Pinecone

Yeap, it really does help to have airline status and upgrade. But even in economy, some airlines provide good service with a smile

There are several threads on Pilots-n-Paws forum. But there here is a link (from that forum) from a law firm about deducting expenses as a charitable donation. https://www.pilotsnpaws.org/forum/download/file.php?id=3833 According to them, you CANNOT deduct fixed costs (annual, hangar rent, insurance). Only fuel and oil, pilot fees (landing/ramp/parking), rental costs, additional costs for insurance for this activity. "No Charitable Deduction for Fixed Costs of Flights for Charitable Purposes While the FAA now appears to permit aircraft operators to perform some charitable flights and take the associated tax deduction, the IRS only allows a charitable deduction for variable costs of transportation for charitable purposes.8 “Only those expenditures incurred for operation, maintenance, and repair, which are directly attributable to the use of such aircraft” on a charitable flight can qualify as charitable deductions. Examples of costs that could be “directly attributable” to a charitable flight include (a) the cost of fuel and oil for the flight, (b) pilot fees incurred solely for the flight, (c) rental charges for an aircraft used only for the flight, and (d) extra liability insurance incurred only for the flight."

But so far, the only engines to have issues are 550s. As I understand, 3 of them. 2 on the ground, one in flight. One of the ground ones only had 25 hours.

DUH. I was wondering how to add when adding oil. I actually have as syringe designed to measure oil for premix. I would add the Cam Gaurd to the oil in the bottle, shake it, then add to the engine.

That is the only one I have not read. I have it though. There are some detractors to Mike. I feel he has done a great job of collating info from a number of sources and presents in a clear manner. A lot of good info I did find a lot of overlap between the books. So if you read all three fairly close together you will be thinking, didn't I already hear this?

No, they are not. If you have the same rate per X hours, of fatalities, yes. But even then, one airplane may have more crashes than the other, but the same number of fatal ones. And even non-fatal crashes leave lasting issues. BT, DT, have the scars.

There are some airlines with excellent service. Even the US carriers have periods of time when they provide good service, then they get stupid and service sucks. The big Middle East carriers have excellent service. Some of the Asian airlines also. But most times, you are correct, the service sucks. As for the security aspect, for US, get Global Entry/Pre Chek. $100 per 5 years and WELL worth it.

Why would it effect 520/470/360 when the problem is limited to 550s?

Hint, the number is 4. Now figure out how.

When you hone a cylinder, at least the way it is done with auto engines, you get the same shape as you started with, you remove metal evenly. If you bore one, it would be hard to bore in the choke

I was thinking when I do a major panel upgrade that I would change to toggle switches. They make CB switches.

Again, what RATE is that. Rate per number of airplanes? Rate per X number of hours? For what we are discussing, we need to have the rate of how many of the crashes are fatal ones. For example, Airplane X fleet flies 1,000,000 hours per year. Airplane B is 500,000 per year. If they have the same fatal accident rate per year, Airplane B is more dangerous as they are having fatal crashes twice as often, per hour, as Airplane B. Or you can have a case where Airplane A has less crashes per 100,000 hours than B, but a higher percentage of the crashes in A are fatal. That is what we are talking about. Not total crashes, but how many of the crashes are fatal.

In Baltimore there is a trash to power plant. Nice business model, people bring you fuel and pay you to take it. Then you burn it and sell the power. To me, win - win. And why not build more. The metal come out molten and are recycled. Most of the rest is burnt and they have excellent scrubbers so only water vapor and CO2 go out the stack.

Then the fun question can be, how many people can log PIC at the same time?

That has been the case for decades. Not claims, but the two agree that the safety pilot IS the PIC. But the safety pilot can only log the time when the person flying is under the hood., not the whole flight. And they cannot log it as XC time. The last was a letter for FAA at some point The question in the letter was worded incorrectly to get a good answer. There is no OBLIGATION for anyone other than the pilot acquiring the airplane (renting or using own or ...) to ever pay anything. The question should be whether the safety pilot MAY pay for a pro rated share of the cost. ANYONE in the airplane can share expenses. Even non-pilots. But the pilot cannot pay less than a full share. 2 people, the pilot has to pay at least half, 3 people, no less than 1/3 and so forth. I know a while ago, some of the big schools for building time would send two students out in a twin with one flying and one safety pilot and switch. Both logging PIC time AND, to be complete, you have to have a common purpose. So your friend cannot say, hey I need to get to X, and you say, cool, I will fly you if you pay half. If you are going to X and a friend asks to go along and offers to pay half, you are good to go.

All the structural parts are vacuum bagged and autoclaved.

Yes, rate is a ratio, you just have to know what the two units of measurement are. Overall fatality rate does not tell us which plane is more survivable, it just tells us that one crashes hard more. The rate needed for this discussion is the fatality rate per crash.

Same with blades from wind turbines. Right now, they bury them. And Eastern Europe had the issue with the Trabants. They used a resin impregnated cardboard for the body.

Yeah. I got quotes on G3X with 6 cyl EIS, GFC-500 with yaw damper, and PS audio panel last summer and they started at $50K

The issue some some circumstances is the pilot recognizing that there is a problem, admitting that the answer is the chute, pulling the handle, and the time from handle pull to full deployment. Cirrus greatly reduced their rate with Cirrus specific training and getting pilots to understand that pulling the handle is not a bad thing, the insurance will handle it.

What RATE are they using? For this comparison, the proper one would be percentage of accidents that are fatal. Not the number of fatal accidents per X flight hours or per number of planes.

Then, you know things are going OK. For the T-38, the 1000 foot check speed was typically a bit over 100 knots, but but most times you were WELL above the minimum.

See if you can contact Paul Bertorelli on AVWEB. It seems like something he might be interested in tackling.

Anything you have is good. The 50/70 is just another tool in the toolbox. If you fly off of IFR marked runways, you have a 1000 foot marker. In the USAF we had a 1000 foot check speed. If you were not at or above a certain speed at 1000 feet of takeoff roll, you aborted the take off.

Just remember, in 40 years there will be 60 year old Cirruses that may be affordable to the average person.