IS MOONEY EXPERIENCE A MUST?

[midlifeflyer]

It seems like the conventional wisdom on this forum is that it's important to have mooney specific training to fly or work on mooneys. I hope I'm not over confident but I didn't get specific mooneys training after buying my m20k. I read the POH thoughly and read this forum and other places about gotcha items, (approaching runway at appropriate speed, ect). I have found the airplane to be very straight forward to fly. However, i did decide to find a experienced mooney mechanic to do the annual.

Questions:

How much training did you receive in your mooney? Do you take your plane to mooney certified center or just a good mechanic with mooney experience for maintance?

 

Now that the thread has gone enough pages for people to yell at each other with no purpose, my 2¢:

 

I think there's a definite value to a mechanic who is at least familiar with the type. That doesn't mean Mooney specialist, but one who at least has enough experience with multiple aircraft types to know that different make/models have quirks. Those are the guys who have a big picture view and very quickly learn what they need to to handle something, even if they've never seen it before.  Experience comes into play with how far they have to look.

 

On instruction, you might be surprised, but shouldn't, that the exact same issue comes up on the type-specific forums for every type. In fact, I'll answer this part with a copy and paste of something I said quite recently in a Bonanza forum:

 

As I started to fly more varied complex aircraft, I started to join type clubs and hang out in type-specific places like this. I learned two interesting things (among the huge wealth of information about the type):

1. The people who fly primarily the type think there is something about it that is so different from every other type out there that a CFI, even a good, experienced one, couldn't possibly handle it without specialized knowledge.

2. They are wrong. There are indeed specific quirks to certain aircraft, but the differences are really not that great.

 

Good mechanics are good mechanics and good instructors are good instructors. It's a attitude, a way of approaching things, more than anything else.

[donkaye]

Now that the thread has gone enough pages for people to yell at each other with no purpose, my 2¢:

 

I think there's a definite value to a mechanic who is at least familiar with the type. That doesn't mean Mooney specialist, but one who at least has enough experience with multiple aircraft types to know that different make/models have quirks. Those are the guys who have a big picture view and very quickly learn what they need to to handle something, even if they've never seen it before.  Experience comes into play with how far they have to look.

 

On instruction, you might be surprised, but shouldn't, that the exact same issue comes up on the type-specific forums for every type. In fact, I'll answer this part with a copy and paste of something I said quite recently in a Bonanza forum:

 

As I started to fly more varied complex aircraft, I started to join type clubs and hang out in type-specific places like this. I learned two interesting things (among the huge wealth of information about the type):

1. The people who fly primarily the type think there is something about it that is so different from every other type out there that a CFI, even a good, experienced one, couldn't possibly handle it without specialized knowledge.

2. They are wrong. There are indeed specific quirks to certain aircraft, but the differences are really not that great.

 

Good mechanics are good mechanics and good instructors are good instructors. It's a attitude, a way of approaching things, more than anything else.

 

 

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, especially when it comes to the Mooney.  Just ask Top Gun how many prop strikes they have had to repair.  Although I have my type rating in the CJ, it was quite awhile ago, so I wouldn't teach in it now even though I am qualified.  Same for the King Air and the single engine turboprops.  The Mooney is way more susceptible to prop strikes than the oleo strut airplanes.  And how much more trouble is it to find a Mooney specific instructor who knows how to deal with those issues?  When it comes to my safety, I want the best instruction possible from the most experienced person possible.  There are times to be a CB and times not to.

[carusoam]

Summary...

1) Some feel it's better to purchase training from a Mooney experience CFI, because it is available.

2) Others don't, based on their own experience.

3) The Mooney experience CFIIs come with a long list of satisfied MS customers.

4) Satisfied customers like to give public feedback.

5) Mooney specific training is often customer specific training.

6) People with Mooney specific training or years in Mooney type, can benefit from additional MAPA training.

7) at the time I purchased my first Mooney, I felt that I did not have money for the Mooney specific or MAPA training.

Other than time and Money, are there any downsides to this?

Did I leave anything out?

Best regards,

-a-

[Parker_Woodruff]

Summary...

1) Some feel it's better to purchase training from a Mooney experience CFI, because it is available.

2) Others don't, based on their own experience.

3) The Mooney experience CFIIs come with a long list of satisfied MS customers.

4) Satisfied customers like to give public feedback.

5) Mooney specific training is often customer specific training.

6) People with Mooney specific training or years in Mooney type, can benefit from additional MAPA training.

