wombat

You don't have an intake boot? Your retirement investment strategy is sorely lacking....

There is no need to spend that much money. The trim switch, assuming it's the one that looks like this: https://images.app.goo.gl/NPnsfxHLKxHeZdUTA Is actually made up of three switches underneath. Those internal switches can fail, and can be independently replaced. They are Honeywell 1SX74-T switches and can be purchased for about $35 each from mouser: https://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Honeywell/1SX74-T?qs=10P5Hhl%2BD796P7tntVKlzg%3D%3D&countryCode=US&currencyCode=USD If you look through my thread earlier this year about my autopilot issue (which was just me being too hasty) there are some detailed pictures of the wiring of the switches. You can order a replacement switch or two or three, install them, and that should fix your problem. I'm happy to chat more about this if you want.

Also, @toto ... That picture you took is very zoomed in and I don't have a good sense of how big those scratches are. They could be 1/4" total, or smaller. Can you provide additional photos or information so we can have more context about those scratches? I fly my plane to get places and the amount of time and money I have to baby my plane for purely cosmetics is minimal. If a new paint job is $30,000 and lasts 40 years before it needs to be redone because of regular wear and tear, the additional damage from shops isn't going to reduce that by much. If any of you want to pay the extra premium for that level of service, more power to you. But at least with my current paint, I'd rather reduce shop rates by 10% and accept some scratches.

@MikeOH I wouldn't say I have an attitude about it either way. I would say I'm analyzing and describing the situation. By "OK with a few new scratches each time." I don't mean people are happy about it, but I mean that they don't do anything meaningful about it. With that definition in mind, it's kind of the same thing as "forced to put up with it". I've provided a couple of ideas on some meaningful steps an airplane owner can take to take action against this situation. Another one: As @toto has been doing, record the condition of the aircraft when it's dropped off and when picking it up, compare the current condition to the record. If the condition is worse, talk to the shop about it and ask that they repair the new damage, or you will take one of the following actions: A: Complain to them in private. B: Complain about them in public. C: Ask them to compensate you for the damage, including asking our legal system to make a decision and enforce the compensation if necessary. Basically, take them to court. Option A will most likely only get them to reject you as a customer in the future, although if we all do it, the shops will have to change their ways. Option B is likely to get you rejected as a customer from not only that shop, but others. And also, you might get taken to court. Option C .... Well, I don't know. I do know I'm not about to risk it. I think that aviation maintenance rates, although they seem REALLY high to me, are lagging behind inflation and they are being undercompensated for the effort and cost for the certification and facility, and risk they assume by working on aircraft. Basically, we are paying a very substandard rate and that rate isn't enough for them to be careful. I'm planning on getting a new paint job for my plane next year and I don't know how I'll manage this myself. If I had to decide right now, I'd make 'maintenance covers' for the wings and surfaces that are likely to get damaged and put them on when I drop the plane off. But for now, my paint is maybe 4/10 and the majority of the damage is not from scratches as people have put objects on the plane or been careless walking around, it's from the skin flexing and paint chipping off the rivet heads and lap joints.

Not trying to be mean or anything, but basically... Yes, that's unreasonable. It's not that you or your hopes are bad or anything, but your expectations are different enough from most people's that it obviously takes special effort to meet your expectations. Most people are OK with a few new scratches each time. I'm expect there are shops that can perform with the level of attention to quality you are expecting but I think those are going to be hard to find. You didn't ask, but I'll give you some ideas anyway that might help.... Make up some protective covers for the parts you think might get scratched. Old comforters sewn together. Maybe suction cups to hold them so they don't slip off? Or sew on some anti-slip material? Then when you drop the plane off, you can cover all the surfaces with your protector stuff, and with that already installed, you'll be much less likely to have an incident. Be very clear about your expectations about the paint before you drop it off, and offer a meaningful premium for them if they achieve your standards. Maybe $1,000 gift certificate to a local restaurant, or X catered lunch meals for Y people? (Basically taking the whole shop out for lunch a few times)

I did get the update today and these screenshots are from after the update. Good point though to make sure to have the latest software.

I have two updatable Garmin devices in my plane, a GTN and a G500. Garmin used to be able to do a Sync update where it would update both devices from a single card using the Garmin Aviation Database Manager software. It still claims it can do that, but it insists on putting the Airport Directory on a second card. This DB is supposed to sync from the 750 to the G500. Is anyone else having this problem?

