Update for Mooney WAAS, ADS-B Upgrades for Stec equipped planes

[KSMooniac]

There is similar growing anger in the beech world from G36 and G58 owners. It seems Textron is also not doing anything to help them get WAAS nav and full ADS-B integration. I wish Garmin would develop their own STC to supercede the OEM certs and offer a reasonable solution for all.

I'm still glad I don't have a G1000 plane and don't ever expect to buy one. I'm ashamed for Mooney.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk

[tony]

I'm sorry for the G1000 equipped owners.  They are orphaned in Garmin land.  I am aggravated with the non-support Mooney provides their existing owner/operators.  If it was for LASAR, I would have no support at for my old F model.  We all should try and give LASAR our business when we can to make sure they stay around a while. 

[ArtVandelay]

In Mooneys defense:

They still have 3 years till ADSB is required .

This is somewhat out of their control, more in Garmin 's.

With new boxes being introduced they may get relief without having to do anything.

All in 1 solution was probably not a good idea for GA plane, heck even most the commercial planes aren't up to code.

I bet if I call a car company about upgrading your 2008 car with some new technology they would laugh at you, let alone asking about parts for a 1960s car. And with cars you are talking millions, with planes, a couple of thousand, it's no wonder they are expensive.

[Danb]

Mooney has no defense, when I purchased my Bravo in 2006 Adsb was not an issue, I was told by the company that waas would be upgradeable, now ten years later they have done nothing. Most of the GX owners have not had there plane for 10+ years therefore have not been trying for over a decade to get resolution. How much patience does the company expect us to have I mean 10 years and counting. If someone doesn't flex some muscle thre is no reason for them to give us a safe up to date plane to fly, we can't do any upgrades we got lucky with Garmin including us on the stc for the Adsb upgrade, Mooney did nothing.

[Bob_Belville]

Question: Perhaps asked and answered above... 

I am not a lawyer and I have not checked the details of the transaction by which Jerry Chen and his investors created Mooney International and "acquired" assets. It is very possible the present company did not acquire the legal liability from the previous corporate entities. Did they buy the outstanding stock or just defined assets?

IOW, for those considering legal action, have you verified that MI, the current corporation, is liable?

[Danb]

Unfortunately Bob I agree

[buddy]

I have a 2005 M20R with G1000 STEC 55x with serial # 29-0342. My airplane was actually built in Dec. 2004 but since it came with the G1000 it is called a 2005. So there may be a few more M20R's with G1000's than you think. So am I to understand that Mooney had nothing to say at OSH.

[Danb]

7 minutes ago, buddy said:

I have a 2005 M20R with G1000 STEC 55x with serial # 29-0342. My airplane was actually built in Dec. 2004 but since it came with the G1000 it is called a 2005. So there may be a few more M20R's with G1000's than you think. So am I to understand that Mooney had nothing to say at OSH.

Buddy mine was also built in 2004, the FAA has it as a 2004, I had the Mooney Company stamp my log book stating it was a 2005, although that makes no difference I'm sure. Since they marketed it as a 2005 I wanted it in the logs.

[donkaye]

11 hours ago, Txbyker said:

I think only the old Mooney Service Center was the only entity legal to rip out the STEC and replace with a GFC700.  Does anyone know if the Ultra has FAA approval yet?  I would bet they don't care about much else till that happens.  Without it, not much of a future.  Not defending their silence just trying to understand what they may be thinking.  

Russ

As of Oshkosh last week, the Ultras have NOT been FAA approved.

[Bob5151F]

I was told when I bought my STEC equipped 2006 Ovation (new from the factory), that it was WAAS upgradable. that was 10 years ago.

I agree the legal road has a lot of potholes. I'm thinking of taking out some ads (MAPA Log, Flying, AOPA Pilot)to advertise our plight. They might just do something to shut us up and avoid the negative publicity that would impact future sales.

Anyone have an opinion about that?

[Bob5151F]

Here is the ad I would run:

ATTENTION OWNERS OF 2005-2007 MOONEY OVATIONS & BRAVOS WITH STEC AUTOPILOTS

 

As all of you know, despite promises by Mooney that our aircraft were upgradable to incorporate WAAS when we purchased our aircraft, Mooney has left us stranded.

For nearly 10 years now, we have tried to get Mooney to deliver on the promise, to no avail. It is clear from their ever changing responses, that there is a lack of commitment to solving this safety of flight issue for over 100 aircraft.

