kortopates

All true but airmets for icing don’t constitute known icing. “Known icing conditions" involve circumstances where a reasonable pilot would expect a substantial likelihood of ice formation on the aircraft based upon all information available to that pilot. I prefer the FAA Legal interpretation from Bell 2009 https://www.faa.gov/media/14431 For some pilots it just takes freezing temps and clouds but in this case it sure looks like a reasonable pilot would conclude icing conditions were very likely. I am more and more of the opinion this was due to convection, first with an updraft so common in cumulus with significant vertical development. The final report is going to be an interesting read if they cover this in depth. But not very timely 2 years from now. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed, but if he didn’t get a rather complete briefing i suspect he would be too busy after departure to see airmets. But he could have been doing that before he landed at Chattanooga. The thing that makes we question LOC from icing is that the aircraft never got slow before losing control. Once level it sped up to 183 kts grnd speed before what appears to be LOC. So Now i am wondering if it was severe turbulence as in convective clouds. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Pilot was on an IFR flight plan to Burlington NC. They were on the ground for 40 minutes before starting this flight that ended in about 18 minutes. About 12 minutes to climb up to 7000' only after 7 minutes of cruise it was over. Was the pilot able to get a wx briefing before departure (if only self brief)? Does look like spatial D but could have just as easily been LOC from icing. Hope the preliminary offers some insights. 3 people gone - so sad.

sounds reasonable, verify what Vx is, it’s 12 degrees in most. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Try an oil ring solvent flush first. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They are both 70 amp TCM Alternators with different part #’s simply because one is gear driven and the other belt driven. Because the belt driven alternator is always turning faster, do to the way it’s set up, it naturally already takes 80%+ of the load. Which is good because it’s easier to access and maintain. Because of the load difference the #1 should go a long time. I have just about 2000 hrs on my #1 alternator drive coupling and no issues ever so far. I change the brushes out when ever i have it off for almost any reason to avoid ever having to remove it for brush change - which i have never has to do. TCM recommends changing them out at 500 hrs but i personally think that’s excessive plus we really don’t see dual alternator failures. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

John, you can very accurately measure your spread at much lower power setting, such as 20-22” MAP or more closer to 22-24 with a lower prop rpm; capture your sweeps with your engine monitor. Plus at that lower power setting you can do full 30 sec LOP May checks to check the health of your ignition. With the lower power setting your TIT won’t spike so high. You mentioned your holding with couple tenth of the target MAP doing the spreads - that’s excellent but up to 1/2” is usually good enough. But that is more challenging with very poor mixture compared to very good mixture. BTW, if you still have your old GAMI injectors i’d just send to John-Paul and they’ll clean and bench test to insure they’re still to spec and return for a modest fee. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Unless you get a platinum edition TCM engine the stock injectors are terrible yielding 1.5 or worse Gami spread. The TCM Position Tuned injectors will get you just above 0.5 at 0.6 - 0.7 on average. I have yet to see a TSIO-360 that will run any where near 60F LOP. About 35F is the limit with good mixture and fine wires; partly due to the Slick mags. A Surefly can help some and a few have switched to Bendix mags. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://www.aircrafthose.com/ can’t go wrong as they guarantee fit too and have no age limit. But lots of other folks do these including aircraftspruce. You can, or your A&P, can just make them too, but make they have ability to pressure test them before installing. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not trying to speak for Jon, but a pretty obvious one in my mind is TFRs. We all know we need to stay out of TFR’s but VIP TFR’s often allow exceptions when you read the small pint. Some allow flying in and through as long as we’re talking to ATC while squawking while others don’t. Some of the more complicated ones are divided into 2 areas with an outer ring that we can fly in if squawking and talking. Flight conditions and time constraints might make it challenging to read all the fine print while flying. True these questions can be posed to ATC but if you’re aways out from their airspace FSS is the better one. Then there are simpler ones like your a ways out planning an approach using a VOR and you see a NOTAM for your approach that the TACAN is out of service - i can see some pilots wondering does mean just DME or Azimuth as well? There are lots of NOTAMS that can be confusing that we could do a little research on the ground but when discovering them in the air we may need a little help. Incidentally, i have to add a “Properly trained PIC” is non-sensical. Even on the day of our checkride we don’t know everything. The adage that the certificate is nothing more than a license to learn is right attitude IMO. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We had inspectors from a neighboring FSDO conduct ramp checks at one our local fields over the course of several days. We all wondered why they were doing so outside of there own jurisdiction. If i recall correctly it was part of a new inspectors training. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quite the conspiracy theorist! lol Only partially true, it’s a “Ply Rating” - not a ply count. it’s been since before my time that the rating actually matched the count. With modern materials they make 4 and 6 ply “rated” tires with fewer than that many physical plies and have been doing this for decades. Think of it as a standard rather than a count. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In the US I've only lost GPS for brief few moments on multiple occasions in different trainers - never my aircraft. Took a long time to figure out but it stemmed from a interference from the radio on the SEE tower frequency where apparently a harmonic from a separate radio on the 120.7 ctaf freq was killing the GPS signal and the unit would have to re-acquire them - all taking time and this happening crossing the FAF added additional challenges. (using the GPS radio was never a problem and the solution for those installations with this issue). But flying out of the US I have been jammed several times since those jammers are very cheap and easy to get a hold of. Those losses last for many minutes depending on altitude till you get far enough away. Not a big deal when VMC but a real pain in IMC. In all of these occasions it wouldn't matter how many GPS's you had, but in the latter jamming scenario I tried a portable as well without success.

