Low time pilot - intimidated by Mooney

[PT20J]

The FAA knows the difference between a legitimate go around and a buzz job. This has come up before when pilots try to use the “except when necessary for takeoff or landing” clause in 91.119 to justify flying below minimum safe altitude. It’s the word “necessary “ that trips them up.

Skip

[Utah20Gflyer]

37 minutes ago, PT20J said:

The FAA knows the difference between a legitimate go around and a buzz job. This has come up before when pilots try to use the “except when necessary for takeoff or landing” clause in 91.119 to justify flying below minimum safe altitude. It’s the word “necessary “ that trips them up.

Skip

Trent talked with the property owner and received permission to land there, subsequently he decided it wasn’t somewhere he could land safely using the techniques outlined in the the FAA document on conducting off airport landings.   The FAA position is incoherent and creates bad case law.   Other potential issues with the ruling..

can’t land at an airport without a centerline marked on the runway

cant land at an airport without runway lights

cant land at an airport without a wind sock

These are the criteria the judge used to determine the landing sight wasn’t appropriate.  Unfortunately this removes many publicly owned and FAA approved airports as acceptable landing sights.    The FAA wanted to convict so badly that they threw logic out the window and created some very bad precedent.  
 

Will they use this precedent against me this weekend if I do a go around? I doubt it but they could convict anyone of anything if they can make up new rules after the fact to get the result they want.   
 

Not a lawyer, just a guy who hates government incompetence 

 

 

[PT20J]

Not arguing the merits of this case - I’m just responding to the concept that somehow this makes go arounds illegal. 

[T. Peterson]

1 hour ago, Utah20Gflyer said:

Trent talked with the property owner and received permission to land there, subsequently he decided it wasn’t somewhere he could land safely using the techniques outlined in the the FAA document on conducting off airport landings.   The FAA position is incoherent and creates bad case law.   Other potential issues with the ruling..

can’t land at an airport without a centerline marked on the runway

cant land at an airport without runway lights

cant land at an airport without a wind sock

These are the criteria the judge used to determine the landing sight wasn’t appropriate.  Unfortunately this removes many publicly owned and FAA approved airports as acceptable landing sights.    The FAA wanted to convict so badly that they threw logic out the window and created some very bad precedent.  
 

Will they use this precedent against me this weekend if I do a go around? I doubt it but they could convict anyone of anything if they can make up new rules after the fact to get the result they want.   
 

Not a lawyer, just a guy who hates government incompetence 

 

 

If we have learned anything from observing the government in the last 6 years it is that they can and will punish anyone they don’t like and justify and exonerate anyone they do like. Actual criminal behavior and actual innocence is becoming more and more irrelevant as our so called justice system disintegrates. 

How is this relevant to us? If you are determined enough or wealthy enough to own and operate a personal airplane you are in a class of people that is increasingly loathed. It matters not how hard you worked or how much you sacrificed you will be pilloried as privileged and undeserving. 

If you don’t see this, you are simply not paying attention.

Torrey

[Fly Boomer]

10 minutes ago, T. Peterson said:

Actual criminal behavior and actual innocence is becoming more and more irrelevant as our so called justice system disintegrates. 

Determining guilt or innocence has never been an objective.  Objective of the prosecution is punishment; objective of the defense is exoneration.  The balance is tipped by money and power (those may be the same).

[T. Peterson]

13 minutes ago, Fly Boomer said:

Determining guilt or innocence has never been an objective.  Objective of the prosecution is punishment; objective of the defense is exoneration.  The balance is tipped by money and power (those may be the same).

I disagree with your first sentence while agreeing with the rest. The prosecution and defense are certainly biased as you point out, but hopefully the jury is not, and that after hearing both sides they come to a “just” decision. If that has never been the objective then both the Constitution and the notion of justice is meaningless.

[Fly Boomer]

11 minutes ago, T. Peterson said:

notion of justice is meaningless

Not meaningless if you are wealthy enough.

[toto]

4 hours ago, Utah20Gflyer said:

Im referring to the Trent Palmer case and some very concerning case law being created.   

It's important to note that this was an administrative proceeding before an ALJ.

[rbp]

5 minutes ago, toto said:

It's important to note that this was an administrative proceeding before an ALJ.

If you’ve read this thread over the past week you’ll know  that facts are  not really important, only opinions 

[T. Peterson]

4 hours ago, Fly Boomer said:

Not meaningless if you are wealthy enough.

