Mooneymite

It sounds as if your problem is in the lock portion, not the contact portion of the switch. From your description, I'm not sure. The Bendix rebuild kit won't fix the lock part....take it to a local locksmith. The Bendix kit fixes switches that stay "hot" with the switch in OFF, or have contact issues. Refer to the AD on the switch.

Bendix has a rebuild kit that is a fraction of the cost to replace. Takes about an hour to remove the switch, install the new parts and re-install the switch.

Are you talking about an ignition switch? L/R/BOTH/START, or something else?

Over the years I've heard of many techniques to close doors/hatches in flight. I'm not a fan of any of them. If something opens in flight, I suggest you live with it, land and correct it on the ground. When my Mooney door popped open, the only things that changed were the noise level and my wife's blood pressure. There have been many more accidents caused by the distraction than from any peril caused by the open door/hatch. Stay focused on flying the (otherwise) perfectly good airplane. Oh, and hang on to your charts!

So, if it crashed in the water, you agree there might be no ELT signal?

B-777's have ELT's that work in the water?

Gear down.....everything else is a detail.

I don't think there is anything new going on here. If this case is BS, it's been going on for a long time. This is just a function of certification. The government "certifies" a design through its TC. To stay "certified" everything must be done according to the way the manufacturer and the gubmint says it has to be done. The up-side, is the owner has some assurance of airworthiness, the down-side is that there is very little lee-way in compliance. Yes! There are thousands of examples of flying planes that no longer comply with their TC. They are not technically "airworthy", even though they may be perfectly safe. In this thread, we seem to be objecting to the FAA enforcing the present rules, but the case is open and shut. If the FAA determines that an aircraft is not in compliance with its TC, it is not airworthy. Prove that it is in compliance and the FAA will pronounce it "airworthy". I suspect that most airplanes more than 10 years old are no longer completely in compliance with their TC. I further suspect that on any given day, any FAA maintenance inspector could ground any airplane for "something" that is non-compliant. Happily, the FAA does not do this, but it does spot check and writes up obvious violations as a warning to the rest of us. The solution to all of this is to move to the experimental world, where there is no FAA assurance that an aircraft is airworthy and what the builder considers "safe" is all that matters.

Because the wrinkle is not in the TC.

And I don't think any satient human would! The crux of the problem is that "airworthiness" is not a matter of feeling, or knowing. Anyone who has dealt with Minimum Equipment lists and Configuration Deviation lists, knows that airworthiness is what "the book" says it is! In the certified world, unlike the experimental world, once we step away from the TC, we are un-airworthy. I've seen multi-million dollar jets grounded for a single rivet.

Just happened to see this on Barnstormers.com. I'm not sure what the difference is between the C and the E selector valve is, but it looks as though this guy may also rebuild since he wants an exchange. Anyone dealt with this guy??? MOONEY FUEL VALVE • AVAILABLE FOR EXCHANGE • Mooney fuel valve/gascolator , he-771 , fits m20e and f models , • ContactTrevor S. Smith, Owner - located Bracebridge, ON Canada • Telephone: 210-379-1567 . 210-379-1567 • Posted March 4, 2014 • Show all Ads posted by this Advertiser • Recommend This Ad to a Friend • Email Advertiser • Save to Watchlist • Report This Ad

Hector, I'm curious why you show landing light and pitot heat as "intermittent" on your spread sheet since there are certain conditions/phases of flight where they are continuous. There might be some logic in showing that landing light and pitot heat might not be required at the same time. To me, an intermittent load would be something like an electrical gear extension, or a radio transmission.

Yippee! Welcome to Mooney ownership. We're always happy to have a new owner on board. Wow! Is that an HSI, I see in that panel shot?

Beware! Buying a Mooney is buying into a cult. Mooneyspace.com is the temple of worship. I don't think anyone ever fully recovers.

I saw a leading edge dent removed by fluxtronics. Magical. Pulled the dent right out. How can a magnetic process work on aluminum? But it does. Mostly they do high dollar jet repairs, but they can also do little spam cans too.

I love stories with happy endings!

Arguing with the FAA is like arguing with a wife. Even when you win, you lose. Have a friendly discussion, comply, and go fly. Be happy.

If you can find them at $50/each, jump on them! http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/eppages/temptestplugs12.php?clickkey=38248

The last 30-40 hours, I've been dealing with a plug that kept fouling. Each time I did a mag check, one of the plugs on the left mag was causing an excessive drop and roughness. A high power burn always cleared it, but then after takeoff, a "little roughness" would set in again. Hard leaning, then enricheing would smooth things out, but it was getting to be a nuisance. I only had about 400 hours on the plugs. I tried inspecting, cleaning, gap-checking, etc. Each time, just a waste of time. No long-term improvement. It was one of the four plugs, but which one? So.....I bit the bullet, went down to Aircraft Spruce and bought eight Tempest fine-wires. Magic! All is well again. And I can lean further before the roughness begins. (O-360). When I removed the Champions, I looked a little closer. And look what I found! I'd been paying all my attention to the "business end" of the plugs, but should have been looking at the other end! The burn mark inside says I'd had a spark jumping where it wasn't supposed to be. I didn't enjoy buying those fine-wires, but the improved operation is making me feel better about it.

I would start out with a friendly phone call asking what the inspector has a question about. It is possibly something very simple such as an aileron that has a trailing edge wrinkle. You could just fax the page where it was inspected and possibly be done with the entire event. In any case, start the process out on friendly terms. In my limited dealings with FAA personel, they've actually been pretty reasonable, but they do have a job to do. Just remember, most of the inspectors don't like paperwork any more than you do.

The IA hates signing off work done by hangar faries.....none of them are A&P's.

I don't know if this works on all models, but each annual, I (er, I mean the AI) drain(s) a bit of brake fluid out of the caliphers. Usually the first little bit is dark and thick. Then just top off the reservoir.

I've never had worms in my fuel bladders. (Sorry. I just can't resist restarting old arguments.) :-)

Fact 1: Boeing wants to sell more B-777's. An aircraft defect that causes a crash is not good for business. Fact 2: Air Malaysia wants to sell more tickets. Shoddy maintenance/operational control is bad for business. Fact 3: The pilots cannot presently defend themselves. Solution: Throw "rennegade pilot" under the bus. Continue to sell airplanes and tickets!

There are many radars besides land-based radars. However, much of what is detected can't be revealed because the detection capability can't be divulged. (OTH-backscatter) I suspect the whereabouts of this aircraft is known, but can't be immediately told. Perhaps there will be a "discovery" soon, but we won't be told the true source.