kortopates

Although the temps get okay soonest, I've had to climb to as much as 14-16k to get out of the summer time thermal chop which also cost you a few knots. Higher is typically much much more comfortable - if you can do it.

Good points Vance and this one of the big reasons why I only give Wings Flights Reviews. With a Wings Flight Review the client needs to demonstrate the requirements from the ACS to ACS standards which are much less subjective. So anything that isn't done to the standards of the ACS we'll do again until they are. Of course that doesn't guarantee the pilot is going to get all the instruction they may need and like you said above as well, the client can always seek out another instructor. But in the above accident case, it wasn't a flight review and there was no sign off required beyond the dual required by the insurance company. But sure we can and should discuss with any pilot that is still having difficulty after the required hours that we should continue to work and most pilots are quite agreeable. But for the most part the insurance company usually gets the number of required dual hours right. Yet of course we sure don't want to release anyone that doesn't feel comfortable in their new plane yet either and I've seen that as well. But regardless of our recommendation, its up to the client to elect to continue instruction after the minimum so big part of it is our ability to convince them of the need - if they need convincing - thankfully few every do. Like your discomfort with a student, I once had a client that I was transitioning to an E model. To make a long story short, I was contacted by the buyer for transition training and when we met he made it clear to me he only wanted the ONE hour of dual his insurance company mandated and then he would be leaving to fly his new E home a couple of hours away. Obviously one hour was very brief and my normal transition training begins with a few hours of ground going over every system and every piece of equipment in the plane - nope he wasn't interested. I could have declined but I didn't and gave him the best hour I could including some emergency procedures time. I was worried for quite awhile but thankfully the pilot is still flying the E years later.

A new TCM AD is coming out Sept 21 that affects the IO-550's used in Eagles, Ovations and the TSIO-550 used in Acclaims: https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgad.nsf/0/32adee8ac0c62a20862585c70050d47f/$FILE/2020-16-11.pdf The AD references the following TCM SB: http://www.tcmlink.com/pdf2/MSB18-08B.pdf Initially its just a visual inspection of the cross-flow cylinder assembly, for those engine that have at least 500 hrs on the effective date (9-21). The AD estimates 2 hrs of labor to complete the visual inspection; which could lead to additional labor to modify it (1 hr) or replace it (11.5 hrs) depending on the inspection results. Before getting too concerned, start with the SB for applicability: "New or rebuilt engines obtained prior to 01 NOV 2014 are not affected by this Service Document. Additionally, cylinder assemblies obtained prior to 01 NOV 2014 or stamped with serial number AC18KB277 or later (reference Figure 1 and Figure 9) are not affected by this Service Document."

Your fuel flow transducer should be entirely wrapped in firesleeve - right? Otherwise it could can the symptoms you are experiencing. Regardless as to whether or not you need a new one if its leaking.

Yes indeed. In a sense, the instructor, (and not sure it was the same instructor), lost his ability to prevent the pilot from soloing the Mooney prematurely once the pilot had received his Complex and High Performance endorsements in the C210. With those endorsements in hand, all the accident pilot needed technically to solo was the insurance company's mandated number of dual hours. My guess though is that it was the same instructor, and the report gave the story that after 5 hrs dual for the C210 the pilot really wanted his sign off which the instructor wasn't ready to give so they did a mock x-ctry flight where the pilot had numerous challenges - reading that and how he get signed off really does make you wonder how the pilot could have fixed those issues in just another 2.5 hrs since he signed him off at 7.5 hrs. My guess is they did another 2.5 hrs in the local pattern where he better in a familiar pattern without having to slow down and enter a pattern. But once he had insurance company mandated hours of dual in his logbook for the Mooney, he could fly his Mooney solo regardless what his instructor advised him. The one thing going for the pilot and the instructor was that the pilot was continuing to get instruction to improve his skills and I imagine that included some supervision from his instructor perhaps during his flight planning to new destinations. Obviously it was no where near enough, and not only did the pilot die, he took his friend with him.

A bolt to attach a bellcrank penetrates the spar into the tank.

sounds like a smokin' hot deal to me! $90 is the about the cheapest I ever hear about these days. But I never need to buy O2 in the US either since I fill my own.

its here: https://dms.ntsb.gov/public/63500-63999/63917/636469.pdf You can see the event at 2:30 in the data Or if you want the EDM-900 data file: 636471.csv

I would expect cost at several thousand, well over 4. New parts would probably run close to 2K a side. There is bell crank to install whose hardware penetrates the spar and tank. I have no idea how feasible it would be to retrofit that (perhaps a helicoil insert) since your spar didn't come from the factory ready for that. The gear door itself isn't an issue. I'd get a sheet metal guy to take a look and give you a better idea if you're really want them.

