Search results

Exactly. Just because it's hard to find an effective manager does not mean AOPA has one. It's so easy to convince people they are trying hard.

I have heard the same story many times. AOPA tells the pilots to self organize and take care of the issue. But they are happy to fly their planes and attend meetings to discuss things.

I argue they do not have "effective management". They have been enjoying the money they get and coming up with infinite excuses. Effective management would have a large list of accomplishments.

NATA's CEO's salary is $50K, yet they successfully convinced the govt that hiding FBO fees is fine. Several of your arguments are exactly why I am frustrated with AOPA: they keep talking, but not accomplishing. For $1.6M salary, anyone can attend meetings, fly a private jet, issue PR articles...

Tim, there are infinite excuses for/by AOPA over the years. Yet, a pilot lands at an FBO at a small airport and they charge him $70 per night in parking fees without that info being displayed anywhere, digitally or in print. If AOPA dedicated 10 full-time people (by reducing the CEO's salary)...

Based on the info I could find on the internet: - AOPA proposed transparent FBO fees on the next FAA re-authorization bill - NATA lobbied back and got that removed (NATA is the FBO organization) - AOPA wants more money to fight NATA better - AOPA: $50M yearly budget - NATA: $6M yearly budget -...

Wow, what a crazy experience. Improving your safety with an AD almost killed you. What an irony in regulations. So frustrating. Good luck with restoring the plane and your psyche.

I have been a super happy user of perfectly reliable Insight G2 for 14 years in two planes. Besides the CHTs and EGTs, I have carb temp, OAT, bus voltage, and FF (and fuel totalizer).

Here is what they say about the mission at the end of the video:

Thank you. Are you saying that they could put an uncertified engine (the APU) into a certified plane because it does not directly provide the power to the electric motors? Also, my understanding is that a turbine engine costs several $100Ks. Why is the uncertified APU so cheap ($20K)?

Also, the APU sounds like a turboshaft engine connected to a generator, correct? That means it's as expensive as a turbine engine.

Thank you. I wonder if someone can make this for GA, where the turbine is replaced with an ICE engine (a small Rotax, for example)? It should be safer, since electric motors rarely fail and the battery is there to get you to an airport if the ICE engine fails. It should be cheaper to maintain...

First manned flight. Looks very interesting. Has an engine (I think a turbine, but not sure) to produce the electricity for the battery and electric motors: https://www.flyingmag.com/modern/electra-achieves-takeoff-landing-with-under-170-feet-of-runway/

A murder/suicide. Cant think of a better description:

Interesting data. Thank you. I wonder how much bias there is in terms of model years, avionics, and engine time in these data. Not sure if the sample size is large enough to match these major factors in pricing.

That one has hail damage. Insurance likely paid $50K for that, but they did not fix it.

https://www.trade-a-plane.com/search?category_level1=Single+Engine+Piston&make=CESSNA&model=182Q+SKYLANE&listing_id=2430955&s-type=aircraft https://www.trade-a-plane.com/search?category_level1=Single+Engine+Piston&make=CESSNA&model=182Q+SKYLANE&listing_id=2430130&s-type=aircraft

The best one is the Grand Canyon airport. The shuttle will pick you up and take you to any trailhead on the south rim. The best one is south kaibab/bright angel loop to the river.

182 should be a solid upgrade in speed, load, space, and range. Here is an article on different 182 models: https://goodnewtimes.blogspot.com/2023/12/cessna-182-fixed-gear-mini-review-and.html

I think that makes sense for those planning to fly IFR frequently. However, if you spend a total of 1-4 hrs per year in IMC, the odds of GPS suddenly going down are extraordinarily small.