EricJ

I worked for a while in the early 90s on the comm module in the AIMS cabinet in the Honeywell avionics in the B777. I designed the circuit hardware for much of the comm box, including one of the first ACARS modems that got any significant broad use, and I also did a lot of HDL and some software for the modem. It was a good experience for me as we got a LOT of training in formal verification methods for hardware and software, because the certification process for air transport is thorough. Basically, at least in those days, every line of code is formally tested, every condition of every branch is tested, every path of every conditional is tested, every case of a case statement, every state of every input condition is tested, etc., etc. The test plan has to show how each of these things gets accomplished. I found it excellent training as it's actually not that hard or egregious to do, and it's extremely effective at finding bugs. It also makes your write more efficient code. I've used those methods throughout my career very effectively and was always glad for the experience. So when I hear of an expensive bug found because of an untested condition or code that didn't get exercised or a table entry that never got sampled (like the Pentium bug, if you remember that), I always think of this stuff and that it was a preventable error. There's a reason very few software bugs turn up in airliners compared to almost anywhere else. The testing and verification methods are very good. They're expensive and take effort, but they're good.

Also, it looks like there's a conformal coating on the board, which will have to be removed around the component before replacing. But, generally, yeah, just stick a reasonably spec'ed diode on there and see if it works. FWIW, diodes don't fail very often. Replacing the diode may not fix the problem, either because the diode isn't actually failed or because whatever caused it to fail is still bad.

Those little ones can be difficult to rework, e.g., replace, without proper equipment and experience. Even experienced techs generally don't like working with that stuff. But, yeah, an assembly pic might still help, plus anything you might know about the circuit.

A pic might help.

Regardless, it's probably the Mooney with the most cabin space.

Is that the sort of thing that's classified as MRSA? Bad stuff if so.

A few years ago I bought some of those and gave most away as gifts. I think they're marginally useful, better than nothing, but not nearly as good as having a decent monitor with a numerical display.

When I was reading it I was thinking it was starting to look like an intentional act.

I have traffic on my IFD540 display which comes from an in-panel FreeFlight Ranger, and on the two tablets I fly with that get traffic from my Stratux. There are often differences between them, and sometimes there'll be a target on one that isn't on the other, and it goes both ways. There are subtle differences of why that can happen, and it does often enough to not be unusual. It's one of the reasons I fly with that much redundancy, because around here you can use all the help you can get when it comes to traffic awareness.

Yes, the primary by-products of combustion are CO2 and water. Neither are toxic.

Well, that's disappointing. ;)

Since Al is one of the more thermally-conductive materials around, that will efficiently suck heat out of the cabin and radiate it back into the outdoors via the tail feathers.

If the cabin CO2 levels start to get too high, just stop exhaling.

This stuff ain't always obvious or straightforward, and lots of lawyers make their livings on these distinctions. There's a lot to learn and know, so I think the discussions are always useful, especially for those of us who don't do this every day.

You're conflating FAR Part 43 Appendix D, which is a regulatory requirement, and Advisory Circular 43.13, which is accepted data for doing repairs on non-pressurized areas of aircraft. Many aircraft don't have maintenance manuals, or the maintenance manuals are inadequate for providing direction on doing certain repairs. When a Maintenance or Service Manual doesn't exist or doesn't provide direction on how to do a specific repair, then AC43.13 (which is an Advisory Circular) can be used as Accepted Data (which has legal meaning) in performing a repair. AC43.13 is advisory only and has pretty much nothing to do with requirements for annual inspections. FAR Part 43 is Federal Aviation Regulation, not advisory, and Appendix D of that part outlines the scope of an annual inspection. It makes no reference to manufacturer requirements or manuals, other than indirectly for determine "proper" conditions.

It also says that retorquing to prevent leaking is okay.

What does it say the SM was used for? It could be that some procedures were used, e.g., rigging the gear during the required gear swing, that have to be done per the SM. Assuming much beyond that kind of thing may lead to a misunderstanding that is counterproductive. It is pretty common for annuals to be done that aren't compliant with the factory checklist, so following the factory checklist can't really be considered a standard practice. What's in the FAR should absolutely be expected, as that's a regulatory requirement, but beyond that if there's something specific that is expected it should be stated ahead of time. It's certainly reasonable to ask what was actually done or not done, though, and what the statement in the logbook meant regarding using the SM.

I had a similar issue and (carefully) tightening the screws solved the problem. I've since installed new senders, etc., so that was the bigger cure. I believe new gaskets are included, or at least I didn't get charged for gaskets when mine was put in.

"Best" is going to be in the eye of the beholder. I'm a total CB in this area, so I still use Avare, which is open-source and free. It is fully functional and has geo-referenced approach plates, auto-switch to taxi map, plays well with ADS-B-in, etc., etc. It is not quite as sophisticated as some regarding filing flight plans, etc., but I started using Avare because of some show-stopping bugs in FtlPln Go that affected my use of it. Otherwise I'd probably still be using FltPln, but there's not a ton of difference between them. Avare is android-only, FltPln Go is on both. The future GA utility of FltPln Go and Foreflight are both questionable, since Garmin and Boeing acquired each respectively. iFly, FlyQ, Wingx, and Avare certainly don't have concrete futures, either, but they all have a pretty solid GA focus and all have very good functionality. The nice thing about all of it is that they're all good enough to be used, so I think it comes down to personal preference, and for that you just have to experiment with them to see what you like. I think all of the subscription-based EFBs have a trial period.

The only requirements for an annual are outlined in FAR 43 Appendix D, and they aren't constrained by the manufacturer's annual checklist. In other words, complying to the manufacturer's annual checklist is not required. Many do as good practice, but it is not required. If you want the MM used as the annual checklist, or something other than 43 App D, that should be discussed ahead of time with the IA. The only requirement is that the items in 43 App D can't be skipped.

The G5 attitude indicator cannot be both an AI and a T&B, so if you use the G5 as an AI you have to have a separate T&B. People who have to keep another AI for whatever reason (e.g., to drive the AP), can call that the primary AI and then use the G5 as the T&B and delete the old T&B.

It's proof you can take a pic that gives that impression.

Nomex paper is used as the honeycomb core in some composite sandwich structures.

Actually, this is what I meant (at the Central Armed Forces Museum in Moscow): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Francis_Gary_Powers_U2_at_Moscow.jpg https://www.tripadvisor.com/LocationPhotoDirectLink-g298484-d549927-i40480236-Central_Armed_Forces_Museum_of_Russian_Federation-Moscow_Central_Russia.html The empennage may not be there, or maybe not enough to figure out how the trim worked.

Ahg...my airplane is taken apart at the moment... :'(