Interesting accident report of a 231 that went down Aug 11, 2018 at Baker, OR. Although its only a factual report without a final determination of cause they list "Instrument Failure" as the defining event. Although they did find a broken vacuum pump that had been installed in 1994, 24 years ago with 1400 hrs, and not replaced recently after the pilot had a hard landing/prop strike with sudden stoppage. But the pilot was not flying instruments, was not instrument rated and accident occurred in beautiful VMC conditions. I thin when you read the report you'll conclude the failed vacuum pump didn't have any thing to do with the accident unless the pilot was distracted by it when he would have been better served looking out the window. It really reads more like what we often accuse our Cirrus brethren of for getting into more airplane than we can handle. 2 fatalities due to a stall-spin executing a go around after a failed landing attempt; apparently too high and too fast from witness accounts. No shortage of signs that this accident was inevitable - but I still don't see how anyone could have really stopped this from happening. We probably all know a pilot that has some similar traits and feel helpless to do anything about it. http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2020/08/flight-instrument-malfunction-failure.html

It is a really nice light sport aircraft, definitely efficient and even comes with a parachute and retractable gear - a combination we don't see. But its only a two seater and the cockpit sure doesn't look as survivable as a Mooney; despite the parachute. But if one is willing to forego the 2 seats and standard small plane certification requirements and you want performance check out the real world performance of my friends Legacy. His baby with 2 people does 270 kts on the same gas burn my Mooney does. For example, this is a flight of approx 300 nm that he does in just an hour and the same 25 gallons of fuel except it takes me at least 1/2 hr longer. https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N5S/history/20200808/2223Z/KBIH/KSEE The plane though is a Reno racer, but he's not flying it in the race configuration outside of Reno.

Yes, at Savvy we request the data sampling rate set to 1-2 sec to provide sufficient data resolution for diagnosing issues. The coarser the data the harder it becomes to tell if for example changes in MAP may be leading changes in FF or vice versa. All the EDM's leave the factory with a default of 6 sec which is so coarse its easy to miss short events entirely. Many others the OEM uses a 1 sec rate including the Garmin (e.g. G1000) EIS systems. I also prefer the 1 sec rate for its finer resolution. It can be a trade off with memory storage but shouldn't be a concern with the modern EDM 9XX systems. For example, JPI claims more than 300 hrs at the 6 sec rate, dividing that by 6 (for a 1 sec rate) gives 50 hrs. It will vary a bit based on how many parameters your monitor logs. That right at the average annual hours per year for the average GA pilot and still plenty for me to make my longer 2-3 week flying safari's. Plus we really want you to upload your flights as frequently as possible so that the Savvy algorithms can alert you, for example if your data shows signs or a burnt/burning valve. You gotta stop flying with such strong headwinds! What unit only gives you 12 hrs at 1 sec? That sounds awfully short. Is it one you have to send it back in, to get that firmware fixed?

That's an induction leak and yes you want to repair that asap. The drain fitting (# 19) that the tubing connects too was probably very recently replaced for the TCM service bulletin to remove the primer diverter valve for a newer style. That may have something to do with facilitating that - or not. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I had to say I am very impressed with 36 years of marriage Scott. You must be doing something right! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Try any of the local gas suppliers like Airgas.com. Avoid the Rx hassle by saying you want ABO, they’ll know it’s not a welding tank. Normally they sell gas by exchanging tanks so expect to drop it off. But I’ve never bought it like this so not sure what their policy will be. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have to agree with Tom above, you'll want to learn the tricks of how to make a near airport your next destination with minimal twisting and button pushing - using the direct key and moving down to the nearest airport list. I never used any of the tricks above and others including another one where you have selected the next approach but not loaded it as a procedure, simplify since with some practice in your airplane you can learn to update the flight plan in under 30 sec (and that's not even fast). And just as its important to stay ahead of the plane, its just as important to stay ahead of the box, like recognizing as soon as you are on vectors to the approach to activate it, and then updating the approach if necessary if you won't be intercepting where you thought. The biggest rookie mistake I see is that the controller is vectoring you onto final and the pilot still hasn't activated the approach or activated it to intercept the final approach course and I ask what's wrong pointing at the CDI and when that doesn't register how are we going to navigating final - that usually brings it home. When you are struggling with the box, you also need to learn the tricks of getting help from the controller when needed and not getting deviated. When the controller says direct to xyz (an IAF approach fix) and you still haven't even loaded the approach, don't just continue on your current heading while you struggle with box starting over and over again because you're rushed and making mistakes, ask the controller for (helping) vector to the fix. Now the pressure is off while you get the box set up.

Well said!!!

Same speed, 80 kts, works really well in the K too - same airframe but a little heavier perhaps.

