David_H

I'm interested in the KX170B.

Before bringing in the MapMX WAAS GPS data via RS-232 from a GTX 335, I tested the internal G5 GPS antenna for position sourcing in a M20F. It appeared to function well during a local flight. I'm uncertain if the G5 would automatically revert back to the internal antenna if the external WAAS antenna source failed.

It's my understanding (based on conversations with a local avionics shop that sells a significant volume of Garmin equipment) that the certified and experimental versions are indeed the same. The certified version does comes with an extra fancy black envelope with the STC card though.

While there are nicer ADSB options out there, the GTX 335 is a nice step up when compared to spinning knobs on older transponders. The pre-cut right panel may be the least stressful option if you're planing to keep the Tach and MP in the same position. It might also be useful to plan a clever way to easily delete the TC and intercom holes (without having to cut another right panel) in the case that you later decide to update the audio panel and re-do the left panel.

It doesn't seem likely that hours flown will be very high this year. Is it possible or likely that claims not attributed to natural disasters will also decrease?

This appears to be the beginning of the "we don't really want your business" quotes. Many will simply write the check thinking that their carrier will continue to stick by them since they stayed loyal to the carrier throughout the years. Once the carrier that they've stayed with for many years exits the market they're in or simply declines to write them a policy, then what? Insurance carriers are in the business of assessing risks and projecting margins.

Bueller? ...Bueller? ...Bueller?

Hopefully people will read this so they can understand that these are only proposed guidelines that are backed by no authority.

This analogy is about as close as anyone could possibly get to describing this whole debacle.

Since I'm flying out of the Midwest, I could reasonably travel to most places within the Eastern half of the US.

If the government shared the actual lock-down plans, most people wouldn't accept them. Two weeks is probably the maximum amount of time that the government believes most of the public will willingly accept without creating a conflict. Rinse and repeat.

Everyone that wants to hunker down due to health concerns should be allowed to do so. Likewise, those that think this is complete display of fascism should be allowed to return to normal life without the added burden of supporting those that want to stay hunkered down. We are talking about the United States. If people like the way China or other countries are dealing with this, then they should move there instead of trying to change the American culture to reflect other parts of the world.

To be fair, I did state the following. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear though. War is such a strong, well-defined, and specific word. There is only one context for it and the results are never favorable for anyone involved. It's a very rigid word that has taken many lives in the past and I personally have a great deal of respect for the implications that the word war brings. It's my opinion that some words cannot be bent or modified to put a narrative into context. However, this is just one persons view. Perhaps I'm wrong.

What does "like a war" mean? You may choose not to answer and that's fine. However, this is an honest question.

I had to take a few moments to think about this one. Thanks for the conversation and giving me an opportunity to let the topic marinate. You raised some valid points. Let's say this should be viewed as a war as you propose. By definition, war requires a conflict between two or more entities (states, nations, opposing factions, etc...). That raises the question, who (or what) is the enemy or opposing faction? Perhaps more important, what would constitute victory? A conflict without a defined objective doesn't seem as if it can be considered war. There is a hierarchy to all matters. CV-19 has a cause. A war objective would be to address the cause... not address the resulting symptoms. However, war is such a strong word that can sometimes be unknowingly tossed around without fully considering its implications. If one were to frame CV-19 as the enemy in which a war is to be waged, some scenarios (in no particular order) that could be used support that context are shown below. The virus was developed and deployed by China. Should we consider war with China for the resulting disease? The virus was developed and accidentally released by China. Again, should we be consider war with China for the resulting disease or exercise forgiveness? Then what? The virus was deployed (intentionally or accidentally) by the US government. Should the government be overthrown? The virus was developed and accidentally released by some other faction. Should an investigation be launched? The virus was a development of nature. Should we then declare war against mother nature? That's one war I don't think anyone can win... so why consider it. Note: I'm not advocating that any of the scenarios shown above are complete, correct, or would be beneficial to anyone. Thanks again to everyone for engaging in a positive discussion. While politics are certainly fueling policy decisions, most everyone here has graciously left their political bias at the door.

