EricJ

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... :'(

There's a museum where you can go look at the pieces.

The main race suit suppliers in the US are names like Sparco, OMP, and Alpinestars. I checked all three and none seem to have any flight suit offerings. Doing a web search on "Nomex CWU 27/P flight suit" brings up several options, and one supplier is apparently a company called "Propper" that is a "tactical supply" vendor. Coincidentally, they're having a closeout on CWU 27/P Nomex flight suits for $49.99 if you get one in sage. Race suits are made to be compliant with a few different specs, particularly SFI (in the US) and FIA (internationally). Most sanctioning organizations have rule sets that indicate the minimum SFI or FIA suit spec for a particular class or application. e.g., road racing suits may be a different minimum spec than drag suits, etc. Drag rules often allow two-piece suits while road racing seldom does. Sometimes the different specs just give tradeoffs on construction, e.g., multi-layer suits used to be the norm but these days the more expensive suits are sometimes single layer and therefore lighter and not as hot to wear. Race suits also usually require closed-cuff ankles and sleeves, a collar that can close around a balaclava, and some have strong epaulets so that the safety guys can drag your butt away from the car that you just crashed. I think most flight suits don't have any of that stuff. Flight suits don't seem to be covered by too many specs, and I can't seem to find what "CWU 27/P" even means; maybe it's just a particular style. There is a MIL-C-83141A spec that some CWU 27/P suits are made to. Since Nomex is just a family of material types, anybody can make something out of Nomex and call it a Nomex suit. Good race suits these days are in the $800-$2k range, although you can get a decent, SFI-compliant suit for $300. Looks like the flight suits, even the mil-spec ones, run from $50-$200 or so. My understanding of the way that nomex works is that the fibers in the weave swell and close together to form a solid barrier when exposed to heat. In doing so they lose a lot of other properties, like the ability to breath, etc. They're one-time use only. In racing if the suit has been exposed to high heat it's done...a lot of safety gear is one-time use; harness, helmet, suit, seat, etc... It is interesting to compare the differences. Looks like flight suits are a lot cheaper in general, but I'd expect that.

Ain't no way I'd go back to folding paper charts in an airplane. I have a large tablet on a knee pad and a smaller one on the yoke. Using both together provides both redundancy and a lot of flexibility, e.g., the approach plates go on the yoke while the map is still up on the knee. I find this far, far easier than charts, and I can zoom an EFB to read lettering that I would fumble with on a paper chart. Plus my paper charts didn't work to tap on the airport to get more info or tap on a region to get winds aloft or wx or whatever. I've tried it before and it didn't work. Maybe the batteries were dead but I couldn't figure out how to change them.