Cris

Brett and all- there was no "one" reason for this tragedy. It is a chain of events known as an accident chain. It could have been ingrained in the decision making process or a mechanical issue. At some point we will know. If this were the military there would be a safety stand down and review. It was not solely due to one moment on one dark night. Had Patrick elected not to launch perhaps a differant outcome would have ensued but it might have simply taken place on the next flight. Nothing that you would have done could have changed this outcome. There were two other decision makers in that aircraft. Presumable it was a shared responsiblity. Patrick was living his dream. He had set his sights on a professional career as a pilot. To accomplish that objective Patrick enrolled in an Aviation college in his 30's, purchased a complex A/C 95' M20J and flew as much as he could in all types of sceanarios. Once when I asked him why he flew all over the US as he did in sometimes marginal conditions he said it was what would get him to his objective. As is often stated "good judgement comes from bad decisions" especially aviation judgement. I'm hear to say that I have experienced terrible iceing conditions and work hard to avoid any such conditions. I have landed in 40 knot head winds and 25 knot cross winds and not had an incident but almost... As a result I now land at a differant airport with more favorable runways. I have even landed with minimum fuel load at night in an A/C rental that I thought had 60 gal tanks but really only had 48 gal. I now check the POH every time. I have lived thru the bad decisions. Maybe I was lucky. My point is that flying is not inherently dangerous but it is terrible unforgiving. Those that have reinforced bad decisions with favorable results often continue to push the envelope with disaster as an end product. Do I think that happened to Patrick? I really do not know but I think not. Patrick was conscious of the responsiblity he had to others. He was also due to become a graduate of a respected aviation college program which by definition taught safety first. He had two other pilots on board who must have had some input into the decision making process. My vote is mechanical at least in part. I know from another on this Board who shared with me the fact that Patrick's J did not have the same T/O & climb performance as this members M20J. They actually flew together in each others A/C to compare on the same day and conditions. Now it remains to be seen if Patrick did anything with that information. This lack of performance could be a prop governor or a bad tach giving errouneos readings. I'm sure that will come out during the NTSB review. Patrick was a good guy but not very knowledgeable about the mechanics of his A/C from my discussions with him. He basically went to the AP with a blank check book. That might also have entered into this tragedy. After all if you say keep me safe to the AP and I'll pay whatever. You expect value for your maintenance dollar. Typically this will come down to pilot error, mechanical error or a combination thereof but I for one will wait and see. Patrick we will keep you in our prayers.

Patrick was living his dream. He had set his sights on a professional career as a pilot. To accomplish that objective Patrick enrolled in an Aviation college in his 30's, purchased a complex A/C 95' M20J and flew as much as he could in all types of sceanarios. Once when I asked him why he flew all over the US as he did in marginal conditions he said it was what would get him to his objective. As is often stated "good judgement comes from bad decisions" especially aviation judgement. I'm hear to say that I have experienced terrible iceing conditions and work hard to avoid any such conditions. I have landed in 40 knot head winds and 25 knot cross winds and not had an incident but almost... As a result I now land at a differant airport with more favorable runways. I have even landed with minimum fuel load at night in an A/C rental that I thought had 60 gal tanks but really only had 48 gal. I now check the POH every time. I have lived thru the bad decisions. Maybe I was lucky. My point is that flying is not inherently dangerous but it is terrible unforgiving. Those that have reinforced bad decisions with favorable results often continue to push the envelope with disaster as an end product. Do I think that happened to Patrick? I really do not know but I think not. Patrick was conscious of the responsiblity he had to others. He was also due to become a graduate of a respected aviation college program which by definition taught safety first. He had two other pilots on board who must have had some input into the decision making process. My vote is mechanical at least in part. I know from another on this Board who shared with me the fact that Patrick's J did not have the same T/O & climb performance as this members M20J. They actually flew together in each others A/C to compare on the same day and conditions. Now it remains to be seen if Patrick did anything with that information. This lack of performance could be a prop governor or a bad tach giving errouneos readings. I'm sure that will come out during the NTSB review. Patrick was a good guy but not very knowledgeable about the mechanics of his A/C from my discussions with him. He basically went to the AP with a blank check book. That might also have entered into this tragedy. After all if you say keep me safe to the AP and I'll pay whatever. You expect value for your maintenance dollar. Typically this will come down to pilot error, mechanical error or a combination thereof but I for one will wait and see. Patrick we will keep you in our prayers.

