midlifeflyer

...except.. arguably, it does mean that in the case of a VOR or NDB approach, your primary CDI/HSI has to be on VLOC and not just "raw data" on a second CDI or PFD bearing pointer.

Absolutely correct on that point. The concept is neither new nor limited to GPS. I'm sure all of us can find equipment in our airplanes that is listed as "Required" in the POH but is not listed in 91.205.

Does your AFMS have a prohibition? I think your last sentence could be worded, "it's not prohibited, but the equipment won't do it." I have not seen a "Limitation" prohibiting it. Yes, the GFC 500 requires GPS to fly an ILS (and other ground based approaches), but AFAIK, the AFMS discusses it as an emergency procedure - informing the pilot that the AP will fall back into roll and pitch mode, giving the steps to take (disconnect the AP and fly it manually). Yes, the ultimate bottom line - you can't - is the same. I'm just being technical (even though I know people hate that). If were talking about prohibitions and limitations, semantics counts.

The answer is, It depends. There are a number of things which go into the answer. From the general to the specific... The pure regulatory directive is 91.205(d)(2) which requires "navigation equipment suitable for the route to be flown." The definition of suitable in the case of RNAV equipment in FAR 1.1 tells us to look at guidance material (BTW, this is a good thing - can you imagine if every single advance in GPS navigation capability needed to go through the formal regulatory process?) The two basic guidance materials pointed to for the pilot community are AC90-108 and the AIM. The AC was last changed 10 years ago; the AIM tends to be far more current. The POH or AFMS applicable to your equipment which may be more conservative than what the rules allow. When it does, it controls under 91.9. We've seen that final bottom line in this discussion. The FAA guidance material permits a current database or verification that the approach procedure has not changed. Garmin, however ups the requirement and requires a current database (so does Avidyne). In terms of your question, I do not see anything in either that indicates it applies to using VOR or ILS/LOC mode.

Agree completely with first paragraph. Disagree with second. I said so pretty publicly in this article. AIM is not Regulatory.

In this case the AIM is for all practical purpose “regulatory,”* but it establishes a minimum standard. Just like any rule, regulation, or guidance which sets a minimum standard, an aircraft or component manufacturer can impose a stricter standard. * Here’s the FAR 1.1 definition of (be sure to read the last sentence - it’s one of the smartest things the FAA has done. “Suitable RNAV system is an RNAV system that meets the required performance established for a type of operation, e.g. IFR; and is suitable for operation over the route to be flown in terms of any performance criteria (including accuracy) established by the air navigation service provider for certain routes (e.g. oceanic, ATS routes, and IAPs). An RNAV system’s suitability is dependent upon the availability of ground and/or satellite navigation aids that are needed to meet any route performance criteria that may be prescribed in route specifications to navigate the aircraft along the route to be flown. Information on suitable RNAV systems is published in FAA guidance material.”

But the Limitations section of your AFMS says it’s not.

The guidance about that is is in the AIM. Keep in mind that there are two different things involved. One is the accuracy of the location of the waypoints in the database. The other is how those waypoints line up in a particular procedure. IOW, there is a difference between verifying an approach in the database is current by comparing the series of waypoints as loaded with the series of waypoints on the chart (which the AIM says we should be doing on every approach ) with verifying that the location of the waypoints themselves is accurate. And even if the guidance is permissive, the AFMS Limitations control if they are more conservative. Like the one for Hank's 430. This is about the database. 1-1-17.b.2 (b) Database Requirements. The onboard navigation data must be current and appropriate for the region of intended operation and should include the navigation aids, waypoints, and relevant coded terminal airspace procedures for the departure, arrival, and alternate airfields. That broad statement is modified a bit in the following paragraphs for various operations. Table 1-1-6 provides a decent summary and illustrates the difference between the procedures and the underlying waypoint data. The one about the charts is in Table 1-1-6 in AIM 1-1-17:

One might exist, but I'm not aware of any panel unit which (except during updates) holds more than one nav database, let alone allowing switching between them. Having looked at both (the Garmin trainer apps allow switching), unlike charts, there are no differences in content or presentation unless there is an error in one of them (which happens). I can kind of see it for the charts,

Well, kinda. Here's the Limitations. I'm not sure how you would verify that each waypoint in the expired database is accurate. What's your current approved data source? And it looks like an outright prohibition on flying approaches from an expired database. Do you have an AFMS update which changes this?