I expect everybody here knows this already, but... The owner or operator must keep the AD list up to date. You might pay someone else to do it, but it's on you to make sure it's done. As far as I can tell, doing an AD search isn't a required part of an annual inspection in part 43. You just have to keep in compliance with all of them. Relevant bits of the regs pasted below from https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-91/subpart-E/section-91.417 91.417 (Maintenance Records) (a) Except for work performed in accordance with §§ 91.411 and 91.413, each registered owner or operator shall keep the following records for the periods specified in paragraph (b) of this section: (2) Records containing the following information: (v) The current status of applicable airworthiness directives (AD) and safety directives including, for each, the method of compliance, the AD or safety directive number and revision date. If the AD or safety directive involves recurring action, the time and date when the next action is required.

I would be interested in knowing how long the different aircraft have been listed on controller.com and barnstormers (and others). That would be a very useful metric if trying to figure out the true value of an aircraft. If a plane has been on controller for 300 days, it's value is probably less than the listed price. Although there could have been a dozen buyers do prebuys and find something not listed on the ad as a strong negative and walked away, so the advertised price might actually be close to the value if the other aspects of the plane were 'as expected'. If a plane came onto the website and disappeared 2 weeks later, the value could very well be at or above the listed price. No guarantees though.

I've been thinking of posting some signs that point out some regulations that might make a potential walker decide to walk somewhere else. A sign saying "49 US Code 46504: Interference with the performance of the duties of a flight crew can be penalized by up to 20 years imprisonment and a fine of up to $10,000." Or "14 CFR 121.158 No person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember's duties aboard an aircraft" I could also post some regulations I wished existed. I don't think there is anything illegal about posting a sign about a regulation that doesn't exist.

Our airport (Twisp) has not taken any federal money. There are a few signs around, but they are old, decrepit and totally ignored. If I get back up to the airport today I'll try to take a couple of pictures. There are some sections that have some old barbed wire fence across it, mostly falling down so you can just walk over it if you notice it's there at all, some that have woven wire livestock fence, and some that have none at all. I've seen people just cross the airport and runway in a car because it's a bit of a shortcut to where they are going. Yes, @Shadrach and @dkkim73; I'm really trying to balance public perception as well as safety. Of course only pilots (and their immediate family) think the airport should be allowed to exist at all. Everyone else thinks it's a waste of space and creates noise and pollution. So when I talk to people walking on the airport, I am super careful about being polite and only asking them to not to walk on the runway and taxiway after I've chatted with them for a bit. It's kind of extra frustrating because they actually built a walking track and ball field on the airport as well, but sometimes people just don't want to walk there, they want to walk on the asphalt.

I fly out of a fairly small and quiet airport. This year there have been a bunch more walkers on the taxiways and runway, including one person and their dog that I didn't see until I was on short final. While I like that non-pilots are not afraid of the airport, I've encountered at least 5 groups of non-aviation users on the runway and taxiways so far this year and I'm getting worried about safety. I'm worried that if I bring this up with the city that owns the airport, they'll either close it until further notice, or they'll get a multi-million dollar bid for airport security and try to pass that on to the 30 of us that have hangars there. We don't actually have a local police force any more and the county sheriff has asked that the people in town don't call for help unless it's critical since the sheriff's office has a lot of area to cover. Does anyone have any ideas on what can be done to help discourage or prevent non-aviation users from walking themselves and their dogs on the taxiways and runway?

My employer's Accidental Death & Dismemberment policy excludes any activity (other than the company pilots flying the company planes) where the employee is acting as a pilot, student pilot, or required crewmember of any flight.

I'd say about 5 hours, 25 landings, over probably 3 to 4 flights would be a reasonable plan, although on the slightly excessive side. I think having more than just a single flight is important. IMO it's worth the time and expense to train the habit of getting the gear down and checking it multiple times, over more than a single day. At least twice approach and land from something other than the pattern. At least one simulated emergency approach and landing. The best is if it's from cruise altitude/airspeed to a landing at an airport that wasn't planned by the student. A 737 is mostly just following the checklists too. I wonder what the distribution is for how many retract hours pilots who have had a gear-up landing had before their gear-up.