Other than time and Money, are there any downsides to this?

Did I leave anything out?

Best regards,

-a-

 

 

Maybe that at least there are some who will read the POH cover to cover before flying a more complex aircraft.

 

I can't recommend that as an alternative to type-specific training, but that attitude will keep seasoned pilots who have flown lots of different aircraft out of the little things that over-confident pilots will miss.

 

...such as what happens when the emergency gear latch isn't properly configured before takeoff.  Then they wonder why the gear won't retract.

 

...or those who just guess 80 knots on approach and feel their way to the ground as they bleed off speed while using up valuable runway on landing.

 

...or other important things such as safe demonstrated fuel quantities for departure, slips, etc.

 

 

The best choice is a thorough reading of the POH prior to training, the CFI going over the important differences to Mooneys in a ground briefing, then go fly.

 

The regs say I can go jump in a Beech 58 and fly off right this very second.  I would probably survive and fly ok.  I won't be doing that.  As a matter of fact, I wouldn't jump in any twin right now without a CFI.  I'm at month 5 since flying a twin.

[carusoam]

Some may think.. mentioning the challenges of a Mooney may be a form of heresy....

Do people transitioning with brand C, B or P not use aircraft specific training?

The older I got, the more training and risk reducing strategies I took on...

Could be just me,

[Parker_Woodruff]

Some may think.. mentioning the challenges of a Mooney may be a form of heresy....

Do people transitioning with brand C, B or P not use aircraft specific training?

The older I got, the more training and risk reducing strategies I took on...

Could be just me,

-a-

 

We don't fly some insanely difficult plane to fly.

 

We fly a plane that's just different.  And it has a couple extra challenges and less-than-forgiving characteristics that wouldn't pose a challenge in Cessna 172.

 

And it has some systems differences that would be nice to know before an appropriately rated pilot takes to the skies.

[Marauder]

Some may think.. mentioning the challenges of a Mooney may be a form of heresy....

Do people transitioning with brand C, B or P not use aircraft specific training?

The older I got, the more training and risk reducing strategies I took on...

Could be just me,

-a-

Anthony -- to answer your question about other brands and transitioning, I think it depends. I think "transition" training can range from how to land a plane through complete system familiarization. I remember renting a Cessna 172 for a BFR while my plane was on an extended annual. Although I have tons of hours in Cessnas, opening that cockpit door and seeing a G1000 took me a bit back a notch. The plane flew like any other Cessna, the systems however took me a bit to get comfortable with.

Even in my own Mooney, after 22 years of ownership, stepping up to a glass system took some transitioning time. Even after 3 years of glass ownership, I am still learning new tidbits on them.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[midlifeflyer]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, especially when it comes to the Mooney.  Just ask Top Gun how many prop strikes they have had to repair.  Although I have my type rating in the CJ, it was quite awhile ago, so I wouldn't teach in it now even though I am qualified.  Same for the King Air and the single engine turboprops.  The Mooney is way more susceptible to prop strikes than the oleo strut airplanes.  And how much more trouble is it to find a Mooney specific instructor who knows how to deal with those issues?  When it comes to my safety, I want the best instruction possible from the most experienced person possible.  There are times to be a CB and times not to.

 

That's OK. You are in good company. Just replace "Mooney" with just about any other airplane in the bolded portion (with the possible exception of the ubiquitous fixed pitch/fixed prop Cessna 172 and Piper PA28) and you'll find many folks who feel exactly as you do about their special type. OTOH, probably just as many would feel that one doesn't need a "Mooney-specific instructor" in order to learn that one lands on the mains and  doesn't force a nosewheel to the ground while an airplane is still flying. Personally, I've seen and heard about far more problems and damage landing a common Cessna 182 than a Mooney (ask a mechanic about how many times they've seen firewall damage in that type).

 

BTW, I placed "Mooney-specific instructor" in quotes since we might have differing definitions of what that is. I would want (and have had) an instructor who flies Mooneys and has some experience in the make/model, not someone who is seeing one for the first time. And I feel exactly the ame as you do about instructing in a type I have not flown in a long time or in which I have little enough experience that I would not feel I have enough ,as the FAA puts it,"instructional knowledge."  It's the emphasis on "specialists" I find a bit overblown. 

