dzeleski

I think you unfortunately took the team part too literally and that’s my fault due to the way I wrote it. Linus is very well known for running that project very controlled and very hands on. Reviewing nearly every single change and being involved in every single aspect to the point of a bit of insanity. Im not saying no one else was ever involved (the commit history obviously shows this) but that it largely was either stay at his level or we got a very entertaining rant off the mail list. My apologies. edit: if I remember correctly I’m fairly sure up until a few years ago only Linus had write permissions to his tree and he quite literally reviewed everything himself(with varying levels of detail). I know the subsystem maintainers did most of the heavy lifting here but that was why I put team in quotes because Linus at the end of the day was the gatekeeper.

There are way more open source failures then successes by a gigantic margin. The mathematics alone in foreflight is staggering let alone making it render correctly/smoothly. I no longer work on any OSS anymore because I work on stuff that actually makes money. Can you find a group of people passionate about EFBs to spin up a project? Absolutely. Getting it to compete with a fully mature product with significant market share and literal billions is way harder then you think it is. Linux was "invented" in 1991, thats 34 years of work to get it to this point. Its way harder then anyone realizes, and it takes a very special person to care THAT much about something to make it work. Edit: Linux did not have a "team" until very very recently. The "team" was Linus Torvalds for a very very long time. Hes a "100x engineer" and those are exceptionally rare individuals.

Just as the Avidyne database subscriptions were reduced to a reasonable rate. Probably gonna end up voting with my wallet on this one but we will see.

You did. See the bold underlined text above.

I own a J not a Bravo but ill bite. You own an airplane that is exceptionally capable, its also exceptionally capable of killing you. If you have not started your IR please do, once you do Dons comments will probably make a bit more sense. The first 10 hours of IR training could/will save your life if that airplane gets you into a situation you were not expecting. The comment for me that sticks out is saying that a 172 isnt that different then a Bravo. They both have wings, but thats about as similar as you are gonna get IMO.

If you use triflow you wont have that problem. But I also clean the shafts every time I lube them. My MSC has told me to do as such, im not aware what kind of bushings my 77 J has but I have had zero issues lubing them.

Agreed. Ill notice my GFC500 start to hunt a bit, lubing the shafts and everything behind it fixes the problem. It usually lasts about 3 months or so before I start to notice again. I lube the hinges and rod ends as well but those dont seem to make that large of a difference.

You would be correct. Something is wrong with this install.

I dont use personal minimums as such anymore, I found they didnt make any sense the second I started using my airplane to travel with an IR. For instance if you wont shoot an approach to ILS minimums you should be asking yourself why. If the reason is you personally believe its too risky, thats understandable, but you should still be capable of doing it. If the reason is because you dont feel confident in your skills you need to find an instructor immediately. Weather changes rapidly and you will find yourself in a situation you wish you were not in, but your training and skill set needs to be there to get you back on the ground safely. Mike Patey had this talk on this subject:

Track and Heading are two different things. Does the HSI 098 match your compass on the glare shield? Track is a GPS path over the ground. Heading is where the nose is pointed too, the difference between the two is your wind correction. Seeing your GPS track match the AI to me means your AI is using Track because it does not see the Magnetometer so its just defaulting to Track rather then displaying heading. If it was configured to use the magnetometer and it failed you would see a red X and then it would show track as a default. If your HSI matches your Compass then the HSI is correct and the AI is either misconfigured or something is not connected correctly.

If you pull a fuse on the AI does the DG fail over? When you do the calibration you do it on the Number 1 "strapped" G5. Generally thats the AI. Its possible the process was not completed correctly or at all. Page 28 is 7.5.3 for calibration. https://static.garmin.com/pumac/190-01112-11_03.pdf That being said this probably needs to go back to an avionics shop. Edit: Wait.... TRK and HDG are not the same thing. Is your TRK always matching to the AI heading? That might mean the AI is not connected to the GMU-11 correctly and is just showing TRK as that is all it has access too. Page 10 5.1.4 explains how to troubleshoot. If you go into config mode -> device information, you might see a red X on MAG.

Although you can do what you are doing you are making your life harder at a very critical time. https://pilotsupport.avidyne.com/kb/article/542-Approach-Procedures/ You can fix that gap in your route way sooner and have that approach loaded and activated. If you fix the gap in your route you won’t need to worry about activating it. The best way to solve this problem is to just ask for an approach fix to fly to. Ideally once you are cleared for the approach everything should be active and configured including the AP. Martin Pauly lays out many of the options in his video which lets you prepare way earlier: I personally avoid using VTF at all costs because you lose your fixes but you can see this example if it’s something you prefer:

Everything works except VNAV. Same as if you had a garmin 430 as they are swappable. I’ve had a Dual G5, GF500, IFD440 install for several years now and it all works together perfectly.

I just thought it was funny. Its a known issue with the G5s though, Garmin will only replace units that are actively doing it and now allowing proactive swaps. Pulling the battery off the back while isnt hard it is quite tedious.

Contact your installer. You probably have an older unit that needs to be replaced. I had the same problem.

Make sure you have the latest software installed. There is a known bug where they don’t turn off all the way and drain quickly. Other than that it shouldn’t really be a big problem.

The damage to the tank sealant is seriously concerning. This stuff is staying out of my fuel tanks. Im not sure if you would entertain it but I would happily send over cash for you to buy some tank sealant and test it in a controlled manner. Secondly that Cirrus looked like the resin was eaten out of the honey comb…

Nonsense. We have valve spring testers for this exact reason. Springs that are not healthy will absolutely show their signs. Bad springs will show up as an out of family curve. https://www.performancetrends.com/Valve_Spring_Tester.htm One common cause of broken valves in engines that run methanol and collect water in the oil. If the engine isn’t flushed or ran up to temp with pump gas rust can start to form on the springs and that little bit of rust can cause a fracture point for a crack to form. This is really common in drag racing applications. For an engine shop to say there is no way to NDT a valve is insane. So they are just slapping used or even new valves into an engine and hoping the seat pressures and heights are correct? That’s a great way to get valve float, piston to valve contact, valve seat recession, valve failure, or valve spring failure.

https://www.boldmethod.com/blog/2013/11/aircraft-oil-mineral-ashless-dispersant-synthetic/ Shell Oil tested all-synthetic oils in aircraft engines, and what they found wasn't good. At 600 to 900 hours, the engines began to burn more oil and lost compression. "When the engines were disassembled, we found that the piston rings were covered with a gray tacky substance that was primarily made up of the lead by-products of combustion." https://generalaviationnews.com/2005/03/11/synthetic-oil-is-it-right-for-your-plane/ Back in the 1960s, Shell ran several flight evaluations of oil formulated with all-PAO base oil. The oil performed very well except in large engines, (turbocharged 520s and 540s). In some of these engines, the oil failed to absorb the lead salts from the combustion process. This resulted in gray sludge buildup in the ring belt and props. Shell then changed to a semi-synthetic containing only 50% synthetic base oil and the rest normal mineral oil to alleviate the problem. There are plenty of synthetic oils but most companies are using blends today. Amsoil, redline, motul are all using group 4 or group 5 oils. Our airplane oils are clogged up with lead by products which is the primary reason we need to replace it so often.

I've refrained from commenting up until this point... The fact that this company thinks "testing" painted services by throwing a few panels into aluminum pans as a sufficient test and then even worse declares that there are no adverse effects to the paint from that test is pretty alarming to me. The complete lack of ownership of the problem is even more concerning. The second part of the testing video done by mluvara is enough for me to never put this fuel into my airplane under any circumstances. There is a clear chemistry issue here and the responses from said company are not positive. The fact that these orings are swelling so bad that you cannot re assemble these components is a real issue. We know that many of same solvents that attack paint also attack our fuel sealant. When this fuel sloshes around in our tank it is very possible that it is leaving behind whatever the same compound is that is attacking these painted surfaces. Seeing that reddit post with the push rod is seriously worrying. I would love to see someone test samples of CS3204, CS3600, and CS3330, both submerged and with splashes of fuel since that is the conditions our tanks regularly see. If I had easy access to the fuel I would try it myself considering I have left over of all 3 sitting in my hangar about to expire. I very much want an unleaded fuel, lead is not good for us and its terrible for our engines. I would love to be able to use synthetic oil and extend our change intervals as well as have an engine that runs cleaner. But the results of what is happening in the wild with this fuel is not acceptable. Hopefully this is a chemistry problem that can be resolved, but that requires ownership and acknowledgement of the problem to begin with. Im looking forward to what VP and Swift come up with, more specifically VP considering I have ran hundreds of gallons of their various race fuels over the years. Thats my .02 on this situation. TL;DR: This fuel will never go inside my airplane as its chemistry presently sits.

You could've tagged me That photo is of my airplane unfortunately and the leak it caused actually caused me to declare an emergency over the North Shore of Long Island headed to CT, the fuel leak puddled in the belly pan and caused a fuel smell that was quite alarming. I got the fire truck parade and a date with the FAA. Going through my logs there have been at least 5 or 6 different shops that have "fixed" leaks. Its clearly quite critical that you have someone that knows how to do this properly. Byron did a great job fixing the mess that was there. I am impatiently waiting for my reseal appointment.

The waitlist is well over a year now. Almost 2 years. I have an appointment for Jan of 2026, I called February of 2024. I was also told it would cost $9,000 for a 64 gallon J.

They are really easy to not install correctly and pinch them causing an induction leak. If the engine runs well at higher power settings but idle is bad I would inspect those gaskets.

Could also very well be the intake gaskets leaking. Does it pop and bang during landing as well? Since it’s so cold those gaskets on the head or the intake could just be super brittle, mine were falling apart. Heres what my IO360 sounded like when the gaskets were shot: Check page six here for the induction leak test: https://www.savvyaviation.com/wp-content/uploads/articles_eaa/EAA_2012-01_flight-test-profiles.pdf

There are a few chats about this but this was a popular one. This one is also good