My employer started including a prohibition on employees flying themselves at some point in the last 10 years as well. We are self-insured and just have the insurance companies administering the details for us so it's not like the insurance company would be at risk by covering this, but the variability of cost for this scenario is so high they might have said in their proposal to run the program for us that they are only willing to do it if my employer prohibits personal aircraft. And I hate to admit it, but why would they bother? The employer is basically not out any money at all by doing this. They expose themselves to risk, both financially and socially.... Financially, even though they might have airtight legal paperwork that absolves them of responsibility, lawsuits are decided by people, and these days public sentiment is to take anything we can from 'the rich' to give to anybody poor. And if your company is still running, they are rich. And if you have a plane, (like Taylor Swift!) then you are rich too. So there will be plenty of lawyers salivating to file that lawsuit. Even if they know they are unlikely to actually win, a $5 million settlement from your employer is likely to be cheaper for your employer than fighting and winning, so they'll settle. Who loses? Your employer. Socially, do you want to be dealing with customers who are mad about the cost you are charging them after your employees have been in the news for crashing their airplane and killing some innocent bystanders? An airplane, just like Taylor Swift and Bill Gates fly around in all the time, and the fees we pay to this company are funding your employees in this lifestyle? Your employer's competitors would LOVE it. "Go with us, we don't rip you off for enough money for our employees to fly around in their personal jets." And what does your employer get out of letting you fly? Nothing. You are probably on salary, so you have to do the same amount of work anyway, at the same locations, for the same compensation.

With the quoting for insurance that I have seen they just ask for your hours on a form; there is no opportunity to include "I'm going to get training" or anything like that. You are asking for a quote and providing them with the conditions under which you want them to quote you. It's not lying to get a quote for a plane you have not yet purchased and say it's quoting for a plane you own, and this is the same thing. If something happened prior to the conditions being met, filing a claim would be fraudulent. So if you want a quote for coverage on your plane for after you get 10 hours in make and model you ask for a quote with those hours by putting 10 hours in the "make and model" box. Then get your 10 hours in make and model. If you have included a CFI to do your transition training as a named insured, the flights where they are acting as PIC should be covered as well.

If your complex endorsement is a single flight, you should probably find a new CFI.

I've rephrased it in my original post. To make it clear, the insurance coverage doesn't start until you have the 10 hours you said you will have before coverage begins. There is absolutely no lying involved and that is not what I was attempting to suggest.

Buy the plane you want, tell the insurance company that you will have 10 hours time in type prior to their coverage starting. Then either A: fly uninsured for the first 10 hours or B: hire a CFI for 10 hours of dual for when you get the plane. Someone contacted me last week looking for transition training. 10 hours of CFI time is likely to be less than $1,000, and you might as well get it in your plane. Make sure your CFI is covered in your plane for those first 10 hours. Either as a named insured or that they have non-owned coverage and that they meet your policy's open pilot warranty.

You got a G3X and a GFC500 *installed* for $29k? You got an exceptional deal. The price for the small G3X from Garmin is $9,895 and the GFC 500 is $8,650. That's a total of $18,545 just for the hardware which leaves $11,455 for install & tax.

It was the KS-179 Pitch Trim Servo, not the computer.

Specifically they said resistors and capacitors. Regardless, I have found that within the last 2 months, IRAN on a King autopilot pitch trim servo was available. I don't believe that pulling out a working autopilot to put in a different one is a good use of my money at this time. Compared to the other quotes I've seen, it seems unlikely that I would actually walk out of any shop with a GFC500 installed for $20k, regardless of their marketing. I note in particular "Each particular aircraft may require additional labor, repairs, alterations, or parts not included in the above."

@LANCECASPER Not sure what the deal is then, because I sent mine off to a shop for IRAN and they were happy to do it and send it right back to me after replacing a few surface mount components, in perfect working order. So I came out of this $29,000 cheaper than installing a GCF 500.

Are the jack points in front of or behind the main gear? Is the engine lifting loop in front of or behind the nose wheel? @PT20J helpfully notes the weight on the front wheel isn't all that much more than the engine. What does the fuselage do if you remove the engine? If the plane will fall back on its tail from the jack points if the engine is removed, then lifting by the engine hoist is acceptable. Why not do multiple things? Add a bunch of very aft weight.... 120# in the luggage area and 25# on each side of the horizontal stabilizer. Given their arms relative to the jack points, the remaining weight to be lifted by the engine hoist would be less than the engine weight. In that case you are not 'lifting the aircraft by the engine hoist', you are partially lifting the weight of the engine, which is 100% acceptable from the engine manufacturers. I don't know if putting mass on the horizontal stabilizer is acceptable. Of course the downward force on the structure is fine (How do you think you lift the nose when taking off?) but putting even soft weights on the tail might bend the skin or crush a rib.

But the original poster's issue isn't that the autopilot isn't working. It's working just fine and is likely to continue to do so for many years.