midlifeflyer

More lawyer jokes?

"Public domain" is a copyright issue. It is not really a trademark issue. The concepts and the associated rules are very different between the two. There might be some overlap, but in the same sense that there is overlap between an instrument approach to a Class B primary and a VFR approach to a Class G airport.

Kind of ironic isn't it? Avoiding confusion about the source of things is the whole reason for legal protection for trademarks. Yetti mentioned earlier a completely different thing - copyright, which protects creativity, and most likely doesn't apply at all to "Fly it Forward".

I think you have a handle on most of the differences. You can add usability for the new RNAV SIDs and STARs to the list. I personally wouldn't discount the value of the real glideslope and lower minimums for GPS LPV approaches or usability as an ADS-B out location source (especially since ADS-B out is required in a few years anyway). Can't comment on the steepness of the learning curve since that's very much in the eye of the beholder (learner). I've seen people transition from one to the other fairly quickly and others who needed a lot of work (with no apparent correlation to naive intelligence, flying experience, or their ease of learning other kinds of things).

BTW, to sort of add to my soft disclaimer about not being able to give legal advice on a forum, although I do it all the time (some would say too much) on FAR stuff, I won't correct anyone's mis-statements on this topic because it involves something real.

I did a quick check (I did trademark law both registration and litigation). This is information, not legal advice. I can't advise on public forums. The Institute for Women Of Aviation Worldwide, a Canadian company, filed an application to register "Fly it Forward" as a trademark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) in April 2014. The company claims it has been using the mark "at least as early as 01/05/2010*. The application itself contains a specimen of use in February 2011 in an AOPA article. As far as I can tell from the record, the PTO raised no objection to registration for the usual reasons - conflict with another registered trademark or that the mark is "merely descriptive" (in layman terms, generic) - and approved it subject to a statutory period to give others an opportunity to object to the registration. The mark was published for the required 30-day opposition period, and it was registered as a trademark on April 15 of this year. If anyone else wants to take a look at what I did, the basic registration information is here. The filing record with all the filed documents. Note: * Trademark Law 101 - filing with the USPTO doesn't create a trademark. The USPTO registers trademarks that already exist (use creates the mark) and provides it with additional protection. That's why the trademark application says when they started using it in the US.

Less choices for a good place to land coupled with significantly better gas prices that aren't more than 20 minutes further than RDU. Louisburg (KLHZ) is about 15 minutes further. Good airport, good people (including a mechanic with a good rep), but gas prices are only about 50¢ less.

BTW, I have seen very few FBOs that will not bring a prearranged rental car to the airplane.

People don't mention IGX too much because it has been "closing" and chasing off its based operators (and tenants) for at least 10 years. I think it's last announced closing date was sometime in 2013! People avoid recommending it because its friendliness can vary a lot/ It's tough t predict. I do understand, though, they are a bit friendlier to transients than locals because they don't plan to stay there for long or return too often.

MUCH higher. Probably the least expensive in the area is KHRJ to the south (close to $2 less per gallon than RDU) and KSCR to the east. That was one of the reasons I asked about where Carl wanted to go within the area. Easy enough to check relative gas prices these days through apps and websites such as Airnav.

RDU is a pretty straightforward Class C. I assume you have seen the airport diagram. You can anticipate being vectored to land on the shorter parallel runway, 5R/23L. 32 is always an option but it's less commonly used due to its shorter length and limited go-around options (you would want to stay ckear of the parallel runways going around) and its less convenient for taxiing to the FBO. The two GA FBOs, TAC Air and Landmark, are pretty much side by side off taxiway J. Both FBOs are pretty decent, although I have a personal preference for TAC. BTW, is RDU the most confident airport to where you are visiting?

There's no direct link to it on the FAA site because it's not final. It's a draft (says so right on the inside front cover if you follow the link Robert provided).

Paying a fee to Mooney? If you are asking what is the real different between a shop that regularly services Mooneys and understands their operating and construction foibles, and a shop that doesn't, that's an entirely different question. What certification with respect to anything actually gives you is a clue that they have met certain minimum requirements.

The problem that occurs in many high density altitude related crashes is that one word. In flight situations that are unforgiving, thought without knowledge can be fatal. That's why mountain training courses, better yet if accompanied with a dual flight, are always a good idea.