Despite having owned two Mooney’s over the past 26 years, this lack of attention makes me reluctant to purchase a Mooney again.

If you would be interested in forming a group to explore ways to push Mooney to do the right thing by us, please contact me at:

robert.e.fishman@gmail.com

[Danb]

Bob we went to the same dance in 2006, they were quite deceptive how they stated the waas upgradeable status 

[buddy]

Again does Mooney ever read Mooneyspace and reply?  It would be nice to hear from them since the last word I got was it would be ready by the 2nd quarter of 2016.

[ArtVandelay]

Why is this a Mooneys only problem? Were there no other planes built with G1000/STEC combo? Why is this not a Garmin issue?

[jetdriven]

Becuase the aircraft is type certified with the Garmin g1000 from the manufacturer, not from Garmin.   So its basically an OEM thing.  

[Bob5151F]

I have talked to Garmin. It's a Mooney issue because of the type certificate.

The write up on the website has said that since 2015. It says second quarter not 2Q 2016. The question is second quarter of what year -2030?

[Bob_Belville]

It is not at all clear to me that the current owners and managers of Mooney International are responsible for the predicament some of you are in.

If the company had completely liquidated - which was a very real possibility - all Mooney owners would have suffered some harm and had no recourse. ISTM the change in Mooney's ownership and the subsequent return to production, albeit at a very low rate of 18 units per year, has and will continue to benefit us all. It is also clear to me that it is in my selfish interest to promote Mooney and Mooneys in any way I can. 

[Bob5151F]

Bob, with respect, they have been saying for years they are working on it and their website says "we haven't forgotten about you". The are admitting responsibility by that statement. The current owners own the type certificate. Only they can authorize a fix. I think that using a legal dodge to evade responsibility is one of the things that is wrong with our society. At the very least, they have a moral obligation to us and it's not like we are asking to get something for free. We all know this will cost us and are prepared to pay.

I love my Mooney (this is my second one) and have nearly 3000 hours in them. But this is a safety issue and they need to step up.

[OR75]

3 minutes ago, Bob5151F said:

Bob, with respect, they have been saying for years they are working on it and their website says "we haven't forgotten about you". The are admitting responsibility by that statement. The current owners own the type certificate. Only they can authorize a fix. I think that using a legal dodge to evade responsibility is one of the things that is wrong with our society. At the very least, they have a moral obligation to us and it's not like we are asking to get something for free. We all know this will cost us and are prepared to pay.

I love my Mooney (this is my second one) and have nearly 3000 hours in them. But this is a safety issue and they need to step up.

 

Not sure I understand why it is a safety issue

 

[Bob_Belville]

1 minute ago, Bob5151F said:

Bob, with respect, they have been saying for years they are working on it and their website says "we haven't forgotten about you". The are admitting responsibility by that statement. The current owners own the type certificate. Only they can authorize a fix. I think that using a legal dodge to evade responsibility is one of the things that is wrong with our society. At the very least, they have a moral obligation to us and it's not like we are asking to get something for free. We all know this will cost us and are prepared to pay.

I love my Mooney (this is my second one) and have nearly 3000 hours in them. But this is a safety issue and they need to step up.

Bob, pronouns require antecedents. Who is "they"?  

[Bob5151F]

It is a safety issue because WAAS allows precision approaches with lower minimums. Having flown a lot of IFR and living in the Pacific NW, there are a lot of airports where having lower minimums would allow more options especially in case of a problem.

[Bob5151F]

Bob

They is the people at Mooney. I have had numerous emails with them (mostly the same people) before and after the new ownership structure.  No one at Mooney is try to dodge their obligation to solve this. They just won't get it done.

[Robert C.]

6 minutes ago, Bob_Belville said:

Bob, pronouns require antecedents. Who is "they"?  

Hmm...Stacey Ellis....1st post, 1st page of this thread.

David K. Has had conversations with Tom Bowen and others that at one point or another translated into..."don't worry it'll happen."

[Bob5151F]

If any of you would like to be part of an action group to push Mooney, please contact me at: robert.e.fishman@gmail.com

Some of you already have and I'm compiling a list.

Thanks

[Bob5151F]

They includes:

Stacey Ellis, Paul Kehner, Frank Crawford, Betsy Strosser