I don’t know the answer to your switcheroo question, but why? really wondering. The only difference between the content of the nav databases (at least the North American ones) I’ve ever been aware of was the unavailability of the LOC version of ILS OR LOC approaches in the Jepp database in some units and that no longer appears to be the case. What benefit do you see to having both? And of switching back and forth? If you are not talking about the nav database but the chart option, where there are some content and form differences, I still don’t see why one would want to pay for both and switch back and forth. Even in ForeFlight. I do have both but looking at one or the other is mostly for instructional purposes, and 99% of that is on the ground

On the database level there isn’t much difference between Jepp, Garmin, and the native FAA database. Dynon uses the native one internally. Simmers using x-plane domestically can use it too. The difference, as you say, is in chart presentation. Personally, the only thing I ever found “better” about Jepp charts (at least since the Volpe briefing strip became standard) was the quality of the paper and the 10-9 airport information pages. My impression is that Jepp cornered the market mainly because they make the presentation consistent internationally. Compare an FAA approach chart with a Canadian and one from another country at random. The differences are not insurmountable but it’s not something that we need to deal with,

I knew an experienced CFI who managed to do that during a pinch hitter flight. In that case it was a Cutlass and he did just enough that the nosegear retracted while the mains remained. He was mortified.

I can see it both ways. Enough damage to get an accident classification, but I suspect there are plenty of gear-ups like that which never make it to the NTSB because they are (ho hum, snooze) just another gear up. But when the pilot says they lowered the gear, it could take it out of the ordinary and into a safety investigation of “why did the gear collapse?” (I knew a pilot - also a CFI - who had a gear up sitting on the ramp. Initially claimed it happened on its own but came clean a few days later.)

Indeed we are. I hope to do it in stages, limiting myself to simpler operations and simpler aircraft. @Arthur, Sorry to hear. Father Time may set limits, but it's up to us to have the intelligence and strength to understand what they are.

We had a DA40NG in my flying club for a while. That’s the JetA diesel model. I loved discussing the special hot start procedure during checkouts: turn the key.

Personally, I like these for airflow (and usability for multiple generations bought it when I had a Mini 4, still using it with my Mini 6)

…until there is a new feature you would like to have and can’t (and not just because of cost). The non-WAAS G1000 with the KAP140 had it all in there too. We have one of those in our club and, yes, when I do transition training for a new member who got their private with a simple flight deck, they are amazed by all it can do. But most of our instrument rated members insist in the WAAS/GFC700 one for trips. I’ve flown and taught G1000 in Cessnas, Diamonds, Pipers, Bonanzas, and Cirruses (had the opportunity for a Mooney one but had a scheduling conflict). The different OEM looks and feels is inconsequential. But I alway have to grab a Pilot Guide and AFMS to see what “this one” is capable of.

Personally, I agree with @NickG. Yes I have flown G1000/GFC700 combos and teach in them. Yes, they are great to fly but they have a huge downside. Being an OEM product, the ability to upgrade, or simply do software updates, is controlled by the airframe manufacturer. With a G3X/GTN/GFC package, it’s within the control of the aircraft owner. Question for @N177MC: can you create random holding patterns in that flavor of G1000?

Sorry to say, but I think you have a significant budget vs desired performance issue. That 7 month old isn't getting any smaller, so those vacation missions mean 4 people and a bunch of baggage. I'd really be looking at carrying capacity more than Mooney efficiency. I flew a lot in the Rockies in my 20 years in Colorado and, on a nice day with only my wife and I, there were a bunch of options. But add kids and baggage, and I'd be looking at things like a 182 (RG or Turbo if you want some speed) or even a Comanche or Bonanza F-series with a big engine STC (I used to fly a Debonair with an IO 550 - about 5 kts slower than an Ovation with similar fuel burn). Whatever you do look at, be sure to look at the actual weight and balance form for the specific airplane, and run some realistic numbers.

If it helps, my first Mooney experience was when I rented a C at KAPA.

I’ve been in one.

No, but I'd say perceiving a nonexistent threat is.

I'll go with yours, not rear-ended, but he's blocking the 10 cars behind him. behind him. Safe? Perhaps. So is staying home in both cases. But I don't think I questioned the "safety" of blocking the runway or a taxiway or a road, and I think we're now back to unprofessional and foolish, aren't we?

We might just be disagreeing on the semantic use of "objectively." I don't think of a decision based on a mistaken belief to be "objective." IOW, "Well, I thought the light was green so I went into the intersection" is not an objective decision in my book.