No, these are both entirely on condition although TCM does have recommendations for scheduled alternator maintenance. But every time I have my #1 alternator off I get it bench tested and maybe the brushes replaced depending on hours just because its a real pita to R&R it on the plane.

It is the same part but they only use it on larger turbo's so didn't see a need to get the TSIO-360's added to their AML. But this is still the original spot welded version and there is a newer TCM part # here on Mooneyspace, which is more expensive, that is a riveted and isn't subject to the AD.

Is this very recent potential closing? They have a 5 star review as recent as 4 months ago. That said, I would hate to spend much money on a KFC 150 issues since they get very expensive so I solved my porposing issue with a GFC-500 install and couldn't be happier. Its 10x better except for the limitation it won't fly an ILS without GPS! You have to use heading and VS without GPS.

Actually you’re losing ~30 lbs in useful load but gaining ~60 lbs in payload and maybe about an hour less in range. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Great upgrade! But he could have applied a little touch up paint to the new rivets - something you can do and get a paint match at an automotive paint shop. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well yes, every time they have their tanks properly stripped and re-sealed. Of course it’s not frequent at all, but generally more than once over the plane’s lifetime and likely to be in time for finding issues. I know my tanks don’t have rated fuel capacity because my tanks look just as bad as these if not worse. i think someone added a sloshing compound at one time to fix leak(s) They’ve been very abused in prior ownership patch jobs - but don’t leak so in no hurry to fix this. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

send pictures to Clifford there for an estimate but he won’t be able to give you a complete estimate till he cleans up your parts and measures wall thickness - he’ll replace all thin sections and make it good as new. I would expect it will need more than the flame tubes. it’s important to send everything so he can make sure everything fits right after repairs. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

send pictures to Clifford there for an estimate but he won’t be able to give you a complete estimate till he cleans up your parts and measures wall thickness - he’ll replace all thin sections and make it good as new. I would expect it will need more than the flame tubes. it’s important to send everything so he can make sure everything fits right after repairs. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

interesting that your new “Rev A” is changed from spot welds to rivets. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Its also a really big challenge to find a DPE that will give a practical in any Mooney without Dual Brakes - even at the commercial level. The ones I know won't for a private, but they will in a Piper that has the parking brake lever they can pull from the right seat but of course the Mooney doesn't have this. Was hard to find one that would do the commercial without dual brakes, but more possible than private.

