Schllc

There are quite a few products that will remove scratches. I bought a bottle from aircraft spruce years ago that took out all of the micro abrasions, or superficial scratches (the little swirls you see when you look close after the window is clean). The challenge is removing the scratch without distorting the view through the window. Flat windows are much easier to achieve success than curved windows. I had a large and pretty deep scratch on my windshield a few months ago, I was replacing it anyway, so I went to town and polished the heck out of it. I was successful getting the scratch out, and it looked great from outside, but it was pretty fish eyed and distorted from the inside. It wasn’t a direct line of site issue but it still would have driven me crazy.

I found this pretty interesting. I would love to see this same study identifying which engines had modern engine monitors vs analog gauges. https://www.savvyaviation.com/9000-exhaust-valves/?mc_cid=f4e779c5d5&mc_eid=64652240cf The other wildly varying, and unarticulated, factor here is how people treat their engines. It has always amazed me how few people I meet are interested in understanding their engine management habits, and its effect on the engine. The vast majority don’t seem to pay much attention, at least from my perspective. Perhaps all this handwringing and micromanaging my engines doesn’t make that much of a difference. I mean I seldom go more than 5 minutes without touching one of the three knobs. I certainly like to think not, but maybe I’m obsessing for nothing. I did do valve work on my current engine at the recommendation of savvy after a bore scope. They did not say it was necessary, and compressions were good, but the recommended it as a prophylactic measure. For what it’s worth, I only had the last 50 of the 900 total hours so… It wasn’t me!!! perhaps @kortopates could query their data as and tell us? I know when I joined savvy they asked a lot of specific questions about the plane, whether you had an engine monitors and type were some of them.

I agree completely. If they don’t figure out a new set of rules to regulate/stimulate ga, and make it easier to innovate, and or build planes, it will absolutely be done in our lifetimes.

Sure I do. I said they will absolutely ding you if you have losses. But where is the question about my near total absence of losses? Ballpark, I would say over my lifetime, all insurance premiums combined have been close to $8,000,000.00 in paid premiums. (All but healthcare premiums and claims) In that 40 year span I have had less than $50,000 in damage claims, and 0% of those were a result of my error or fault. This is irrelevant to insurance companies, there is no column for those statistics. I know agents have no role in this, I do not envy them having to deliver this ridiculous news to people, it must suck. My beef is with the people making the regulations.. They do so with zero regard for efficacy. They may have the best of intentions, but they aren’t stake holders, and they don’t personally suffer the consequences of their idiotic legislation, so they make a stupid ineffective law that hurts more than it helps, then they pat themselves on the back move on, while we are left with the mess. This is why I will never contribute to AOPA. They are feckless and in my opinion, do little for the causes I feel are important. I am sure at one time they did good work and were dialed into pilots needs, but no longer. They have suffered the fate of most organizations that get well funded. They get comfortable, they rub elbows with the powers that be, get intoxicated with the influence and do less and less for the people they are supposed to represent. Insurance needs a top to bottom overhaul on the rules, and a LOT of deregulation needs to occur, so that rules which actually protect the consumer, and provide a path to profit and solvency for insurance companies can be passed, but today it is broken, and getting worse. I am neither anti insurance, nor anti government. I just believe too much intervention is just as bad as none.

Insurance has no incentive to analyze the individual subject of its insurance if they are a better risk than others if it did so, some would have to be disqualified, and some would have obscenely low rates. it’s much more advantageous to lump people/property into groups, then charge the worst case scenario to all. While reaction times and mental acuity absolutely began to deteriorate around 60. this does not mean at the same level for all, but statistics are what is used. That being said, statistically I am a pretty good risk for any insurance. I would estimate my total premiums for all insurance over my lifetime has paid out far less than 1% of what I have paid in. I have never had any significant loss to an insurer over my 40 years of purchasing, and for the last 25 years my total insurance bill was over 250k annually (all insurance). But tomorrow when I renew any of them I am just a 56 year old male, lumped in with the rest of them. No one looks at my history of losses, or lack thereof. Now if you are a chronic risk they will certainly employ that knowledge. But low risk, not so much.. it is not a simple problem to solve.