To all- I asked and Patrick volunteered to call everyone in the NJ Mooney Group to make sure they would be attending the Toys for Kids & Mega Mooney Fly in on Sat. As you know this event is open to all pilots and aircraft but the NJ Mooney group is the sponsor. Patrick E-mailed me on Wens saying he was "on It" so I hope everyone will make a special effort to attend. It is the last thing Patrick did for our group. In remembrance I'd like to suggest a moment of silence tomorrow . There may even be some that would allow us to share a story or two about Patrick. There will be a tent in front of where we will park our Mooney's so that is a place to congregate. John Pallante's I-pad for pilots presentation will start between 10 & 10:30 in the ready room. Hopefully we will collect the toys and make the donations it in Patrick's memory. Regards Cris

To all- I asked and Patrick volunteered to call everyone in the NJ Mooney Group to make sure they would be attending the Toys for Kids & Mega Mooney Fly in on Sat. Patrick E-mailed me on Wens saying he was "on It" so I hope everyone will make a special effort to attend. It is the last thing Patrick did for our group. In remembrance I'd like to suggest a moment of silence tomorrow . There may even be some that would like to share a story or two about Patrick. There will be a tent in front of where we will park our Mooney's so that is a place to congregate. Regards Cris

Since you are going to use Air Mods have you considered having Dave Mathieson or one of his A/P's fly out with you and then bring it back assuming it passes his inspection. Alternatively there are a number of good A/P like Bruce Jaeger who fly around that part of the country and might be willing to stop in Phoenix. Lastly and probably the least expensive is to have Dave review the logs and then talk with a local mechanic on the field to look for specific items that Dave might want to have checked based on his review. You could do that without even going to Phoenix.

Yes Brett one and the same and.....I had to make a deal to get the great weather. Anyone not attending may be delt the turbulence that was to be ours!! LOL So be sure to fly someplace nice ie Cape May NJ Also there will be 100 LL fuel available at something under $6/gal. So ignore my prvious post. It was delivered over the weekend.

Just got a call from the Mooney Mega flyers Weather God. It has been declared to be perfect VFR flying weather for Sat May 12th. Also for those with kids or for those who are kids at heart. We have confirmed a II trailer with games for the youngsters or oldsters. There is a rumor that it might contain some aircraft sim typ games- just a rumor.

There was one listed in Sept in this thread. Did you try a PM? Alternatively if no one offers one up consider one of the salvage yards like http://www.wentworthaircraft.com/

Quote: GregF I mount it on the passenger yoke, on an angle so I can see it. I can't make anything else work.

Hi Folks With less than a week to go for the NE Mega Moooney Fly in sponsored by the NJ Mooney Group to benefit the Atlantic County NJ Toys For Kids program I thought an update would be due. We are planning a fun family event at Cape May County Airport in Cape May NJ. The flyer and detail are attached but in addition we will have a semina on the Ipad for Pilots presented by John Pallante MAPA

One other thought is the voltage regualtor although I am not sure that the J has one as it might be part of the alternator. If it was rining or heavy moisture Carausome make an excellent point with the belt. Either the belt of voltage regulator will give the same symtoms. To check the belt you might squirt some water into the prop with a hose while on the ground. That is how my mechanic found the issue on an E model I once owned. If it had not been raining go to the regulator or broken wire on the alternator.

Quote: jetdriven Where does the 5.8 LB/GAL figure come from? That is out of my POH under the sample loading problem for weight and balance. ie 5.82 lbs/gal. I have seen it else where including the Power Plant limitations **100 LL fuel is calculated at 5.82 lb/gl 100 Octane is calculated at 6 lb/gal. As Mooney Marketing became more aggresive with their range and payloads I think that is when the 5.82 gal/hr was used. Others can check their POH but I would think this started in the 90's It is in the Acclaim, Ovation and Eagle POH's. It is also on the MAC website.

Quote: jetdriven Where does the 5.8 LB/GAL figure come from?

Parker- Does 794 NM max range in your A/C make sense to you considering the OP req's for fuel reserves? If we take 1050 less 700 lbs of payload that gives a max fuel load of 350 lbs. My POH uses 5.82 lbs/gal but many use 6 lbs/gal. Therefore 350/5.82 ='s 60.1 gals max. fuel load less 9.1 gals (45 min reserve at 12.2 GPH) or 51 gals. useable plus reserves. Divide 51 gals by the fuel burn at altitude of 12.2 gph gives 4.18 hours endurance. At 190 knots that would seem to provide a no wind range of 794 NM. That range would be further reduced by the higher gph fuel burn in time to climb. That range still provides adequate fuel for the revised mission of one fuel stop.