Entirely normal, TIT should be 50-100F higher than the EGTs since its represents all 6 EGTs hitting the turbo. Only time TIT will get lower than EGT is when you either have a worn out TIT probe or a partially blocked injector driving that cyl EGT high. Plus please note its not very kind to lean slowly through peak at 29-30" even with RPM pulled back. At Savvy we recommend you to do the Gami sweeps and LOP Mag test at around 20-22" MAP to keep you TIT down; especially when you do the LOP Mag test which will cause TIT to spike.

see https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/DRSDOCID139871502220250328153822.0001?modalOpened=true The FAA is seeking information on experiences with Unleaded fuel SUBJ: UNLEADED FUEL SAIB: 2025-04 Date: March 28, 2025 This is information only. Recommendations aren’t mandatory. Introduction This Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) advises aircraft operators, fixed base operators, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) repair stations, Flight Standards District Offices (FSDO), and Foreign Civil Aviation Authorities to report to the FAA any issues (service difficulties, maintenance) related to the use of unleaded fuel when used as an alternative to any other fuels. The FAA has not identified an unsafe condition that would warrant airworthiness directive action under Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 39. In 2022, the FAA announced a government-industry initiative known as Eliminate Aviation Gasoline Lead Emissions (EAGLE), with the goal of transitioning to lead-free aviation fuels for piston-engine aircraft in the United States without adversely impacting the safe and efficient operation of the existing general aviation (GA) fleet. The FAA aims to collaborate with aviation stakeholders to collect data and understand any impacts to piston-powered GA aircraft as unleaded fuels are introduced, and usage of unleaded fuel increases. Background Several unleaded fuels are currently available and additional fuels are likely to be available soon. Approval for use of these unleaded fuels can be found in each make/model’s Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS), installation manual, service instructions, or Supplemental Type Certificate (STC). As part of providing effective safety oversight, the FAA will need to differentiate between pre-existing fuel issues using 100 octane low lead (100LL) fuel and issues which may arise from using high octane unleaded fuel. Recommendations The FAA recommends reporting the following information regarding service difficulties or abnormal maintenance issues using unleaded fuel. The FAA is also interested in hearing from operators who have transitioned to unleaded fuel without issue. The FAA is specifically interested in the following information when reporting: • Aircraft make/model/year of manufacture • Manufacturer and type of unleaded fuel used • Engine make/model and time since new or last overhaul • Approximate volume (gallons/liters) of unleaded fuel used before issue • Time from original transition to unleaded fuel until issue observed • Engine total hours and approximate hours using unleaded fuel • Any mixing of fuels (unleaded fuel with 100LL fuel, as example) Recommendations (continued) Additional details, as appropriate: • Description and date of issue observed • In describing your issue, please consider the following: o Recent aircraft maintenance prior to unleaded fuel use (new hoses, gaskets, fuel sealants, engine maintenance) o Any related issues observed before transition to unleaded fuel o Issues related to fuel leaks or sealant/gasket breakdown o Sealant type and gasket materials used o Internal inspection/photos of fuel tanks ▪ Photos of external or substrate damage o Samples of fuel and/or materials submitted or collected by the local FSDO o Engine related issues o Description of any performance degradation o Details on parts affected or failed parts ▪ Detailed photos of affected parts/engine condition or any excessive buildup, wear, or degradation o Fuel system issues o Excessive wear or degradation of components o Particulate or foreign object presence Please include contact information and your preferred method of contact, should the FAA have additional questions. The FAA will not retain contact information with the reported data. Please submit these reports to OperationalSafety@faa.gov with “Unleaded Fuel” in the subject line. Paperwork Reduction Act Burden Statement A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0731. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are voluntary; the nature and extent of confidentiality to be provided, if any. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: Information Collection Clearance Officer, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177-1524. For Further Information Contact John Coffey, Aviation Safety Coordinator, FAA AIR-723 Fleet Safety Section; 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; email: OperationalSafety@faa.gov; Subject Line: “Unleaded Fuel”