightcrew regarding vertical navigation, proximity to terrain, and the relative location of critical radio aids. 4. Failure of the flightcrew to revert to basic radio navigation at the time when the FMS-assisted navigation became confusing and demanded an excessive workload in a critical phase of the flight. 3.3 Contributing Factors Contributing to the cause of the accident were: 1. The flightcrew's ongoing efforts to expedite their approach and landing in order to avoid potential delays. 2. The flightcrew's execution of the GPWS escape maneuver while the speedbrakes remained deployed. 3. FMS logic that dropped all intermediate fixes from the display(s) in the event of execution of a direct routing. 4. FMS-generated navigational information that used a different naming convention from that published in navigational charts. But with that tangent out of the way for a minute, lets focus specifically on autopilots and specifically the modern digital GFC-500. Your argument seems to be that although your in your favor of lateral nav automation with an autopilot you don't believe the automation/autopilot is safe enough for vertical nav - although you called in 3 axis but I interpreted it as vertical nav/up & down. I though consider this autopilot to be large advance in safety for any pilot that allows themselves to get into trouble in IMC. Its not going going to make up for airmanship mistakes like twisting in 010 and when they were told 100 degrees. But using your examples on the vertical nav is non-sensical to anyone that has flown with a GFC-500. You can't command it to climb at 5000 FPM and the autopilot will not prevent you from miss using it; but using your example of too steep of a climb rate the AP will simply lower the nose when it approaches its Min Speed (69 kts for J&K); similarly in a descent if your about to exceed the AP max speed it will lift the nose to slow down. And then rather than let a pilot become a loss of control statistic, even without using a lateral mode and/or vertical mode the autopilot ESP (Electronic Stability and Protection) will work to prevent excess rates of bank beyond 45 degree and pitch beyond +20 and -15. And a big but simple feature for a pilot loosing control in IMC is to push the Blue Level Button to level the wings and regain control. This could have saved multiple lives here very recently from LOC-I fatal accidents. You can still program your flight plan to fly into a mountain but newer digital AP technology can save a pilot from becoming a LOC-I statistic and IMO represents a huge safety improvement in protecting a pilot and their pax.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

thanks, i am on the ticket Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Most Cessna 172’s in a club i instruct in have the Garmin GFC-500 along with GTN-650 and G5’s and a EDM-900. It’s kind of what new pilots are expecting these days. But most don’t have pitch trim so one manually changes the trim when the G5 says too. But these are trainers and time builders, not serious IFR traveling birds. All modern Mooney AP installations had pitch trim in their BK or Century AP by the factory (and a few STEC). So I’d think lack of pitch trim a down grade. But a 67 E only got PC when it left the factory. So a minimal GFC-500 installation is still a significant step up - at least from original. So i don’t see a big concern either way and understand not wanting to spend $$$ with a low hull value to start. Makes perfect sense and it’s still very marketable. That said comments about preferring to use manual trim miss the point. I too prefer to use more precise manual trim wheel; especially in cruise. but when I want to hand the plane over to the AP i want to be able to use the AP in climb or descent too - not just cruise without having to deal with trim. As much as i like my manual trim i much prefer to use electric trim during a go around so i can use that hand for others things like throttle, flaps and gear while the trim is moving. Arguments about the autopilot are going to kill you after you make a silly mistake twisting in the wrong value are just as absurd since a GFC-500 provides a huge safety benefit in the form of ESP and the Blue level button. If more of these instrument pilots lacking proficiency getting into trouble in IMC had a Garmin AP and could push the Blue level button we wouldn’t have had two fatal IMC LOC-I accidents recently here in SOCAL. But these decisions really are about personal choices. But not all the arguments here make sense IMO to someone that actually uses one. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

lol, and so true! i simply gave up. When Somebody keeps doubling down on false statements about the FAA funding airport expenses and quotes the Airport Improvement Program page that clearly and un-deniably states only improvements are funded and that expenses to run/operate the airport are ineligible for funding; it’s got to be a lost cause to keep trying. So i deleted it while i was ahead - but tapatalk doesn’t support deleting the post entirely. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

At the time the AD was written that was what the clamps cost! But as soon as it came out a lot of owners bought up the existing inventory very quickly creating a shortage. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is absolutely zero uncertainty that landing unintentionally with the gear up is the least risk to persons. Sliding a few hundred feet on the runway only bruises egos. Most will tell you it was there finest short field landing! But going around after “kissing” the ground is a huge unnecessary risk to persons if you consider the number of fatal accidents. It’s entirely an effort to save the plane - not persons. Isn’t that why we insure our aircraft? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Take all the mounting screws out and see if you can align the plastic to allow the seat back to lay in flush. Then you’ll know if it’s incorrectly mounted or perhaps wrong plastic part. But i doubt they made different seat back sizes so i am guessing it was incorrectly mounted which would need a new set of holes under the seat. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am not certain, but i would expect that to be a Hartzell or McCauley part depending on prop and would suggest checking with a prop shop. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That’s the thing, Jimmy sells more Mooney’s than anyone else and know very well how to price it to sell based on the current market. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Captain Sue and her nice J model at Lands End before departing for St Mary’s It’s been a real adventure flying with her here! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Dan didn’t move to Oregon but stayed and is working out of his home, so parts are still being managed in CA while their service shop is in OR. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I can only say i have seen a great many. But i also live near the border where international flights are not uncommon. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk