Search results

This is one reason people die waiting for rescue. Too many people sit around assuming somebody else (the government) has it covered.

I have to wonder if you actually listened to the guys story and watched the video. If you did, you weren’t paying very good attention, and / or you don’t understand helicopter operations. It’s clear the son was a useful, perhaps necessary, crew member for that particular mission.

I'm not paying % of completion unless there are well defined phases of value. My last project as an example was pavers and I'm not paying for them to rip up my driveway and leave me with a yard full of mud and piles of pavers for months on end. You'll get paid when I can use my driveway again.

Yes. That is certainly the case. Not sure why you think that's a bad thing.

Yes. It's certainly not fair for taxpayers to pay for it. If the anti-lead folks want to pay, that's fine by me.

Maybe I’ll move to California and buy a certified aircraft. That way I can live the dream and pay a private company for a piece of paper that allows me to avoid breaking a federal law and use a fuel the state government mandates. Yay liberty!

In addition to what I said in my last post, I’ve seen that FlightAware changes a flight path at times, whether by enriching it from other sources or adjusting the initial plot. I collect the raw adsb data with my own receivers and I see this all the time when comparing their data to the raw data...

You can’t trust all adsb data. Many like FlightAware use algorithms that attempt to fill in the blanks in ways that are far from accurate. If a track stops at altitude, such as when a stall spin occurs, they may assume the flight continued and plot it as such.

But I’m agreeing with you on the larger point. It’s cheaper to buy a used aircraft and upgrade it than to buy the new one. All the more so if you can find one someone did for you.

I think you have to factor the cost of modern avionics for it to be a fair comparison.

You've had plenty of issues with yours already, but I guess you haven't owned it long enough yet to understand. lol I've easily spent $10k a year on average between maintenance and avionics upgrades. With paint, you've averaged more than that, and you're not even up to latest gen avionics.

That's right. But, imagine the cost to keep a 1974 182 airworthy over the last 50 years. I'd wager it would be pretty darn close to 1/2 million dollars. Add in the avionics upgrades, and it's a lot more. What's my point? I'm not sure. But it's interesting to think about. I guess one point...

The exhibition aircraft currently flying were likely brought to the us and originally certified as exhibition and were not conversions.

Third time through I see it again.

ok, either I misread you or you edited some posts. Not an accusation, just a fact. Now as I re-read I’m not seeing you suggest a conversion, but for whichever reason I thought you did first time through.

What is the “legit reason”, “need”, and “plan” to convert your 172 to exhibition?

Not all fsdo’s agree with you. I don’t think it’s always as easy to convert as you say. Also I speak from experience when I say exhibition is not as well understood and can be a hassle when dealing with the fsdo. I think he means adding the ia once you have the A&P is easier than getting the...

Nonsense. Of course it’s acceptable. It’s none of their business. Aircraft with AWC are disassembled all the time by non certified mechanics. Every time once crashes for example.

If you are asking the question "Do I know how?", then you know that you don't know how.

Interesting.