I guess I am a disciple of the Deakin method as well, that Skip provided a link too a few posts back, and I have been for years. His treatise is the first, as far as I know or I became aware of, to underline the importance of airspeed being a fair tradeoff with altitude. Its more clear when we consider it as energy management and that speed and altitude can be traded off. That may not be the best words to describe it, but if you only consider altitude you may miss the benefit of excess speed conserves altitude (Excess speed as speed above Vg for a maximum range glide) Why its so important IMO, is for a few reasons, firstly the accident record shows me the Pilot community is really poor at surviving steep climb outs when the fan quits. Forget about getting back to the airport to land on the runway, the stats show us a great many pilots that climb out steeply at near Vx fail to respond to the loss of power in time, and don't push immediately to save themselves - and die before they can even start to turn back. Way too many pilots tested in this steep climb configuration, die in the stall/spin right off the departure end of the runway. A bit more than a year ago we had a local Cirrus pilot demonstrate this and he was a very smart, experienced and successful pilot that perished when the engine died in a steep Vx climb. He liked to climb up steeply to get to altitude where he could use the chute if that happened but he neither pulled the chute nor pushed when the engine died and spun in vertically. So I much prefer Deakin's method, which for me is Vy+15-20 kts. Although his method may not guarantee getting the plane back to the runway as good as the Vx climb does but I do believe its increases my survivability in an engine out significantly. It greatly reduces by chance of stall spinning, when the fan stops, which to me is a greater killer than an off field landing, Its provides important benefits since the whole time in climb I have a much better view of landing spot options and I have some time to recognize the issue and react as well as be in a position to exchange some speed to hold altitude slowing to Vg and steer to a my preferred off field landing spot I can see or turn back to the airport property if I do have the altitude I briefed before departure. And of no small importance it allows me to climb out with much cooler temps than a steep climb. I know I am not going to change anybody's mind - we all have our reasons perhaps that's what's most important here that we have a well thought out plan and we brief it on every departure to help avoiding being a deer in the headlights, when it quits. But I'll leave the Vx climb out to when near obstacles demand it and take my chances in a controlled off field landing if it really comes down to that. I'll leave the standard practice of lengthy Vx climbs to professional pilots that train regularly and maintain a much higher level of proficiency. Before I went to all glass, years ago, I had a piece of tape on the IAS right at Vy which was my minimum speed when things got real rough - such as bad turbulence in IMC. I decided that was my min airspeed if I was very challenged to control the airplane. Now I simply use the marked Vy on the tape.

You're not alone. I believe its fair to say probably about 80% or more of pilots can't get their wives to fly with them except in special circumstances. As a CFI I've heard all the stories - most wives are quick to bring up a past flight where their husband scared them. It might have been the Low fuel warning light coming on followed by help me find an airport with fuel nearby, or it could have been less than successful avoidance of clouds getting to a destination or just flying in turbulence which is not something any pax enjoys. They all have a story about why they don't want to fly with their husband and its usually a lack of trust after more than one experience. Lack of confidence in equipment is important too. Its one thing to just warm up to the fact we fly airplanes that are as old as we are, but if it looks its age, that's isn't inspiring at all to someone that would never drive in a car that isn't new looking. Its doubly hard for a new or low time pilot, and it may take that instrument rating to build their confidence up enough. Some of us are just plane lucky though - but it isn't all luck. We really have to work at our spouses comfort like Paul discussed above, at least initially - we gotta cancel or delay flights that won't be perfect - otherwise it will be her last. But you really want is to get your wife interested in being a crew member rather than just a pax to get her onboard with it all. My wife went on to get her Private and then her instrument rating and now we fly every where as two pilots swapping every other leg. And its not just VFR weather either, we fly in a lot of weather. I may be PIC, but she is the supreme commander! And I couldn't be any happier about it and all the traveling memories we have shared together.

We talked about them here last year:

Its very rare a Lyc io-360 needs gami injectors. Probably over 90% of the fleet runs without them and still have very good mixture distribution of < 0.5 GPH. As mentioned above, one should always fly gami sweeps such in our Savvy Test profile located here (https://resources.savvyaviation.com/resources/other-documents/flight-test-profile/) to see if they need Gami's before installing them. Still an excellent product - when you need them.

exactly

My guess is its the cowl flaps. Some vibration is common when fully open. You can check the security of their hardware for looseness. But better yet, I doubt you need them fully open in climb while climbing at least 10-15 kts above Vy and should be able to close them about half-way without seeing a rise in CHT and that should eliminate the vibration. If near closing them in cruise doesn't eliminate it you may well have some worn hardware there.

Absolutely right on both counts. The POH only give an overview of the operation of the system. The OP, or anyone attempting to troubleshoot something on their airframe, really needs the service manual with the real schematics.