[MyNameIsNobody]

A vintage Mooney is NOT an Ovation...or a K Model, or a Rocket or an Eagle or a Missile. It is not turbo-charged (OEM) or high performance. All Mooney's are not created equel in complexity of systems or unusual to fly in comparison to an Arrow. That said, I would not be comfortable flying any other airplane other than my own without transitional instruction and sign-off that I was competent to safely fly the plane. I would not have friends and family fly with me until I was satisfied that I and the plane were competent to complete the Mission. I would not necessarily require an expert in the airframe, but that would be a plus FOR SURE. A requirement for safe learning and operation? No.

[donkaye]

Since I am very particular about how I recommend flying the pattern and landing an airplane in general (to keep it simple), I spend time refining most pilot's landing technique that is independent of the Mooney.  Many, not knowing their airplane very well, will always want to land with power in a nose high attitude where they can't see the runway, or in a level attitude that chews up a lot of runway.  I combine Mooney landing technique with eliminating faulty prior poor technique to become proficient with the Mooney.  It will generally take 20-25 landings to hone in the skill that I think is necessary to call yourself a Mooney pilot.  This includes normal, crosswind, no flap, short field, soft field, and most importantly practice with bounced landings, and go arounds.  Certainly this should be done in transition training with any airplane, but with the Mooney bounced landings and go arounds require more skill than in the simple Cessnas and Pipers in my opinion, having taught in all of them.

[mike20papa]

You actually practice bounced landings.. like on purpose bounced landings...sounds like Jim Younkin who learned to fly way back in the day.. his instructor made him land short of a barbed wire fence and bounce it over ..or else no sign off!!??

 

When you practice go'rounds or touch and goes.. do you allow the pilot to set the nose wheel down, or is it all done off the mains, only.  When x wind landing what do you tell your student to do just as the nose wheel is about to touch down?  

 

What about x-wind take off's?  I find those to be way more interesting than the landings!? 

 

I like flying to Kingsbury TX, turn downwind over the cattle pens, line up for the BIG tree on final - or not ? - then miss the mud hole on landing (middle of the runway) and taxi to the grass parking.  Glad to have one of  Al's surviving A models, 12lbs/ftsq wing loading and take off - well, it's just another word for show off.

[bradp]

I'll try not to invest too much effort to this thread as it has also devolved but here's my opinion.

Transition training is recommended. It's a check out. It's designed to get you safe. You can take this as a license to learn and finish with a certificate, bachelors, masters, or PhD in Mooney operation. You may decide that you need a Mooney-Yoda or you will be a self taught Jedi . Either way self assessment of your own capabilities and conditions, while establishing some practical limitations is paramount.

Do you need to fly 2000 miles to see Don to get proficient ? Maybe but not necessarily. For me it was a checkout with the instructor that instructed the previous owner. Flew for 5 hrs and then I felt comfortable in the plane. Comfortable enough to to embark on a cross country journey from Fresno to Boston including taking passengers after insurance said I could. I was also flying a lot and instrument proficient in an Arrow at the time. The transition training was straightforward. Was this a good idea? Absolutely but it involved risk management decisions and consistent self assessment. Why? Because I value my own behind and that of my wife, family, etc.

Honestly the Mooney has quirks and deserves the same respect as any other new or unfamiliar aircraft. No more and no less. Learn to fly it safely in whatever way you define safely. Just be responsible about it.

Also there seems to be an over emphasis on landing technique in the mooney where the transition training conversation should also focus on things that will actually get you killed like not knowing how to perform emergency procedures including gear down, "power off" performance characteristics, and especially avoidance of spins. I believe it was the base to final spin accident rate that drove Cirrus-specific training by comparison.

Brad

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ryoder]

On the Corvette forum we call it the Corvette tax. Everything for a Corvette costs more. Sometimes I feel like there is a Mooney tax. I hate taxes.

[N201MKTurbo]

FWIW,

 

When I picked up my first Mooney, I was flying for work every day. I could have looked for an instructor who had Mooney experience, but I didn't know any. The broker who I bought the plane from told me I flew it better then he did (he was a CFI) he didn't think I needed any more instruction. Neither did my Insurance company. They said with all my recent retract experience I was good to go. Besides I was a broke 26 YO. Heck, I just bought a plane I barely had enough money left to buy food! Shows you where my priorities were.. Mooney or food? 

 

I actually flew with CFI's a lot right after I got the Mooney, but it was instrument training. Not really any Mooney stuff, besides I knew more about the Mooney then they did.

[donkaye]

I'll try not to invest too much effort to this thread as it has also devolved but here's my opinion.

