midlifeflyer

Definitely more than the Internet provides. After all, you said you found nothing with ChatGPT. Irene as informant? Sure, a possibility. But it doesn't make my spidey sense tingle Maybe I've been out of the criminal law biz too many years?

Oh, that. Helen was charged and pleaded guilty. As indicated the the quote I pasted, Helen was the only one going to Beaver. She was the only passenger. After loading and before the search, Irene drove away. Speculation: Could they have charged Irene with something? Probably, but police and prosecutor decided not to. Maybe they felt the evidence against her would be too weak or just too much bother. Sign of something fishy? Maybe. But it sounds normal to my ear.

d. I guess I don't understand your question.

Agreed. All the AI searches are very good so long as we understand they are mostly Cliff Notes whose author may not have read the whole book, and may have been looking at someone else's Cliff Notes as a source.

Does this help clear up the overall situation? It's from the first appeal (the case went from the state trial court to the Alaska Court of Appeals back to the trial court, again to the Court of Appeals and then to the Alaska Supreme Court) On the intent issue, often it's a knowledge issue. The pilot claimed that he didn't know there was alcohol. There was testimony that while that might have been true about some of the cases, he would have to be blind to have not seen the six pack in a plastic grocery bag in plain view. That's why he was only charged with the six-pack. Ultimately it's a fact issue for the jury, which found against him. Kenneth Jouppi and his wife were the two principals of Ken Air, LLC, and Jouppi was the only pilot working for Ken Air. On April 3, 2012, Alaska State Troopers were conducting surveillance of Jouppi and his airplane at the Fairbanks airport. The troopers were there to execute a search warrant for the airplane (a warrant that had been issued in connection with another investigation). As the troopers watched, two women—Helen Nicholia and Irene Todd—drove up to Jouppi's airplane. Jouppi was scheduled to fly Nicholia to Beaver, a local option village. Nicholia and Todd's vehicle contained several boxes and semi-transparent grocery bags. The troopers observed Jouppi opening and closing these boxes and bags, and redistributing their contents to fill up the containers. Jouppi then loaded this cargo into his airplane (with no assistance from the women). Some of the boxes that Jouppi loaded into the plane were open, and the others were loosely closed. Based on the way Jouppi was carrying the boxes, they appeared to be heavy. Once the plane was loaded, Helen Nicholia entered the plane on the copilot side. Jouppi got into the pilot's seat, started the engine, and prepared to take off. (The other woman, Irene Todd, drove away.) At this point, the troopers contacted Jouppi and had him shut off the engine. They then executed the search warrant.

The charge was "transporting." Generally speaking, "transporting" begins at the origin and ends at the destination. Use illegal drugs shipped from Columbia to the US as an example - where does "transport" take place? Only on arrival in the US? In terms of this particular statute, "'transport' means to ship by any method, and includes delivering or transferring or attempting or soliciting to deliver or transfer an alcoholic beverage to be shipped to, delivered to, or left or held for pickup by any person"

The problem of disproportional civil forfeiture has been a significant issue for a long time. Civil rights advocates point out that since these are civil cases, there’s no right to appointed counsel, so most go undefended. Basically a cheap way for states to raise revenue. (The Feds do it too but most of the ones I’ve seen personally have been big drug cases where drug proceeds funded the forfeited homes, cars, bank accounts, etc.) In 2019, SCOTUS said the Excessive Fines clause applied to civil forfeiture, and that the forfeiture can’t be “grossly disproportionate.” In that case, Timbs v Indiana, a guy had sold a few hundred dollars of heroin The state brought forfeiture proceedings against his car(*) in addition to criminal proceedings. Couple of things made it a good case for review. The car was not purchased with drug proceeds. The maximum criminal fine for the offense was $10,000. The car was a $42,000 Range Rover. And the trial court already found it to be excessive Many states have modified their forfeiture procedures. Some, including Alaska, have not, coming up with ways they claim theirs is not excessive. (Simplistically, the harm addressed by the statute rather than harm caused by this defendant.) One of the goals of seeking SCOTUS review is to get some guidelines on what are the elements to look at in deciding whether a forfeiture is disproportionate, which wasn’t done in the Indiana case. No predictions on how this SCOTUS will handle it or whether they will handle it at all, although I will mention the Indiana case was a unanimous decision. (*) yes, “against his car.” Technically, forfeiture proceedings are what the law refers to as “in rem” - “against the thing,” not the person who owns or has a legal interest in it.

Full flaps for me too unless I’m practicing landing without them. Love the post but had to chuckle at this. At the primary student pilot level, flaps are often a landing “crutch”, with students unable to control landing speed without them.