 

4 hours ago, Fly Boomer said:

Not meaningless if you are wealthy enough.

If you can buy justice, it is not justice, merely avarice. Yes, I agree, money and power are destroying real justice across a huge spectrum of our nation.

[1980Mooney]

On 5/4/2022 at 2:32 PM, Utah20Gflyer said:

Trent talked with the property owner and received permission to land there, subsequently he decided it wasn’t somewhere he could land safely using the techniques outlined in the the FAA document on conducting off airport landings.   The FAA position is incoherent and creates bad case law.   Other potential issues with the ruling..

can’t land at an airport without a centerline marked on the runway

cant land at an airport without runway lights

cant land at an airport without a wind sock

These are the criteria the judge used to determine the landing sight wasn’t appropriate.  Unfortunately this removes many publicly owned and FAA approved airports as acceptable landing sights.    The FAA wanted to convict so badly that they threw logic out the window and created some very bad precedent.  
 

Will they use this precedent against me this weekend if I do a go around? I doubt it but they could convict anyone of anything if they can make up new rules after the fact to get the result they want.   
 

Not a lawyer, just a guy who hates government incompetence 

 

 

First and foremost a "property owner" in the Washoe County can't give permission for anyone to land an airplane on their property without first having an approved "Personal Landing Field" (Sect. 110.306.45 Washoe County Development Code).  Among other things it imposes a 300 ft. limit from any structure, 65 db sound limit and the owner of the property must have a $1,000,000 general liability policy on the landing field., approval by the County Engineer, etc.  Obviously the owner at 300 Desert Sun Ln. , Reno NV did not possess any of those requirements.  The "landing strip" was a makeshift dirt racetrack with berms. Palmer eventually admitted that he didn't land because even he thought the berms to be too dangerous.

Let's remember that it was a local resident in the County, a neighbor, that complained about this clearly illegal behavior at the County level.  The only incompetence here is listening to Palmer or his attorney ignore the obvious egregious facts of his illegal activity while picking at irrelevant side issues as justification or listening to people trying to conflate this into only some Federal overreach conspiracy. 

The County creates laws to protect the majority general population from the actions of those that they believe are endangering others or behavior that is deemed unacceptable to the majority population.  At every level, Cities, Counties, States and the Federal Government create laws to protect the well being of the majority general population. General Aviation Pilots are a tiny, tiny minority.  We have no special rights and we will lose every time if we pick a fight with the local population, city, county, state or Federal officials.  We need to go out of our way to build goodwill with the community.   If we, as GA Pilots, choose to act like arrogant cowboys (Palmer) then we should not be surprised to see communities banning night flight,  banning 100 LL fuel sales, creating tough noise ordinances and just closing down airports in general.

And the Palmer case has nothing to do with Touch and Goes.

Landing or Buzzing? Know CFR 91.119 - Aviation Ideas and Discussion! (safeblog.org)

Edited May 5, 2022 by 1980Mooney

[skydvrboy]

43 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

First and foremost a "property owner" in the Washoe County can't give permission for anyone to land an airplane on their property without first having an approved "Personal Landing Field" (Sect. 110.306.45 Washoe County Development Code).  Among other things it imposes a 300 ft. limit from any structure, 65 db sound limit and the owner of the property must have a $1,000,000 general liability policy on the landing field., approval by the County Engineer, etc.  Obviously the owner at 300 Desert Sun Ln. , Reno NV did not possess any of those requirements.  The "landing strip" was a makeshift dirt racetrack with berms. Palmer eventually admitted that he didn't land because even he thought the berms to be too dangerous.

Let's remember that it was a local resident in the County, a neighbor, that complained about this clearly illegal behavior at the County level.  The only incompetence here is listening to Palmer or his attorney ignore the obvious egregious facts of his illegal activity while picking at irrelevant side issues as justification or listening to people trying to conflate this into only some Federal overreach conspiracy. 

The County creates laws to protect the majority general population from the actions of those that they believe are endangering others or behavior that is deemed unacceptable to the majority population.  At every level, Cities, Counties, States and the Federal Government create laws to protect the well being of the majority general population. General Aviation Pilots are a tiny, tiny minority.  We have no special rights and we will lose every time if we pick a fight with the local population, city, county, state or Federal officials.  We need to go out of our way to build goodwill with the community.   If we, as GA Pilots, choose to act like arrogant cowboys (Palmer) then we should not be surprised to see communities banning night flight,  banning 100 LL fuel sales, creating tough noise ordinances and just closing down airports in general.

