midlifeflyer

Thanks for the comments. I knew about the brake issue, and that dual toe brakes are not required. That's pretty common in older Cherokees too. But it does lead to a question. In the Cherokees, the substitute for the CFI is the hand brake (and, in some older Comanches, the hand brake is the only brake). I'll have a chance to check for myself when I test fly the airplane before any lessons, but how good is the parking brake hand control as a substitute. I'm not talking about "slamming" on the brakes, but gently bringing the airplane to a stop. @Yetti, thanks for the comment about learning to land. I hesitate switching around airplanes, but I do have access to a Cherokee if it becomes necessary. @RobertGary1, you are right about the checklist - good and not too overdone. Do you or anyone else have a good C checklist I can crib from?

There's a lot of personal preference here. I've used the Garmin 155, 430, 480, 530, 650, 750, and the King 89, 90, and 94. Assuming they are still supported and discounting the cost of installation (twice, since you are already contemplating upgrading), they will all do a basic non-WAAS job. But I personally would not consider one that didn't have that newfangled dedicated PROC button. I still remember when I first saw that on the KLN 94 thinking what a game-changer it was.

I have a potential student who bought a C for his primary training. I'm pretty comfortable with transitions but have never trained a pilot ab initio in a Mooney or other retract. Some of the considerations are obvious, but I'd like to have the benefit of the experience of those who have done it from both the instructor and the student perspective. Any special tips, pitfalls, techniques?

I'm sure that second one will be welcome to a lot of pilots who upgraded from the GNS series. More than one has been confused by being directed away from their course when loading an approach early but not activating it.

ForeFlight's movement into the corporate GA market is probably a large reason.

Leaving out the specifics of how to accomplish it, I think your opinion is a bullseye. It's about satisfying the "owner's" concerns, whatever they may be. That can be easy or it can be difficult.

Problem is that it is not really an aviation issue from a legal standpoint. There are aviation elements, like the FAA's process for transferring ownership of an STC, but, based on @tomgo2's description of the discussion with the "owner" that's the simplest piece of the legal pie. There will only be a small percentage of lawyers on the AOPA list who would be capable, and it would be outside the Plan. But contacting a Plan attorney from the list is not a bad idea. Might just hit on an enthusiast who would be willing to donate the time and resources to put something together that may be acceptable to the STC holder. No need to be on the Plan for that. "Forcing" doesn't appear to me to be an especially viable option. sorry I don't have a suggestion of someone.

I see the same in terms of the your description of what they end up doing. Here's another twist... particularly in transition training,is see lack of checklist use leading to lack of checklist use. Example of what I mean: I was transitioning a pilot from a 172 to a 182. World's easiest transition (along with Cherokee to Dakota). Prop/MP and cowl flaps are about it. The pilot had moved to a typical 172 flow in lieu of a written checklist for everything after takeoff. Many do. After all, it's only fuel and mixture (and carb heat if carbureted). Hardly a need for a written checklist for those. But, what happened was this. As usual, the prop/MP was a non-issue but, time after time, on every setup for approach to landing I had to remind the trainee to close the cowl flaps. Finally, I decided to simply say, "You've forgotten something." He would look all around the cockpit, looking for what he might have missed. I chuckled when he tightened his seatbelt. The one thing he never looked at, thought, was the checklist lying on top of the glareshield in his line of sight. He had gotten so used to not using a checklist that referencing it never even crossed his mind.

Must be they are not "real pilots." Either that or since they do so much recurrent training and proficiency checks, there's always someone who is bugging them. It couldn't have anything to do with the much lower accident rate.

Rod Machado once made the comment that there is only one difference between dialing in the wrong frequency on a handoff and a gear up landing - the consequences.

Agree with both points. In my case, I fly multiple types and there is enough variation in starting procedures, especially in fuel injected engines, to make a start checklist worthwhile to me, although I try to keep it short by focusing on those few differences. Same for V-speeds - in the Airbus example, they are going to be wildly different based on the weight envelope and are both calculated and briefed for the specific flight.

I was looking for this to post it. Finally found it. It's the Normal Ops checklist for an Airbus 320 posted by someone in a checklist thread in another forum as an example of simplicity. Makes some Cessna 172 checklists look like a novel. One thing I noticed was that, in favor of operational simplicity, it leaves out things or groups several items into one. For one example there is no "Start" checklist. For another, the very first item "cockpit prep" could be an entire checklist unto itself. There probably is, but it is kept separate to make the "main" Normal ops checklist easier to use. I incorporated some of the same concept into mine; modified others to fit my preferences.

I considered it and did it. Years ago, although I have done a number of revisions since then - always making normal operations a bit shorter and the checklist easier to read quickly. In terms of the worry, it's not so much I worry about an over extensive checklist leading to items being skipped. I worry about an over extensive checklist not being used because it is a PITA. Got into a discussion with another instructor once. "Why don't pilots use checklists?" My answer was, "Because most checklists suck." The reason the suck is, too much crap.

I think most would agree with you that the 90% of the difference is due to the 5° nose-up attitude with the nosewheel on the ground, but having sat in other longbodies, the high panel in the early Ovation will contribute to it for some. BTW, how's my old stomping ground, 7B2, doing?

I think "overblown" is a function of experience - both length and type. A pilot who has little experience, or even lots of experience in a very few types, magnifies the differences between aircraft. But I agree with you. A lesson or two should smooth out some of the rough spots and five the potential purchaser a more realistic perspective..