Quote: Parker_Woodruff My Mooney M20K has about 1050 lbs useful, flies 190 knots at cannula pressure altitudes (FL180 and below). So my plane could easily do your mission (3 total people) with about 55 gallons onboard. If you're trying to do this with 4 people, I recommend a Cessna 206, Cessna 210, or Beech A36.

Quote: mrjones30 What type of Mooney's can do 1,000 nm with reserves left over, 3 passengers 200lbs each and a 100lb box (total carry weight 700 pounds). Thank you

You need to read the entire table. /I falls under the heading "Area Navigation (RNAV)". There is a good description of RNAV systems in the AIM 5-1-8 . /I is not just "VOR/DME", it is an approved RNAV system that uses VOR/DME to establish virtual VOR's or waypoints. Such a system is also referred to as rho/theta RNAV. It creates the "virtual VOR's" or waypoints by defining them in terms of a radial and distance from a VOR, and an approved system then allows the CDI to be used to fly a radial from that waypoint. Yes I stand corrected. Reviewing the AIM would indicate that the term VOR/DME is really only referring to a computer with vor/dme to make the cals like the kns 80

It would seem to me that the equipment designation of / I "Loran, VOR/DME or INS with transponder Mode C" makes a VOR/DME perfectly acceptable under this designation. Keep in mind the FAA still considers ground based equipment as "primary". It is not "VFR" equipment assuming the monthly accuracy checks have been made in order to operate within the ATC sustem. IFR/GPS enroute/approach equipment on the other can not be used as primary unless there is back up ground based equipment. This is due to the raim issues on some equipment like the KLN 94. There are some differances with the newer GPS units as I recall. In any event intersections are often identified with a distance and radial from a VOR so assuming you can get close enough to receive the signal should be able to navigate albeit less easily than with a KNS 80 or GPS. Note: The equipment list does not say loran "with" VOR/DME as it does with some of the other designators but rather "or". the statement also uses "with" to add the in this case the Mode C transponder.

Quote: jkenney So my question to the group is about a visual approach on an IFR flight plan. My understanding is that it is an "instrument approach procedure", which on an IFR flight plan should have meant that I had clearance into the Class B airspace, is that correct? Does the tower instruction to avoid the Class B now supercede my earlier approach clearance? Given that the instruction caused me to fly a more difficult approach profile should I have said I could not comply and flown into the Class B?

Quote: jetdriven Sinde we have dual VOR and DME does it qualify for /I under that?

Per the FAA, the "/I" equpment suffix means " LORAN, VOR/DME, or INS, transponder with Mode C" Since you are arguing the loran section I would agree with Dick above. However assuming that you have VOR/DME and could identify the downrange fixes when in range and you had VFR GPS in the remarks I would think that you are legal but not because you are substituting a VFR GPS for Loran but rather VOR/DME. To be safe I'd ask the controller for an iniial on course vector to the fix advising that it confirms your VFR GPS.

The circumstances you mention include a downside risk that the A/C is not as represented either intentionally or unintentionally. I think the reputation of the MSC makes the former unlikely & the latter is really the risk. That risk can be mitigated with a current annual including a review of the logs. You might consider having Bruce who is excellent review the logs for you to point out any possible issues he might have. Bruce runs the maintenance sessions for the Mooney Safety foundation & knows the A/C inside and out. That is in addition to his formidable pilot skills. The age of the A/C also plays into this. You did not say but if this is a previously damaged A/C or one that is high time or older there will be more to consider. I once bought an M20J from Weber A/C in Lancaster Pa. without a pre purchase elsewhere. It Had just 600 hrs on it and had been serviced exclusively by Weber. They did the annual as well as the following year's annual with no issues. With that said all the other A/C that I have purchased came from individuals and for me pre purchase inspections were mandatory. Lastly the money saved can be put toward unforseen squalks. ie bad battery, guage etc. that may occur shortly after purchase. In the end have the logs reviewed which is a modest cost and make your decision from there.

Quote: mooneygirl My thoughts are the Ovation, Bravo or Acclaim. Welcome to MooneySpace.

Caldwell NJ CDW to Paris France in an M20J at 12K ' in 1985 prior to GPS. Just an ADF and a prayer. Yesterday- Pensacola Fl to Atlantic City 900 NM +/- non stop. BTW Anyone on here own N231 BU? He departed just before me at PNS.

Well it's nice to see that we have such a humourous group. All scammers can now go away but we will laugh for at least today!! Write on..