midlifeflyer

There isn’t at this point. Being able to annotate the chart or otherwise make changes due to NOTAMs and the like is one of the top two or three wish list items I’ve see mentioned.

It's nice to have all those options with the ability to switch them with a few taps.

One other thing in favor of the G5 I’m not sure was mentioned, is its simplicity. From what I’m seeing with various pilots, the learning curve transitioning from analog is significantly smaller than with more complex glass.

The only way to get reliable guidance on the question is to speak with a commercial lawyer in the relevant state who understands airplanes. The commercial lawyer part is more important than the aviation part (your lawyer can hire an expert) , but the combination is best. i can’t tell you what I think of your case. I’ve been on both sides of the misrepresentation of an aircraft issue (one was even a Mooney), so I know how much I don’t know about yours. But the chances are that even if it’s good, it’s not going to be, as the lawyer ads put it, “no fee unless we win.”

Same with some variation. For the destination, depending on where, I will generally plan two alternates. One is to meet the regulatory requirement. The other is where I would really go. They might both be good but they will be where the weather is different, such as one coastal and one inland. Depending on conditions, I may have a third, but this is an enroute alternate - a decision point where I will do a destination weather check and decide whether to continue or divert now.

Some do the exact opposite. Use the aeronautical layer all the time and turn off the Sectional or Enroute chart. I'm kind of in the middle. I still prefer the familiar Sectional for VFR. but prefer the naked Aeronautical for IFR. In both cases I try to minimize clutter by customizing what is displayed on the Aeronautical.

Yes, that is a real issue there. I was a little immune from it when I moved to Denver because I had just earned my rating in southern New England and had several hours in the clouds, including two real missed approaches. So I ended up with the opposite experience - my personal minimums growing higher over time (and not just with age).

Just curiosity: I wonder haw many have actually been faced with this? I’ve read that the most common instrument approach is the visual; that breaking out at or neat published minimums are rare. I would expect those who fly several hundred hours per year to come across it more often than weekend warriors. We have folks who live in areas where flyable IMC is rare to begin with. I lived in Denver for 20 years - we would all rush out to fly and teach instruments in the 6-week May-June good cloud window. Even in good IFR areas, LIFR is a rarity. I have a friend who flies about 200 hours a year, travels regularly on the east coast as far south as Florida and as far north as Canada and has not busted personal approach minimums.

I accept that, but I think our brains work on different wavelengths.

So if you reach published minimums and you are in the verge of breaking out, you…? Realistically, if everything was in target and stable and I had some (unofficial) visual references and it was above published minimums, although I hope I would go missed, I would probably not be able to resist the temptation to continue another 50-100’. I accept my human frailties. Bottom line: I’m not a kid anymore. My personal minimums are higher now than they were when I was far less proficient and (I hope) knowledgeable and thoughtful than I am now.

They are the same for me because I have personal minimums higher than published. I will be checking weather enroute and if it’s changed while enroute, may divert before I even try.

Yep. Too many things different from what is selected to display (including the aeronautical layer) to the zoom level. I'm not even sure what the complaint is.

Same.

It’s also in the general Settings area.

Perhaps turning it on?