midlifeflyer

That’s interesting. That may be an another reason for my SOP continuing to use my EFB as my primary chart reference regardless of the equipment in the airplane.

Cool!

That would be funny if it wasn’t so accurate.

THIS for me as well. Many years ago, I did a C172 checkout for a 20,000 hour retired airline pilot. When we got to the simulated engine failure, he was at best glide and heading toward a landing spot within 6 seconds. Once I realized what he was doing, I started to test it out with other airplanes. All he did was look out the window and pitch for the most familiar attitude - level cruise. Turned out that a level cruise attitude resulted in a speed close enough to best glide that the difference was inconsequential. So inconsequential that trying to be perfect has a negative impact. Even seems to account for weight. I’ve been using and teaching it ever since. I used that technique recently in an “impossible turn” demo. It wasn’t in a Mooney, but I’m linking it below anyway. Tweak if you need to with a touch of trim. If your autopilot has an IAS mode, use it. But only once underway to your landing area.

I record audio separate from the camera. This is the digital recorder I am using now. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07KBWN8L1/ In my case, my headset has an audio output jack, but I have also done it by plugging the recorder directly into a headset jack. (I’ve used the NFlight product. It works well, but the GoPros have a tendency (habit, actually) of overheating, so I gave up on them in favor of “cheap” knockoffs that actually work.)

Yeah, the technique we were taught as student pilots often produces the same result.

As everyone has said, leaning ROP is based on the leanest/first-to-peak cylinder. Leaning LOP is based on the richest/last-to-peak cylinder. With Lean Assist systems the system compares all the cylinders during the process and identifies the first/last to peak and In some you can tell it you are trying fo ROP or LOP and it will show you the appropriate values. For most of us, once you know the value, you just go to it.

I’m not sure what you are asking. If you are referring to the PPS flight planning system, I’m not sure who here has used it.

For me, the event was so fast, so sudden, and so immediately catastrophic, that speculation has even less value than usual.

...there have been a number of these. Nashville's (BNA) so-called "Super Charlie" (still round but bigger). For an interesting one conforming to the other airspace in the area, there's Fort Lauderdale (FLL).

I'm following the process at RDU. These changes can take several years. Like all airspace, it's regulatory. General description of the process is this. At the point you hear about it it's likely the beginning of the Ad Hoc Committee phase (unless you have missed a lot). You may have already received the invitation. If you want to get into the weeds, the full process is described in Order 7400.2R.

Yeah, but that's Colorado where 10 miles visibility feels like IFR The worst "VFR" I ever saw there was returning from St Francis during the Hayman fire. Centennial was giving Special VFR clearances for people caught in the practice area.

Seating position is variable. What you like may be different than what I like. And the view from 6' will be different than the view from 5'5". I fly a friend's ovation. He like being low; I like being high. I can't believe he like his position and he can't believe I like mine. We could be talking about cars

Seems most if these threads come down to: There’s an increased risk that’s not necessary. vs. It hasn’t happened to me so it’s silly.

Believe it or not, even in the NXi, it's an airframe manufacturer choice. My flying club had a Diamond DA40 NG with the NXi. Turned out Diamond blocked access to regular Connext so we had to have portable ADS-B if we wanted weather and traffic on our iPads.

No, it shouldn’t be necessary. Neither should “hot spots.” But I’m guessing some airports have had enough incursion issues to merit them. I’m betting on taxiway C at this airport being a problem.

Sorry, I should have said "looks like to use it." The smallest iPhone has more screen real estate. YMMV, but that won't give me the situational awryness I want in a taxi diagram.

If it helps any, I am using both ForeFlight and Pilot. In terms of a switch, most really depends how easily you take to technology differences. Overall, both apps will give you what you need and you’ll probably find 90% of the useful features are the same. The main difference is flow - how to get to what you want. In a nutshell, ForeFlight started as a flight planner with in-flight functionality. Pilot basically emulates Garmin’s GTN-family oanel mounts, including its menu system and flight plan entry (which can be a plus if you ate flying a Garmin panel). That difference in emphasis means some tasks will be easier in one the other. the only way to know if the switch is worth the savings is to grab the trial and use it.

I have trouble imagining what a taxi diagram would look like on a 355 screen!

Me too. I try to always know what my alternatives are*. Fortunately, with ADS-B or XM weather, there should be very few surprises. And I will happily head somewhere else rather than exceed my personal minimums. From that standpoint, approach conditions below personal minimums is no different than a thunderstorm sitting over the airport at arrival time. (* That means more than filed alternate, which is worst-case scenario planning and pretty much irrelevant in flight.)

Many have personal departure mins higher than their approach mins.

We did?

There are no general part 91 rules requiring airport lighting of any kind for departures. There may be takeoff minimums requiring lighting at a specific airports and there may be requirement for certain operators, but not plain vanilla Part 91.

That's a excellent point. For most regulations, I think much of the looseness is just poor drafting or not thinking of some of the consequences of the language, so it may well mean being more careful. But there are also those areas - offhand I think the poster child is probably the fuzzy border between Parts 91 and 135 - where I think the published regulations are intentionally susceptible to multiple interpretations because of all the new and clever ways people argue around it. I don't really expect to see a change from "if it quacks like a duck". More like the Court of Appeals' statement in the Warbird case about deference: "Because we conclude that the regulation is unambiguous and covers Warbird's conduct (Warbird does not contest the ALJs under-lying factual determinations), we need not address Warbird's remaining arguments about the FAA's interpretation of this regulation." Thinking back to Trent Palmer, deference wasn't even an issue discussed by the court (except for the penalty).

Agreed. You definitely know more after practice. A lot more. But it’s equally important to know the limitations of the practice (again just like circling approaches in CAVU conditions). In retrospect, my short adventure had a humorous aspect. It was a second lesson for a new student. The turnback involved flight over construction sites. The student talked about it at work. Someone asked him, “how low were you?” He answered, “the construction worker had blue eyes.”