MikeOH

Very sorry to hear this. I'll tell you though, you're helping me just keep my F, rather than trading up for more speed; planes don't go very fast when they're stuck in the shop!

I'll second the Weather Pack recommendation. Frankly, I think they are better than some high-priced MIL-spec connectors both in terms of reliability and environmental resistance...and at MUCH lower cost!

As a retired EE, I HATED Molex connectors; cheap, crap product. Consequently, used EVERYWHERE. Good for about two plug/unplug cycles. I'd follow the 'get what you pay for' and buy the better connectors.

Yeah, that's good advice. Ask me why I know it's good advice

I guess I'm getting old....I have lost whatever desire I ever had to land on river bars, beaches, etc. (In an Mooney, or similar). Other than the thrill I just don't see a very good risk reward trade-off. Best case I get to do an extremely thorough cleaning of the entire underbelly, gear, and wheel wells. But, to each his own. Have fun!

Note to self: Make friends with a hog farmer...could come in handy

The most important point is that the LLC will NOT protect you from liability should you crash as PIC.

I don't have GP. Just ForeFlight

That is the key statement in your entire post. Of course, that's my bias talking as I had already formed that same opinion! I'd also posit that it may, in fact, reduce safety as the systems are much more sophisticated and require a much higher level of training to use proficiently...I wonder how many pilots really obtain sufficient training? It's the old argument that you are not a safe pilot unless you understand everything about everything in your avionics. So, the guy that is a perfectly proficient instrument pilot with his six-pack and dual KX-155s installs the full glass dream panel from Garmin and rather than becoming safer he is now a menace to skies without an enormous amount of training. My point and question is have we reached a state where the amount of initial and recurrent training, and recency/frequency of use, required to operate state-of-the-art glass panels (including understanding their failure modes and proper mitigation) is too time consuming to really result in an improvement to safety? @Vance Harral and @kortopates I'm curious what your experiences as CFII's have been in the effort required for students to master modern avionics. And, how perishable that knowledge is.

So, not airworthy until he stuffs it back in?

Ok, mystery solved. I have an ancient iPad Pro 10.5...iOS 18 is NOT available for it. 17.7.6 is the latest.

Weird!

Agree; they are certainly not the same. My only point was that both kinds of Garmin 'updates' serve as examples of how poor, by today's standards, Garmin software is. Again, JMO.

Not a popular opinion around here with all the BIG G fan-boys, but I'm with you: Garmin's update system/software/user interface absolutely SUCKS! I have NO issues with ForeFlight updates, but it seems I'm always dealing with some new problem with Garmin. In this day and age of IT, these issues are inexcusable IMHO. The Garmin Database Manager is pathetic in today's standard of usability. I have to deal with the proprietary data cards for my GNS430W which require a special card reader, but it sounds like your GTN uses SD cards? If so, I can vouch that a cheap adapter for your iPad is the way to go; I use that to upload my data from my Insight G3 to Savvy with no problems. Granted, I can't speak to how well the Garmin Database Manager is going to react! But, since the FS510 thing isn't working out for you...you're going to need something to update your GTN! As far as EFB, no way I'd be paying for BOTH Garmin Pilot AND ForeFlight. Good luck!

For iPhone, that is correct. For iPad, 17.7.6 is current.

Last I checked, the court case looked 'stalled', too. I need to check, again.

^^^ THIS ^^^

A couple of well placed fingers is all that's needed.

As another EE, I need to chime in and agree with @EricJ. It ABSOLUTELY makes sense where those grounds are located! If you don't understand shielding principles do NOT mess with the design!

To continue to beat this horse...I doubt it's going to be "easy" to find IA's and A&P's that will do that. The defense is going to claim your issues "happened after the fact", and I see very little evidence in this case that would allow you to prove otherwise. I don't see IAs and A&Ps signing sworn anything to go against another shop. There could be ramifications...like them getting sued for slander/libel. What's their motivation? If you are paying them for their testimony (expert witness OPINION) then be prepared for the shop to have their expert testify the opposite! This just isn't as 'simple' as you want to make it. Again, if you're just after 'vengeance' to 'get even' with the shop by putting them through the hassle, then go for it. Just don't expect 'justice'. This is one of those, sadly becoming more common, situations that suck. I'd 'suck it up' and never go back. And, hope I am lucky enough to find a better shop going forward.

Thanks for the details. While the cylinder is removed, I understand re-torquing the 2 thru-bolts, I'm not too clear on the need to tighten the 7 cylinder head studs; you say 'just to keep the pressure even' but I'm not following how that has anything to do with the main bearings as all the force would just be within the case-half, not between the cases?? Also, do aircraft main bearings not have 'tangs' to 'lock' them in place? Every auto engine I've rebuilt has both main and rod bearing insert shells with tangs.

Sorry, but what are your qualifications as an "expert"? He's going to spend very little effort and refute the claims. From what's been presented, the plaintiff is then going to have a Hell of a time PROVING any of this. Sure, the plaintiff could spend a bunch of time, effort, and money just to 'get even' making the shop defend itself. But the outcome is not anywhere near certain to go in favor of the plaintiff. Lawyers on both sides will make a bunch of money; that's for certain!

@midlifeflyer My bad; I confused you with another poster that has owned a size-able number of aircraft. Wish I could remember his name!

Heck, that's just the new 'scimitar' prop

Six new cylinders!?!! For high oil consumption??? I think you should investigate a bit further; it may be just one cylinder with an issue. If so, you can return at least 5, maybe even 6, cylinders and the Xanax!