That would require refinancing and increased interest rate would negate savings on insurance. If they don’t fix themselves I’ll just pay off the mortgage. but you can see how the government “help” actually punishes. I think if they required hard reserves to cover any predictable loss plus 25%, and let the market decide what it wanted it would normalize. We have reached a point where the attempts to regulate to the benefit of the public, merely provides infinite opportunities for the insurance companies to take advantage, and they absolutely do. It’s 51% to blame on regulation and the balance on unscrupulous corporate managment. Think property/car/airplanes market is messed up, look at healthcare. The government has destroyed that market.

Not sure why you feel the need to twist what I said, but here is an example. I paid 750k for my house. I owe far less than that, in fact, the dirt is worth almost double that amount, but since I have a mortgage I am required to insure the house for whatever arbitrary amount the insurance company says it costs to replace. (Even though you would have to litigate to get them to pay that amount…). So the insurance company says that by statute I must insure for 2 million. On top of this the law requires me to carry contents insurance for not less than 25% of the total value of the house. I do not have a 500k worth of contents inside my house, but wait, it gets better. anything of value over 1,000 I have to declare and pay additional premium or it is not covered! this is NOT because the insurance underwriters have to keep the lights on. This is 100% regulation induced. Why can’t I buy fire only? The dirt is worth 3x what I owe, and there is no scenario where the real estate is destroyed. Because it isn’t legal. so my renewal went from 4800 a year to 9800 in one year, then two months after the premium was paid, the insurance company sent a letter saying they made a mistake and it is now actually 12k a year. Pay it or cancel the insurance with no refund. If the premium doesn’t go down next year, I will likely pay off the mortgage and tell them to pound sand. Only reason I haven’t so far is because I have a 2.2% interest mortgage. The issue was even worse on my commercial property. my insurance went from 19k with a 50k flat deductible, to 119k with a 250k deductible, and an additional 20% in the event of a named storm. Again, I owe less than 20% of the value of the dirt alone, statute compels this ridiculous formula. I had no choice but to satisfy the mortgage and self insure. there is no free market in insurance. It’s a racket. If you feel otherwise we can agree to disagree. No regulation is not the answer, nor what I suggested. What I said is the regulations are not performing as intended, and have become the problem, not the solution.

Insurance is broken in every sector of every market. I don’t really ascribe any blame to agents, I think regulation is the biggest obstacle. Everywhere it tries to “help” consumers it creates loopholes, that end up screwing them. I am at a stage in life that I generally buy no insurance whatsoever that is not compelled by law, and even then I only do the bare minimum. The one exception has been aviation, and there have been times, even there I have skipped all but liability. I know quite a few guys in their 80’s that fly with only liability. Either they can’t get full coverage or it’s cost prohibitive. If the insurance companies don’t have the “data”, it’s simply because they do not want to spend the money to compile said data, because it is all there. Its easier and cheaper to just round up and double it. Insurance is an absolute racket, they break it off in you continually. Especially in south Florida.

KLFT Crew car to “t coons” gas isn’t cheap but worth it for lunch.

I don’t even think that is “all”. That only sounds like pricing for one component per belt.

Agreed. Intern should be fired and blackballed. The methods he used were forgivable from ignorance, but there is no way he did not see the damage he created. Which means they intentionally said nothing after causing the damage. That’s a character flaw and has no place in those industry. Also concerning that the shop would not do more thorough inspections when an intern is working. Crazy world we are living in these days…

Quite a few octogenarians flying complex planes around me in south Florida. Two with Aerostars. If you think retract insurance is hard to get, try an Aerostar! The four that I can think of offhand only carry liability. They cannot obtain full coverage. If I felt capable and safe at that age and I couldn’t get full coverage, I’d go on liability alone as well. I don’t want to say the cynical part out loud (for a change), but you all know what I mean.

Didn’t mean to say that veracity is irrelevant. Veracity is all that matters! I said what one “thinks” about the veracity, is irrelevant. But only if it is true! What I mean is if one were to transcribe all the entries from a paper log and didn’t have signatures of the entries in the elog, as long as they actually happened and were valid, what someone “did thinks” doesn’t matter.

One would think that what one thinks of the veracity is irrelevant, as long as the owner of the logbook has not falsified records. Also, for Mooney type flying, very little chance any of our logbooks are ever going to be scrutinized unless we are in an accident. Even then, as long as the owner hasn’t lied, and is current, it’s a moot point. I started flying earnestly long after most of you guys, and I started off with ForeFlight logbook, so I don’t even have a paper one and never did.

