wombat

Does the G500 really have to be a TXi or can it be a 'classic' G500? Not really important to me at the moment, but I've got a classic G500 and if I ever want to change to the GFC500 autopilot, a new G500TXi would add $20k to the install bill.

Does anyone here know what the tolerances are on placement?

I just heard from the Baja Bush Pilots that Mexico no longer is issuing a flight plan to any private airport in Mexico that is not listed as a Third Party port. There are only four of these airports in Mexico. To see more, click here To read the AFAC circular, click here.

@mooneygirl recently did a presentation at the Pacific Northwest Aviation Conference & Trade Show that focused on psychology and personal minimums. I bet she's got plenty to add to a thread like this.

I'm on a 2701' runway (2501' because of displaced threshold on runway 28) at 1602' elevation and in my Rocket if I want to roll down to the end I barely use the brakes at all. The airport is usually very un-busy, so I don't mind rolling down a little farther and taxiing back to the mid-field turnoff. Sometimes I try to make the taxiway (1,250 from one end, 1050 from the other) and if I do that I'm burning up the brakes. And tires.

As many have said, if you are using an iPad, if you want the GPS chip you have to get the cellular version. But that doesn't mean you have to get cellular service. I don't have cell service on my cell-enabled iPad mini. I'm glad to have the GPS in it for when my Stratux has been forgotten. When I need to update I connect to WiFi. From my phone, or home, or hangar, or whatever.

Well, you can't install anything without the correct tray, or wiring. But a KT-76A with tray and wiring can be had pretty cheap. If you have some local airport friends they might give you one for free. There is a KT-76A tray and wiring on ebay right now for $75. So this is probably just a couple of hours of work to make the thing operational.

Meh.... I think there are scenarios where tossing in another old one makes sense. Not many... If you are planning an upgrade to a transponder that you can't use now (say a GTX-345R remote transponder) but don't want to install the GTN-750 right now. Or if you already have the KT-76A and plenty of spares for it, and the labor to do the install is cheap. But maybe I'm making excuses because I nearly did the same thing. I didn't end up doing it, but was pretty close. Yes, the pinouts between the two transponders (KT76 and KT76A) are different. Annoying. I don't know if they are physically compatible, but I do know they are not plug and play. I was able to upgrade to a Garmin GTX-327 with very minimal effort. I think it was a total of about 20 pins that I had to make. I'm really glad I did that.

I built my own ground power unit like this guy did. It works great and I don't mind leaving the power on for a few hours while I mess with avionics.

My engine (TSIO520-NB) has the opposite problem. As I climb, the MP increases slightly. Maybe 1" per 5,000' of altitude gained.

Based on the data in the pictures @201er posted, if we just use 2022, the nonfatal rate per 100k hours is 4.84 for non-commercial and 1.52 for non-commercial. Commercial is 31.4% of the rate of non-commercial. For fatal it's .79 and .22, or 27.8% In order to have a 30X ratio between the two for single engine piston, I think we'd have to have an inverse ratio (Commercial is more dangerous) for multi-engine and non-piston aircraft. So I'm kind of questioning the 30X

Yes, they do some dumb things. But at a much lower rate than us amateurs. Well, at about 1/3 of the rate. I'm just estimating 1/3 based on a few of the numbers that I just mentally estimated ratios with from the graphs that @201er posted.

That's not showing what I'm trying to discuss. The accident rate combines the different aircraft classes of non-commercial fixed wing and my theory is that the change in relative hours flown by the different classes is causing the overall decrease, with the relative accident rate within each class remaining roughly the same.

https://www.automatesystems.co.uk/road-blockers/ I'm 90% joking but for the 10% that isn't.... Let's think about the cost of installing these in 100 of the intersections that are estimated(1) to be most likely to have a dangerous runway incursion. I'll guess each install will be about $5 million to $10 million, not counting the planning, permitting, and loss of revenue due to the runway entrance being inop during the install. An additional $50m for systems and software updates per airport where these are going to be installed. Let's estimate 10 airports in the US would get a system. An additional $100k per year for each one for maintenance. Motors, hinges, sensors, wiring, etc. Since they will potentially damage aircraft through inadvertent deployment, let's add $50k each per year for insurance. How much actual loss has occurred due to runway incursions at these 'worst' 100 intersections in the last 25 years in the US? As far as I can tell(2) $0 There were 4 accidents in the US in the 90's, and 1 in the 80's. I'm sure there have been many close calls, but nothing notable. While we often hate to think of it this way, is this proposed expense ($1.25 billion initial outlay plus $15 million annually) a good deal compared that to an expected payout per passenger(3) of less than $5 million? Not if you look at the current system and its realized risk profile. Yes, we've had some close calls, but things like a go-around are part of the current system and they have been working. 1: We can spend maybe 10 million dollars to do a study to determine this. 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runway_incursion 3: https://www.iii.org/article/airplane-liability#:~:text=Among airlines based in modern,%24700 million to nearly %241.3