And the Palmer case has nothing to do with Touch and Goes.

Landing or Buzzing? Know CFR 91.119 - Aviation Ideas and Discussion! (safeblog.org)

Interesting take on the case.  However, the FAA can not enforce county law and the county has no authority over the airspace.  Only the property owner could violate the county zoning ordinance, not the pilot.  While the county zoning laws may shed some light on WHY the ALJ wishes to take enforcement action, the ALJ is still bound by the FAR's.

It seems clear he was intent on landing there and the burden is on the FAA to prove he didn't intend on landing.  As long as he intended to land, FAR 91.119 doesn't apply, regardless of any zoning law violations that the property owner may have committed.

[Shadrach]

On 10/26/2021 at 9:32 PM, Jsno said:

I am 60 and a low time pilot.  I just bought an M20F.  I flew it back cross country with an instructor from where I bought it.  It totaled 15 hrs flight time and ten take offs and landings.  That is what my insurance wanted.  All the rest of my time has been in Cessnas.  The difference is a constant speed prop, fuel injection landing gear, flaps on take off and a low wing.  The Mooney also needs to stay a little faster in the pattern.  After the time with the instructor I feel very comfortable.

Just follow the checklist.  I check it on down leg, base and again on final.  It lands close to the same speed as a Skyhawk.  If you come in 5 to 10  fast, it will float.  And unlike a Cessna, on landing be sure to have in your mind to go around if you bounce.  The second bounce will be a prop strike.

When me and my instructor landed in Amarillo, the crosswinds were 30 and gusting.   Would not have been able to do that in my Cessna.

Just have a good instructor and rehearse the procedure in your head before take off and landing and you will be fine.

In the pattern, my local flight school flies their 172s a bit faster than I fly my F Model.

Edited May 5, 2022 by Shadrach

[40_Year_Dream]

Wow - major thread drift.

Personally, my Mooney training and checkout will be delayed, as the club Mooney is going down for an engine overhaul. The oil filter check at the recent annual was bad: apparently lots of metal. Hopefully back in the air sometime in August?

[40_Year_Dream]

The J is finally back flying, as of yesterday (12/12). It now has a rebuilt engine, and a Garmin 430. Looking forward to flying it again.

[1980Mooney]

On 5/4/2022 at 12:09 PM, Utah20Gflyer said:

I prefer to land with half flaps because in the case of a go around Or touch and go I am in a better position than if I have full flaps.  Keep in mind I have hydraulic flaps which complicates going from full to take off flaps.  I often do no flap, half flap and full flap landings - good to keep your options open for any potential situation.  
 

I wonder if individuals who always do full flap landings have more accidents when performing go arounds? Fortunately the FAA has fixed this issue by making go arounds illegal.  

The FAA has not made go arounds illegal.  Fake news.....

[Utah20Gflyer]

46 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

The FAA has not made go arounds illegal.  Fake news.....

But they could if they chose to based on the case law established, and that's the point.  The FAA wanted a conviction so badly they didn't care about what they had to do to get it.   

[MBDiagMan]

I was a low time, 68 year old pilot when I started a similar thread here.  There were several less than 100 hour pilots on this forum that were flying Mooney’s who offered encouragement.  Almost six years later I am a confident Mooney pilot.  I was flying it with one full day of instruction from a Mooney transition instructor.

Just find a Mooney savvy instructor and go do it.  There is absolutely nothing to be afraid of.  At the time I bought my first Mooney, a C almost all of my time had been in very small taildraggers.  The Mooney is easier to fly in most all categories.

Enjoy.

[Schllc]

Lots of good guidance here. 
I went from about 35 hours in 172’s to an ovation and finished my ppl and instrument in the Mooney. 
“Easy” is a very subjective term. With little experience anything new can seem hard. 
8 years and 1000+ hours in 20+ different airplanes, the Mooney is the easiest of them all to fly. Perhaps not as forgiving as a 172, but absolutely more responsive, intuitive and easier to be precise. 
A Mooney shouldn’t be intimidating but it should, like any airplane, be respected.

Get good training, set good personal minimums, know the limitations and that fear will rapidly turn to true affection and confidence.  
The Mooney is like a sports car, when your hands and feet are on the controls, it does what your thinking as your thinking it, it really is an awesome machine.