neilpilot

Same coverage; not even close. Hope you never rear end someone and get sued for $2M. Not only will your auto coverage be maxed out, but you may end up paying for a legal team since your auto insurer can settle for their $300K limit and leave you hanging for the rest. Most umbrella coverage, which is relatively cheap, provides legal in addition to it's coverage limit. My $2M costs under $250/yr. Odds are I'll never need to use it, but it's worth it in my opinion.

Umbrella insurance is EXCESS liability coverage. It typically kicks in at the upper limit of your Home and Auto policies to cover excess liability. So while it covers liability areas already covered by your homeowner policy (as well as other forms of liability), it extends your coverage to a higher limit.

I was slated to fly leg #2 of a multileg Pilots-N-Paws rescue tomorrow morning, from KTVR to KAWM. The leg #1 pilot, based at KLVJ, is not IFR rated and has just indicated he can't make the flight. Is there an MSer available to fly leg #1 tomorrow morning? Edit: mission has been resisted https://pilotsnpaws.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=49352&p=238109#p238109

Not concerned about carrying a 20# propane cylinder at altitude? I know that, in theory, it should be safe. But......

When I lived in a colder climate, in addition to engine compartment heat I also kept a small electric heater in the cabin, set to a very low heat setting. Gyros that are started when very cold are subject to high failure rates.

I once arrived at my then-home base and there were no runway lights. My landing light worked fine. Should I have attempted to land?....................I decided to divert to a neighboring field. However, when I was a few miles away the lights went on so I turned back toward my original destination. Turned out there had been a power outage.

The warranty exchange KT74 was installed yesterday. That's the 4th unit in the past 12 months. But the hard-to-read display is a KT74 design issue, and is not solved. I can read it on cloudy days and at night, but it's nearly impossible to read when the sun is shining from behind.

Case closed. I've ordered a replacement flash tube. Mine is obviously bad.

Hank - appreciate your input. I have no intention of repairing the unit if there's a problem with the power supply. My plan is to install a new flash tube, for under $100. I simply want to confirm that the problem is NOT something else before I buy that replacement flash tube. Bluehwyflyer - that's an interesting idea. I also figured that, when I power on the unit, I probably should be able to hear activity from the power supply. I just don't know if amperage draw and/or sound from the power supply is still expected from the unit if the only problem is a bad flash tube.

To be clear, what I'm asking in my original post is "Is there an easy way to determine if the power supply is operational", by either testing it's output into the 3-wire harness or some other means.

Our Whelan self-contained strobe, which was installed in 2009 to replace the original coffee-grinder beacon, has stopped working. While it probably just needs a replacement A469B flash tube assembly, before I order a $100 part I'd like to determine that the unit is getting power and that the power supply assembly has not failed. Is there an easy way to determine if the power supply is operational? The flash tube is connected to the power supply by a 3-wire harness.

Resurrecting an old topic. My 1-year old KT74 failed on a short flight from KACK back to KMVY last week. While it would set and squawk VFR just fine, I could not set an assigned code. When I pressed any number, it produced a zero in front of the desired number, and sometimes just the zero. It's now going back to King for evaluation and warranty repair or exchange. King Tech Support says they haven't seen a failure like mine; guess I'm just lucky.

Before you get too far into the planning stage, check the cost of liability insurance. Years ago a rider to cover the EU minimum coverage, with no hull insurance, would have run about $5k for my 64E.

If your fuel pressure was steady and in the green, I think it's unlikely that the problem was due to a faulty fuel pump or fouled screen upstream of the pressure indication takeoff.

I fought a similar issue in my 64E for a couple of years, with the problem manifesting itself only once every 2-4 months. Turned out it was a torn fragment of a small o-ring floating about inside the fuel servo. When I finally suffered an off field landing that totaled the aircraft, I might have had the cleanest injectors possible, good spark, fuel pressure and compression but no fuel flow past the servo.

In the N759ZS incident I mentioned earlier, it was a C182 with a Continental Motors IO-470F engine. Per NTSB, "According to the pilot, he taxied the airplane to the intersection at mid-field and performed a preflight run-up and checklist. During the checklist he touched the fuel selector valve lever to verify the fuel was selected to "BOTH" tanks. He reported that the selector valve was not pointed toward either wing." Also, "On July 5, 2011, a follow-on examination was conducted by the Safety Board near Holly Springs, Mississippi. During the examination the fuel selector valve was found in the "OFF" position." The pilot was a well known lawyer, and just maybe also a "liar"

This is what Aircraft Spruce says about the light kit WC is considering. Essentially the nav lights shouldn't be set to flash at night: "Can this Navstrobe 40w sextant kit be legally installed in a certificated aircraft? If so, what paperwork is needed? Would a form 337 be acceptable to the FAA, or would it need a field approval? Would I require a DER report for legal installation? Thank you This is a replacement bulb kit for NAV and Tail lights, and are made to meet, or exceed, the TSO requirements, but does not have any FAA approval. These lights do have an extra safety flash feature, but does not replace strobe lights on an aircraft, and these can only be in the flash position during daylight flying. NAV lights require a constant light for night flying. NAV light bulbs can be changed by the aircraft owner."

IIRC, on my 64M20E lens was split colors, with red portion of lens facing forward

Does that mean my red belly strobe, that replaced my white/red coffee grinder, is not legal??

A local C182 had a BRS chute installed in 2011. BTW he used it when he departed the shop right after the install. Seems the shop turned his fuel selector off, told him it was off, but he took off with it OFF. Google NTSB N795ZS.

Actual start was about 4:10 central. I left after deciding it would likely exceed the cost of my 65C

NTSB inspected the aircraft 5 weeks after the July 2012 event.

Interesting speculations, but I'm still not hearing anything factual that even confirms that there was an engine failure. Based on first hand description provided it could have very well been fuel starvation or some other accessory failure separate from the engine. Maybe it would be more appropriate to wait for some more facts before implying that improper repairs follow the previous prop strike contributed to this incident?

A problem for Summit VI? Wouldn't exactly call that last minute.

I owned N1310W, a 64E, from 1989 thru it's demise in 2012. Between 2010 and 2012 I experienced 3 incidents where my engine suddenly lost power and/or ran very rough. During this period plugs and injectors were inspected and cleaned, new plugs were installed, ignition wiring was tested, and mags were O/H. I also sent the entire fuel injection system out for O/H. Throughout the 2 year period we found some issues, such as a spec of dirt in an injector or a lead ball in a lower plug. None of these findings were considered serious enough to explain these few incidents, which were few and far between. Between these incidents, the engine ran fine. Then in 2012 I had my final engine out incident (to date). After the off-field landing the 64E was totaled. Later inspection revealed an internal blockage in the fuel injection system THAT THE SHOP THAT DID THE PRIOR O/H SAID WAS IN AN AREA THAT THEY NORMALLY DO NOT INSPECT. The blockage was apparently very intermittent, since the aircraft ran fine 99% of the time and passes a bench test before the incident. It also almost passed a bench test after the incident.