You should be okay on a ramp check, but I have seen mechanics who insist that they will not sign off an airplane as airworthy unless they see the POH in the airplane. Fortunately, since you will have it on your tablet, you can always put the hard copy somewhere in the baggage compartment instead of in a seat pocket.

I have not seen an official interpretation. It was an issue faced by an Ercoupe owner I knew under the pre-MOSAIC weight limitation rules. The pilot was told it was OK, but it was informal from some rep, so whether it represents official policy or not is something I don’t know.

"Legal" unless your navigator/FMS Limitations say no, although the truth is the GNS limitation is probably violated regularly. "Preferred?" Maybe. They do exist, but there are not too many airports in the U.S. where a VOR or LOC approach would be a better choice than an RNAV approach. In those cases, sure. Pink needles primary with green needles on a secondary CDI or a bearing pointer. But otherwise, it seems to me that the only time one would choose a VOR or LOC approach in real life is going to be during a GPS failure. That means, to me, from a proficiency standpoint, we are better off practicing VOR or LOC approaches green needles only, preferably with the GPS off or at least with the approach not loaded and on a non-map page. And if we're not going to practice that failure mode, don't bother practicing VOR or localizer approaches at all.

There’s also the shalt not in 91.9(a)

That’s true of Class B primaries as well.

Well, in the case of APA, it’s busier than many if not most Class C airports but is not radar controlled. When I moved to a nontowered airport in North Carolina, pilots told me they avoided RDU because it was “too busy.” I would laugh and point out that if you added RDU and GSO and added 100,000 annual ops, you’d have the APA numbers,

Avidyne: “GPS/SBAS based IFR enroute, oceanic, and terminal navigation is prohibited unless current Navigation and Procedure databases are installed.” The “debate” has two sides. Those who don’t read the POH and those who do

There was no fuss made by the DPE in that situation, the fuss was self-induced by the student. The DPE did not ask about the discrepancy, just wanted the applicant to fly the approach.

I am in the camp of, choose a gear operating SOP and stick with it. Always.

It's been a long time, but I once did an Angel Flight connection in Amarillo. I wanted to go into AMA, but the other pilot wanted to go into Tradewinds. I asked why, and he said it was because he wanted to avoid the busy Class Charlie airspace and prefer red the non-towered Tradewinds. I insisted on Amarillo because it had a restaurant, (TDW didn't have one then) so that if he was late, we would have a place to sit down and have some coffee. So we ended up at AMA where he and I were the only airplanes taking off or landing during the hour and a half we were there.

When you're talking about this subject, you can't help but look at the particular unit supplement involved. On the part I bolded, that's basically correct. But just to get the terminology correct... when the regulation FAA guidance on GPS use was updated, they updated their guidance regulatory Limitations. That's not as picky as it sounds. There are some important consequences to the way the FAA handles GPS use. Can you imagine what it would be like if every time a manufacturer came up with a new GPS function or the FAA became more comfortable with a particular function, the FAA had to go through the entire notice and comment period to approve it. Instead, there's really only two regulations on the subject. 91.205 which requires "navigation equipment suitable for the route to be flown" for IFR and 1.1 which includes "Information on suitable RNAV systems is published in FAA guidance material" in the definition of "Suitable RNAV system."

That was updated in later AFMS revisions. I think it was Revision 8 in 2018.

Almost always There are two types of discrepancies. One is the very minor one you mentioned, the acceptable range of VOR error. The other is numerical. Since VOR radials are not recalibrated to magnetic often, there can be a discrepancy between the radial and course number displayed in the GPS. Even that “should” not be a big deal, but I was approached a few years ago by an instructor whose student failed their instrument checkride because of it. In that case, the VOR had last been calibrated in 1965 when the magnetic variation was 6° different. The 215° GPS course on the 209° radial threw him.

Check out the very first Limitation in the AFMS you posted a picture of.

Understood. Yes. the IFR portion of Flying s not a whole magazine. Perhaps interesting, I recently had a conversation with one of the current Flying editors about this. The y seemed much more upset about it than I am. Yes, it's cheesy. If you're looking for dumbing down, AvWeb currently has a "Great Pick" for a CO detector (scroll down). The cardboard "Spot" that Aviation Safety described as almost worthless about two decades ago.

Yes. And Tim Vasquez was credited this month and Doug Boyd last month. So far, I have not seen one from IFR Magazine that wasn't credited to the author.

Not in all cases. In the case of IFR, part of what Firecrown is doing is reprinting IFR Mag articles. One of mine from 2017 was republished last year. The IFR articles in Flying the past two months are also republications.