MikeOH

Certainly. I was trying to understand why I don't see the N2 tanks around anymore.

Interesting article. I will say that's more 'proof' than I can provide for my opinion! I have always seen them strapped to neighborhood phone boxes for years, but as you mentioned I've not noticed them recently. Not sure what would have changed? Maybe everything is fiber now and moisture not an issue? SGOTI = Some Guy On The Internet

UGH, I tried to stay out of this one, but I can't help myself! 1) ADSB was NOT designed to be an active traffic AVOIDANCE system (i.e. NOT a TCAS substitute) 2) I have personally, on multiple occasions, observed MAJOR discrepancies between reported position and ACTUAL position of traffic (see number 1) 3) It is another tool in the toolbox. It is not, IMHO, a necessary tool, but can be useful as a strategic tool. I like getting the 'lay of the land' when approaching an airport and appreciate the 'big picture' it provides while in cruise. 4) No way I would use it for tactical use in a traffic pattern. It is NOT reliably accurate (see number 2). Doing so, again IMHO, would be providing a false sense of security. I want my head on a swivel looking OUTSIDE, not managing the distraction of 'head's down' time while in critical airspace like a busy traffic pattern. However, as others mentioned, having a second person monitoring the ADSB display is also useful. 5) Looking at factual accident data shows mid-airs are way down the list of fatal accident causes. I await some statistical proof that those numbers drop even further before entertaining that a cause/effect relationship has truly been established. Anecdotes and the absence of an accident in the last x years when mid-airs are so infrequent to begin with is not convincing.

WOW! That one looks to be in good condition; I wonder how many are airworthy these days?

Ain't that the truth! I had a similar expensive 'learning experience' early in my ownership...I toasted both the terrain and IFR data cards and Garmin told me to stick it! I was out some ridiculous amount of money for their proprietary data cards!! While internet 'experts' disparaged my explanation, I still believe it was the gate card reader at my airport: I would put the data cards in my wallet, containing my gate card, then swipe my wallet. At first I had to 'program' the cards twice..the next cycle they wouldn't program and I was forced to buy new cards (actually a local avionics shop took pity on me and gave me a used terrain card) and I only had to buy the IFR data one. That was six years ago and no problem since I now put them in my shirt pocket. And, yeah, I've got an ancient Windows XP computer I use to update the cards...when it dies I'll have an issue

For my NA airplane I really don't worry about the 'red box' as I don't go LOP until I'm at cruise (>5,000 ft). So, if I want to 'slowly' go LOP by passing through peak I take my time Typically, though, I just perform the 'big pull' and set fuel flow; usually around 9 gph (<70%). Then check the CHTs are okay. Easy peasy. At low altitudes I'm usually just sight seeing and have the power nowhere near WOT (I'm below 75% to begin with), so I don't worry too much about the 'red box' in that situation either.

I find that I sometimes need to use my finger to 'help' the vane to move off center, then turning will close the vent.

Good question. I have a 430W and it bricked on me some years ago. I sent it off to Garmin and it cost me $1500 flat rate. While they can no longer deal with failed displays I believe Garmin will still accept GNS units for repair. I'm sure they want a lot more now; that would be your price point for the guy looking at the lowest cost way to replace a failed GNS. I would look at buying a used unit as a bit of a risk whereas a Garmin repair has some, short term, warranty. So, maybe a bit under Garmin's flat rate cost? In my case, if my 430W dies again I'm going with the Avidyne.

Most modern meters actually use a multi-slope converter that improves conversion speed and still retain accuracy.

I seriously doubt that! Just because it advertises using a 24 bit ADC (not a DAC) that does NOT mean it has 24 bit accuracy; precision is NOT synonymous with accuracy. Many of the complaints on-line revolved around poor accuracy. I do agree that the 'remote' capability would be nice for the 'underhood' ability. Still, not worth $135 to me. Obviously, YMMV

As a very happy S-Tec30 owner, and assuming your S-Tec30 was working, what made you want to spend the money on a GFC-500?

I think you are missing my point: the AFMS REQUIRES that the waypoints in the EXPIRED database be verified using CURRENT "approved data" to be LEGAL to use the GPS for IFR navigation. My contention is that looking at a paper chart does NOT allow you to meet that requirement; i.e. "eyeballing" lat/lon of fixes is NOT acceptable "approved data". I agree you could pull up the lat/lon on the EFB as @toto pointed out. Navigating with a paper or EFB low altitude chart is IFR legal because you are using ground based (VOR) equipment NOT pulling fixes from a GPS.

@toto OK, you got me! I would hope that the FAA's own Chart Supplement would be considered "approved data".

@PeteMc I was not aware that EFB databases were considered FAA "approved data". I base this on my understanding that it is NOT legal to navigate via an EFB (e.g. Foreflight). If I am wrong, please provide a cite that indicates EFB databases are FAA "approved data"

@toto Agreed. For enroute you could get away with an expired database. Thing is, I have no idea how I would "verify each waypoint for accuracy by reference to approved data". Please explain, step by step, how one would actually go about doing that.