It's not really apparent as to the reason why Ford needs an audience to judge every mistake he makes as a pilot. Tower gave him a number to call and competent professionals will likely follow up with him to make a determination on the proper actions to take. It must be very tiring being under a microscope while in the plane.

The answer to this question would put most other questions on this issue to rest. This question has been asked over and over... in many different ways. Why is this fundamental question not the focus of conversation?

Thanks for pointing out my omission. It would be helpful to know where I normally fly out of. I'm currently flying out of 1I9 and make several trips per year to the South East (TN, FL, etc...). I certainly don't mind traveling to make things happen.

I spoke with GATTS a few weeks back and they were concerned about the CV-19 debacle at the time. To be fair, I imagine everyone was/is concerned with that though.

Are saying we should keep the economy locked-down? If that's your opinion, I'll do my best to be respectful while sharing another view. After all, I don't want to see people come into harms way either. Many of us have been fortunate (so far) to weather this debacle due to having professions that allow for the temporary adaption to the continuation of providing services to the communities and societies in which we we serve. Once the communities and societies in which we serve can no longer afford these services, what then? For example, this can be put into an aviation context. If the economy continues it's current downward trajectory, GA (in it's current form) will likely perish. The value of everyone's planes will plummet because the market in which one could possibly sell to will shrink into non-existence. If this occurs, what would be the societal implications? This is not the most important issue though... but the health of GA can be used as a "virtual thermometer" for other aspects of society as we know it. I'll request that the gross oversimplification of "thermometer" as well as general society behavior in this context be overlooked. To be clear, I'm not saying that economics are more important than peoples lives. However, economics will affect everyone's lives... not just those who are at a higher risk of contracting CV-19.

Any CFIIs want to do some IFR flying this Summer? It would be nice to be able to finish up the rating this year. I've been able to work from my home office during the ongoing CV-19 debacle but I can't see myself staying in my home office indefinitely. Everyone was booked up for intensive training last Summer. However, I was able to log several under the hood with a local instructor (great guy b.t.w.). That said, we worked the time in where we could so the hours were relatively spread out. I'd like to schedule some time off this Summer to finish the rating. It would also be good to get some time in actual conditions. Thoughts?

The conversation (talking points) seems to have shifted from "We must flatten the curve" to "We must develop very accurate tests to ever return to normal." This raises the question: Will the development of accurate testing lower the mortality rate? The magnitude of the number of CV-19 cases appears to have been over-predicted by many early models (good news), and the active cases appears to be well within a manageable range for the health-care system in all but the most densely populated areas. The Navy Hospital ships weren't even needed in urban areas they were sent to. The area under the curve(s) appear to be similar in most published models that plot the number of CV-19 cases with respect to time. This implies that the mortality rate is similar... regardless of the measures taken. It's difficult to understand how wrecking the economy until very accurate testing can be developed will improve the outcome.

Those reporters were working extremely hard to set up conflicts during the briefing instead of trying to get to the facts. It's fortunate that it's an unedited video put out for all to see. There's no telling how the story would have been presented in a newspaper.

It would be interesting to see how people would react if they were presented with modelling data that includes a forecast timeline instead of uninformative cartoon models that have almost no meaning. Just because someone isn't an Epidemiologist doesn't mean they don't have the ability to understand and interpret presented data. Couple the timeline outlook of Anderson's model shown below with the Faucci's NEJM article that states: "This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%)". At that point one has to ask, what does the economic impact model overlay look like? Neglecting any quantitative information, does this whole mess pass the sniff test? As uncomfortable as it is, there will be an optimal trade-off between unrecoverable economic destruction and death. China didn't release reliable data (for whatever reason) to allow for accurate forecast models to be developed and now the rest of the world has uncomfortable choices to make. It would be nice to have complete data presented to the public (without having to hunt it down) so those uncomfortable decisions can be made. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30567-5/fulltext