Mooney Engine Problems in Flight

Bill Denton wrote:

Thanks!

I'm still a wannabe, so I don't really yet know what is correct, but it
struck me that while you might find a hole that would let you climb above
the clouds on departure, what would happen if you were still above the
clouds and there were no hole at your destination airport?

You would have to find another destination. When I fly over clouds as described
here, I make sure that the cloud cover at or before my destination will let me
descend and is forecast to remain that way.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

Paul Smedshammer wrote:




As far as I know, and maybe I'm wrong, a VFR pilot can fly what would be
considered VFR on top. Maybe I'm using the technical term "VFR on Top"
incorrectly but I'm just trying to describe the situation. The situation was
a 600 foot overcast with tops at 1,500 feet. Clear above 1,500 feet with
visibility well over 10 miles … more like 50 miles. Correct me if I'm wrong
but a VFR pilot can fly at 4,500 feet in this situation. It might not be
smart but it is legal. Let me know if I'm wrong.

It's legal, goddamned stupid, but legal.

In article , Newps wrote:

a 600 foot overcast with tops at 1,500 feet. Clear above 1,500 feet with
visibility well over 10 miles … more like 50 miles. Correct me if I'm wrong
but a VFR pilot can fly at 4,500 feet in this situation. It might not be
smart but it is legal. Let me know if I'm wrong.

It's legal, goddamned stupid, but legal.

How is it any more stupid than say flying at night? I liken flying VFR over
the top of an overcast to be almost identical to flying at night when you are
out of gliding distance to a lighted airport runway. The only difference I
can come up with is at night if your engine quits you should be able to find a
non-populated area to come down in.

Paul Smedshammer wrote:
How is it any more stupid than say flying at night? I liken flying VFR over
the top of an overcast to be almost identical to flying at night when you are
out of gliding distance to a lighted airport runway. The only difference I
can come up with is at night if your engine quits you should be able to find a
non-populated area to come down in.

Actually, I think flying low IFR is more similar to flying at night over
dark terrain. In both situations, an engine failure is reasonably likely
to end very badly.

Flying VFR over the top has the above problem (engine failure likely to
end badly, particularly for a non-instrument-rated pilot) and the
additional problem that if the overcast doesn't clear you may be unable
to get down safely if you are not competent to land on instruments. I've
certainly flown a number of times where the forecast was for a layer
below me to clear when instead it became more solid in all directions
(and I needed an IFR clearance to get down).

But all of flying involves balancing risks. Personally, I was never
willing to fly over a solid overcast until I had my instrument rating,
but if there were definite clear conditions in reach in several
directions I don't think it would be an insane thing to do. Flying from
Boston to Long Island, for instance, there is frequently a solid layer
near the coast, with the layer dissipating both as you go a little
inland and as you reach Long Island. It's reasonable to want some
altitude while crossing the LI Sound, so you might not want to fly
beneath the layer. Hard to argue that flying over such a layer is really
that much more dangerous than flying at night.

--
David Rind

Actually, I would say that engine failure at night is worse than an engine
failure in IMC or VFR on top. At night you will never be able the see the
details of the terrain until after you have landed. You can head towards an
unlit area, but you don't know if that is an open field or a mountain. In
instrument conditions you will not know where to head towards, but at least
you will see the last few hundred feet and should be able to maneuver
around obstacles, unless you have zero/zero conditions all the way to the
surface.


(Paul Smedshammer) wrote in
. com:

In article , Newps
wrote:

a 600 foot overcast with tops at 1,500 feet. Clear above 1,500 feet
with visibility well over 10 miles … more like 50 miles. Correct me
if I'm wrong but a VFR pilot can fly at 4,500 feet in this
situation. It might not be smart but it is legal. Let me know if
I'm wrong.

It's legal, goddamned stupid, but legal.

How is it any more stupid than say flying at night? I liken flying
VFR over the top of an overcast to be almost identical to flying at
night when you are out of gliding distance to a lighted airport
runway. The only difference I can come up with is at night if your
engine quits you should be able to find a non-populated area to come
down in.

Good choice. Lasar will do an excellent job, they have a great
reputation in the Mooney community.

Yes, technically, VFR-on-Top has its own FAA meaning that is neither
VFR or necessarily "top top". A controller issuing a clearance
"VFR-on-top" is issuing a type of IFR clearance. However, we all knew
what you meant. BTW: I fly out of Sacramento, are in near here?

-Robert, CFI

Paul Smedshammer wrote:

As far as I know, and maybe I'm wrong, a VFR pilot can fly what would
be
considered VFR on top. Maybe I'm using the technical term "VFR on
Top"
incorrectly but I'm just trying to describe the situation. The
situation was
a 600 foot overcast with tops at 1,500 feet. Clear above 1,500 feet
with
visibility well over 10 miles ... more like 50 miles. Correct me if
I'm wrong
but a VFR pilot can fly at 4,500 feet in this situation. It might
not be
smart but it is legal. Let me know if I'm wrong.

I think there is another problem here. I've owned my Mooney for quite
some time and always kept it outside. I've never, ever, gotten water in
my tanks. I always replace all the cap seals (2 seals per tank) at
annual and ensure the cap tension is correct. I also never park my
plane with more than 15 gals per side (so much for the wives tale about
empty tanks collecting water). Even at that, I never get water. If a
Mooney pilot is getting water in his tank, he has a problem that needs
to be fixed.
-Robert, CFI M20F owner.

I think there is another problem here. I've owned my Mooney for quite
some time and always kept it outside. I've never, ever, gotten water in
my tanks. I always replace all the cap seals (2 seals per tank) at
annual and ensure the cap tension is correct. I also never park my
plane with more than 15 gals per side (so much for the wives tale about
empty tanks collecting water). Even at that, I never get water. If a
Mooney pilot is getting water in his tank, he has a problem that needs
to be fixed.
-Robert, CFI M20F owner.

The problem that needed repeated fixing on my M20J is getting the FBO minimum
wage guy to put the damned caps on correctly! I've had that problem in too many
places, esp on fairly long XC flights where you land in the rain, tell them to
top off the tanks, go to your hotel, work the next day, go out to the airplane
in the rain, drain and drain and drain the damned tanks because -- well, you
know the story. Have you noticed, as I just did, that drain is D RAIN? As in
damned?

Andrew Sarangan wrote:

In
instrument conditions you will not know where to head towards, but at least
you will see the last few hundred feet and should be able to maneuver
around obstacles, unless you have zero/zero conditions all the way to the
surface.

While true, as a VFR pilot, I would hate to have to bring my Maule down through
3,000' or so of cloud with nothing but a magnetic compass and a T&B to help me
keep it straight.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

AJW wrote:

I've had that problem in too many
places, esp on fairly long XC flights where you land in the rain, tell them to
top off the tanks, go to your hotel, work the next day, go out to the airplane
in the rain, drain and drain and drain the damned tanks because -- well, you
know the story.

I have the FBO top the tanks just before I leave. May not be feasible all the
time, but it would prevent this sort of problem.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.