Transition training is recommended. It's a check out. It's designed to get you safe. You can take this as a license to learn and finish with a certificate, bachelors, masters, or PhD in Mooney operation. You may decide that you need a Mooney-Yoda or you will be a self taught Jedi . Either way self assessment of your own capabilities and conditions, while establishing some practical limitations is paramount.

Do you need to fly 2000 miles to see Don to get proficient ? Maybe but not necessarily. For me it was a checkout with the instructor that instructed the previous owner. Flew for 5 hrs and then I felt comfortable in the plane. Comfortable enough to to embark on a cross country journey from Fresno to Boston including taking passengers after insurance said I could. I was also flying a lot and instrument proficient in an Arrow at the time. The transition training was straightforward. Was this a good idea? Absolutely but it involved risk management decisions and consistent self assessment. Why? Because I value my own behind and that of my wife, family, etc.

Honestly the Mooney has quirks and deserves the same respect as any other new or unfamiliar aircraft. No more and no less. Learn to fly it safely in whatever way you define safely. Just be responsible about it.

Also there seems to be an over emphasis on landing technique in the mooney where the transition training conversation should also focus on things that will actually get you killed like not knowing how to perform emergency procedures including gear down, "power off" performance characteristics, and especially avoidance of spins. I believe it was the base to final spin accident rate that drove Cirrus-specific training by comparison.

Brad

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Nice writeup.

 

I think emergency gear extension should be done on the ground during your annual.  I used to do them until at one PPP, the plastic covering on the emergency gear extension wire of my student's 231 unknowingly frayed and jammed the gear mechanism.  I tried everything to unjam it with no success.  The gear was in the half down position and although there were Mooney mechanic gurus there no one had any good suggestions that worked so I thought it was going to be a gear up landing at Palm Springs.  As a last resort we put back the emergency gear extension lever and tried the gear with its motor.  It worked and the gear came down.  The plane was finished for the PPP, but at least there was no incident.

 

I do simulated engine failures during training at unexpected times and do expect the student to successfully land the plane on the runway.

 

I have had a 231 unexpectedly spin out of a cross controlled stall when practicing them with students many years ago.  I have written about that on my website.  I haven't done, won't do, and don't recommend practicing cross controlled stalls in a Mooney.

 

Nobody has to come out here to train with me.  There are a number of good Mooney instructors around the country.  Check the Mooney Flyer for one near you.

[DXB]

You actually practice bounced landings.. like on purpose bounced landings...sounds like Jim Younkin who learned to fly way back in the day.. his instructor made him land short of a barbed wire fence and bounce it over ..or else no sign off!!??

 

I've gotten pretty decent "practice" on bounced landings without trying to necessarily...

[donkaye]

I've gotten pretty decent "practice" on bounced landings without trying to necessarily...

 

Yes, I do bounced landing practice by deliberately bouncing the plane and having the student recover.  I do not do it from the slow side, as that is not easily controllable; only from the fast side where most of the bounced landing problems occur.  The recovery procedures are well pre-briefed.

[midlifeflyer]

Yes, I do bounced landing practice by deliberately bouncing the plane and having the student recover.  I do not do it from the slow side, as that is not easily controllable; only from the fast side where most of the bounced landing problems occur.  The recovery procedures are well pre-briefed.

 

I agree with Don. Although bounced landings seem to be a matter of course for student pilots, and often enough for transitioning pilots, if one does not occur during dual, it's going to be a good idea to "simulate" it. And to do it from the "fast side," where the bounce tends to beoff the mains and the airplane still wants to fly due to excess airspeed, than from the "slow side" where there is greater danger of, for example, a stall and the nose dropping in.

[whiskytango]

You are absolutely correct. My non-Mooney trained CFI who did my Mooney "transition training" taught me everything NOT to do in a Mooney. In fact, during our stall series, I got to see what a stall done poorly and the subsequent spin looks like from tree level after we leveled out.

I'm fortunate in that I have a close friend who is a 4000+ hour Mooney owner with a CFII. I fly with him several times a year including IPCs that I do every 6 months. It is amazing how many bad habits you can pick up.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

My non-Mooney CFI gave me bad advice during transition training in my K model.  He was clearly afraid of letting airspeed on final into flare get too low (under 80 knots).  As a result I was floating in ground effect along most of the length of the runway.   My mistake was believing what the CFI was saying and not believing the POH.  Using the 1.2 Vso speed worked fine, and it is lower than 80 Kts!

[Yetti]

I like to refer to them as skipped landings....   I always wonder if I get to count them twice in the log book.