There is no doubt that I am cynical, and I do remember the size of that recall. That being said, I am unaware of any automobile airbag that requires recertification every 3-5 years, in fact, I don’t recall hearing about any required time related for any airbag in any car. Also, not to be pedantic, but the airbags themselves in the Mooney have no life limit, the inflator and the crash sensor are what have intervals. You could easily remove those two components and leave the actual seatbelt without any danger of injury. I was faced with this delima recently. The sad part is a brand new set of regular inertia reels for our little planes are over 2k new… I recertified the entire amsafe airbag system. I do have two tan airbag seat belts from my interior refit if anyone needs them. This is the belt and buckle assembly only, no inflator or sensor.

Book says yes. Lots of guys do less. I have, and could if I had to. Landing is pretty easy, take off can be different.

There are three components to the system. The belt/airbag never expires, the inflator and sensor are the items that require intervals. you can remove the belts and replace with the older style, or you can placard them inop. one nice thing about the amsafe is the rigid buckle side of the assembly. It is fixed and easy to find, like a car. If you switch to the old style it’s cloth on both sides so your fishing for the buckle. they are “required” to be disconnected if they are labeled inop. These intervals are bs in my opinion. It’s just a revenue generator. Has anyone ever heard of a car that required this? And they have made probably billions of them.

My understanding was that if you have a data subscription from Garmin for a panel, you get GP for free. Is this incorrect?

great deal. i wish the runway had been a little longer!

https://www.glapinc.com/Mooney/ There was much said about the difficulty of installing the thicker windows. it is all pretty much bs. I cut and prepped and dry fit all of the windows for the plane in one day. Installed them all the next day and prepped and dryfit the windshield in the same day. Removing and cleaning the old stuff is the hard part. IF anyone wants to know the tricks i learned for the thicker windows feel free to pm me.

this is from the webpage of the vendor where I bought my windows and windshield SC-represents the new solar control material. UVA exposure will eventually damage your interior allowing it to fade and is the leading cause of skin cancer. UV radiation increases about 5% with every 1,000 ft of altitude. While the standard clear and grey will block virtually all of the UV rays it only blocks about 80% of the UVA. The SC product blocks all of the UV and 99% of the UVA which will help maintain your interior and prevent harmful rays for you and your passengers. The SC- material also blocks near infrared radiation (NIR) which causes heat. You can reduce the NIR radiation (solar energy heat) by approximately 30% with the SC- material!

Google search assistant….. Cosmic radiation consists of high-energy particles, such as protons and atomic nuclei, that originate from space, while ultraviolet (UV) light is a type of electromagnetic radiation emitted by the sun with shorter wavelengths than visible light. Unlike cosmic radiation, UV light is non-ionizing and primarily affects living organisms by causing skin damage and other biological effects.

Tint works on the back windows, but the other windows are compound curves and I haven’t found a tint that would work, one of them could bend as aggressively. Exposure at higher altitudes, the atmosphere is thinner, which means less UV radiation is absorbed. For every 1,000 feet increase in elevation, UV exposure can increase by approximately 6% to 10%. This means that at 6,000 feet, UV exposure can be about 36% higher than at sea level, and at 9,000 feet, it can be around 42% higher

My understanding is that all of the uv filtration efficacy is based on sea level? And even the it only filters about 80%, which decreases dramatically as the altitude increases. uv protection also protects against yellowing and crazing. point was that the addition to the plexiglass is minimal. Why not be standard? I know a lot of old airline pilots that have skin cancer issues and it’s all on their face. could be anecdotal.

I recently changed the windows in my plane prior to going to paint. when I called to order the windows I was a bit surprised to find out that UV protection in the plastic is not really a thing. It was not a great deal more to add this to my windows but did limit the tint/color options. None of the mooney’s left the factory with UV protection. I find this a bit shocking given how bad UV exposure gets the higher you go. I have already had skin cancer so this was a no brainer for me, i was curious as to why this has never been standard on our planes. I get the 60’s and 70’s maybe, but the tech has been around a long time, and it isn’t that much. Not sure why it wouldn’t be standard in all replacements in this day and age…