midlifeflyer

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.

Yes. That’s a reason the GNS and GTN Limitations are different. It was originally, no RNAV for lateral guidance on the FAS. (Still says that in AC90-108). It was later changed to the current, ok if you monitor, in the AIM. I recall discussions around the time if the change like, what if they look different?

Thank you for saying that. You expressed it much more kindly than I would have.

WAG: the 30 airports are the only 30 airports which need it. The clue for me is that they're using Aspen as the example. If you look at the instrument approaches at Aspen, the MDAs are over 2,000 AGL (not MSL) . There is no vertical guidance for the rest of the way down. And I think this is what these new approach types are an attempt to do - provide some level of visual guidance with target altitudes for a stabilized approach in these situations. I suspect the value will be to those pilots who fly into those types of airports.

I don't think that's odd. In part, the limitations of your equipment controls. Or A company's operations manual may require green needles on the CDI when flying those approaches. But aside from that, Examiners and check pilots may want a demonstration of flying green needles. That seems to be fairly common for VOR radial interception tasks on instrument check rides. Personally, if I have a pilot fly a VOR approach for an IPC, I insist on green needles on the CDI. My reasoning is, the only time a pilot might ever fly a VOR approach in real life is during a GPS failure. I often see problems with with pilots who are used to flying GPS forgetting that VOR needles don't auto slew. You have to tune, identify, and twist.

If the Limitations section of the AFMS limits its use, it controls. This is from Revision 8 of the GTN (not Xi) AFMS Limitations, so no such limitation. “2.10. When using the VOR or ADF receiver to fly the final approach segment of a VOR or NDB approach, GPS may be the selected navigation source so long as the VOR or NDB station is operational and the signal is monitored for final approach segment alignment.” OTOH, Rev E for the older GNS W units does in 2.6 “GPS guidance can only be used for approach procedures with GPS or RNAV in the procedure title. When using the Garmin VOR/LOC/GS receivers to fly the final approach segment, VOR/LOC/GS navigation data must be selected and presented on the CDI of the pilot flying.” AFAIK, the GNS limitations were never updated to the newer AIM guidance.

I guess you do get that, Don, since we agree almost word for word.

you are literally describing ForeFlight’s offering. Go through this short video to see what Garmin did.

Unlike FF, which has given us an enhanced briefing and monitoring tool, Garmin has created a set of original digital approach, SID, and STAR charts based on the original regulatory 8260s. Garmin actually says in its training videos that they are legal replacements for the traditional charts (designed from the same source documents by the FAA charting office and Jepp). Where FF tells us we need to verify the information with the traditional chart, Garmin does not.

The instrument approach plates in Avare and iFly are not "Joe's." They are the FAA's. That's true of every EFB except (optionally) Pilot at this point. Even the ones in other countries are using either government plates or Jepp. They are not creating their own from the regulatory source documents. Just in case, when I refer to "regulatory source document", I'm not referring to the chart itself. Rather I'm referring to one of these, like the one for the SDL RNAV Y 3. Value added is in the eye of the beholder or user. If you are happy with what you have, why change? I can still remember the days when people were all excited about being able to put a PDF approach plate in a Kindle. IFly is a great EFB. It was my IFR backup for several years. IMO, Avare is fine for VFR use but I found it unsatisfactory for IFR, even for nothing more than a chart reader. I can't even imagine relying on a chart created from the source document by avere.

How do you verify that the information on a Jepp or FAA chart is correct and in date? For that matter, how do you know that the traditional chart you look at on your EFB is correct and in date? That marginal notation? It's electronically added to the chart by both foreflight and Garmin pilot. That's why updates are so fast. The only traditional charts that get updated in either app or those which have a change. Otherwise it's the same old chart as the last time the source document got updated, which might have been years ago. with the new marginal date added digitally. In fact for a while, Garmin pilot didn't even have the dates. But I think was user feedback that got them to add it later. We're sort of at different points of view. You see a chart and some unknown digital presentation. I see a traditional chart and a digital chart. Do you think that Jepp and the FAA charting office have a regulatory monopoly? You won't find that anywhere. The only reason "Joe's Basement Charting Service" isn't accepted is that we don't trust Joe. I trust Garmin as much as I trust Jeppesen and the FAA charting office to take the regulatory source documents and translate them into a chart. And it's not as though Jepp and the FAA charting office never made mistakes. I won't argue your preference. But I will say, that it is only a preference. By the way, I do the same as you. I always verify the sequence of waypoints in the box with the chart, whichever type of chart I happen to be using.

In GP, it is the plate. Just a different design of the same source information. The source is regulatory. The format it is placed in is not. As recently as three months ago, I was looking for a good way to add Jepp charts to GP. Mostly because if the georeferenced SIDs and STARs. No longer needed. The SmartCharts do those just fine. Better IMO.

It's not about me. I can effectively block. And Brave for the iPad is pretty lousy.

It's not the ads it's the type of ads and a pop-ups after every single screen. That is the kind of thing that is going to chase a new user away.

Nope. There is no malware on my computer. And this mess appears on my PC, iPad, and Android phone.

That's not my complaint. I'm more concerned with the style of the advertising. I have been a supporter, and will likely do so again, but in the past, the advertising was less obtrusive. This kind of pop-up advertising of naked sports figures and full screen pop up advertising when you change screens is more likely to chase people away than encourage them to contribute.

I suspect it’s about the Jepp connection. FF’s offering is a chart enhancement, rather than a chart replacement. GP’s SmartCharts are a chart replacement. Garmin is pretty clear about that. No such “basic legal text.”

And today, for the first time ever, whether paid supporter or not, a popup ad on every tap. I like the spam better and am becoming a wee bit cynical.

Remember that a prop is an airfoil. At high D-Alt, just like the wings, the prop has less to grab on to. The visual we used to teach was to think of driving a screw through whipped cream rather than a piece of wood. It's obviously not that extreme, but it can help with the concept.

Newly created accounts at POA have their first posts manually approved. I think it's a combination of a certain number of posts and a certain number of days.