Emergency Procedures

[Hank]

@Barneyw I wouldn't put a lot of faith in procedures on your SureCheck cards, except for the ones you have compared against the Owners Manual for your plane and confirmed that they are the same.

For emergency procedures on the SureCheck that aren't in your Owners Manual (Section V, Emergency Procedures, in the Manual for my C is two pages long), I would take with a large dose of salt. Remember, the only part of our Owners Manuals that required FAA Approval is the Emergency section. I'm willing to bet that nothing from SureCheck is approved by the FAA . . . .

The Mooney Safety Foundation is the first place that I'd check. No, they don't go to Australia very often, but I know they have in the past. And you can work with your local CFI / CFII and come up with some that make sense and work for you and your Mooney; there are some good suggestions in this thread, and some silly "don't forget these steps" that can make a big difference (like opening the door before a forced landing).

Good luck, best wishes, and let us know what you find!

[PT20J]

Back in the '50s and '60s the manuals were pretty skimpy on procedures. The manufactures assumed that pilots possessed some level of airmanship and knew what to do if the engine quit. The POH standard didn't come out until the General Aviation Manufacturers Association invented the format in the mid-70s. Airplanes produced after that had more info.

Nowadays, the failures I'm most worried about are not related to the engine or landing gear or other simple systems -it's the complex glass panel avionics that are interconnected in mysterious ways. Quick: Your G3X annunciates ATT MISCOMPARE. What do you do? I keep thinking I need to create a QRH for my avionics suite.

  

[Ragsf15e]

26 minutes ago, PT20J said:

Back in the '50s and '60s the manuals were pretty skimpy on procedures. The manufactures assumed that pilots possessed some level of airmanship and knew what to do if the engine quit. The POH standard didn't come out until the General Aviation Manufacturers Association invented the format in the mid-70s. Airplanes produced after that had more info.

Nowadays, the failures I'm most worried about are not related to the engine or landing gear or other simple systems -it's the complex glass panel avionics that are interconnected in mysterious ways. Quick: Your G3X annunciates ATT MISCOMPARE. What do you do? I keep thinking I need to create a QRH for my avionics suite.

  

Look at your 3rd adi?!

in my airplane, if both G5s go TU, I gotta make sure my autopilot is engaged or engage it.  That’s the nice thing about an STEC rate based.

Edited August 25, 2024 by Ragsf15e

[EricJ]

10 hours ago, PT20J said:

Nowadays, the failures I'm most worried about are not related to the engine or landing gear or other simple systems -it's the complex glass panel avionics that are interconnected in mysterious ways. Quick: Your G3X annunciates ATT MISCOMPARE. What do you do? I keep thinking I need to create a QRH for my avionics suite.  

I have a fairly standard six-pack except that the AI and DG are G5s.   This give a very good distribution of redundancy opportunities.   Even if both of the G5s go TU (which is highly unlikely), I still have the traditional air instruments, turn coordinator, and compass.    Many folks that learned with round gauges have done partial panel with that situation to simulate a vacuum pump failure.   It's not fun, but it's definitely doable.   

During an alternator failure several years ago I turned off the electrical system entirely to get home so I'd have enough battery to get under the bravo airspace and to the home drome.   It occured to me during that flight that I really, really liked having the air instruments separate from the electrical system.   As much as I like glass panels, which I do fly fairly regularly in other airplanes, I'm reluctant to "upgrade" to full glass in my airplane.   That one flight was not uncomfortable at all without the electrical system (since it was very nice VFR), but it would have been fairly stressful to me if I were depending solely on a backup battery to get home.   It would have probably meant not being able to get home that day.   It was kind of an interesting realization that I probably wouldn't have come to without that experience.    That's just me, though, I kinda wish that hadn't happened. 

 

[Pinecone]

18 hours ago, PT20J said:

The original airplane was built by North American Aviation and designated AT-6 (except the Navy called it an SNJ-3 and the Canadians and Brits called it a Harvard). AT was the designation for Advanced Trainer. 

They Navy started with the SNJ, then the SNJ-2, then the -3 up to the -7.  There was an SNJ-8 that was ordered, but the order was cancelled.

T-6G was rebuilt early models.  T-6Fs that were updated were called T-6H.

LOTS of models.  The Harvards went from Harvard I to Harvard 4