Well, "high" and "high and hot" mean exactly the same thing to pilots who regularly deal with high density altitude. When we talk about altitude and aircraft performance, there is only one kind that counts - density altitude. Airport msl or pressure altitude means zip without temperature added in. But that aside, what you say (bolder) is true, but due to different calculations. If you got the airplane up to 300 in your scenario (assuming a long enough runway) you might still not be able to be airborne. Keep in mind that the takeoff performance charts stop at a certain altitude and you are test pilot if you extrapolate above that (we in fact do fly beyond the tables in the Rockies, but its based on decades of experience passed down). So, density altitude may be above the absolute ceiling limit of the airplane. But it's the altitude at which the airplane will simply not climb and above which the airplane will descend even at full power. It's not listed in a lot of manuals, but if the service ceiling is the density altitude at which the airplane will still climb at 100 FPM (without assistance) the absolute ceiling is coming up pretty fast. So, yeah, if the density altitude was that high, I wouldn't even get in the airplane to begin with. So one still needs to think in terms of maximum aircraft performance capabilities in whatever situation we are in. But the rule of thumb is still pretty useful in flyable situations, even on the edge. Recall that density altitude saps both airfoil efficiency and power. High enough and your nice big but weakend engine and that prop trying to pull you through whipped cream against the formidable drag of the tires on the runway* might not even get you up to your 70/50 in the typical situation. [That drag is the reason for a common high density altitude technique of doing a modified soft field takeoff]

Not sure I understand that part. I've never seen an airport with a sign saying "1/2". OTOH, one can always point out a location on the runway that is 1/2 the runway length.

The key is prior profiling. And they have a LOT of experience having done security checks for many years before 2011. I still tell the story about my first trip there in 1974. Brought into a security room where the first thing the guy checking me did was ask me my name. In Hebrew. In a way that had me utterly convinced he already knew I understood the language (I was conversant but not fluent) and much, much more, even though I bought my ticket the day before.

Only $0.99. But who flies around carrying an iPad, iPhone or Android?

It is. The Colorado aviation map has commonly flown passes identified. If nothing else, it helps keep away from the ones known to eat piston airplanes more often.

It's related to the FAA's depiction of mountain masses on sectionals. The ) ( on the chart identifies where the road crosses a mountain pass (See the one for Monarch Pass in Colorado as an example), not necessarily the best pace to fly through the pass. I used to have some good examples of each but for a number of reasons it may be the worst place to cross a pass. For a few of them, (1) the road may twist and turn so much through the pass that it would make a terrible emergency landing spot (that's common); (2) the road is at a very low point with much higher terrain on both sides creating a venturi effect increasing the strength of any winds (also very common) and (3) the road can lead directly to a blind canyon with no ability to climb or maneuver (there was a fantastic FAA road show on VFR sectionals some years back that showed some very scary examples of this). That's not to say to keep far away from roads. Of course, you want access to civilization or for rescue in the case of an emergency or precautionary landing, but that doesn't require following the road, just being somewhat nearby. You might be surprised at the mountain training flights I've done where the pilot heads right for the dangerous V between two peaks where the road is, rather than than nice wide, flat area only a few miles to the right or left which gives more options and much less chance of problems.

I've had an SI in the past as well. Although there have been no pronouncements by the FAA I am aware of, the words of the regulation suggest your AME was incorrect (if you think about it, there's no reasons for an AME to be well-versed in the rules about when his services are not required) and, unless the SI was withdrawn for some reason prior to the normal expiration of your medical, the pilot is good to go under sport pilot rules. The grounds for which the FAA Air Surgeon's office may "withdraw" an SI that has been issued the are in FAR 67.401(f). They include such things as an adverse change in the condition, failure to comply with conditions (a 3-year SI with a requirement for an annual medical report each year, for example), or discovery of a false statement in the application. Not included in the list is normal expiration of the underlying medical certificate.

I can't say I've ever heard of such a proposal. I'm sure you know about 100 hour inspections for aircraft carrying passengers for hire or for flight instruction and 24 month inspections for certain equipment. There is also an option for progressive inspections (where one might, for example, have multiple smaller inspections over the course of a year), but those are generally used only by aircraft that fly a lot.

Yes, KDRO will be significantly higher than that in the summer, especially in the afternoon. You are talking well into the low-to-mid 80's with a resulting density altitude over 9,000'. The good news is, coming from the south and crossing to the west around KABQ, you are not approaching over the highest terrain and the approach and departure path is not too bad. But, what I primarily wondered about reading your question is: One who has flown in and out of these airports, particularly KABQ, will typically have had some high-density-altitude specific instruction. Have you? If not, are you saying you flights in KABQ and E38 were just seat of the pants without a real idea about the techniques used? If that's the case, the best bet is always some mountain training but it would be wise at the very least to have a serious one-on-one discussion rather than a haphazard group of tips that don't really tell the whole story (I note as an example of this, admonition to fly over roads - a good idea in general for possible emergency landing sites, but potentially deadly advice for crossing mountain passes).

Keep in mind your AME has a vested interest in you having to get a medical.

I want to apologize for the snotty tone of that last post. Only excuse (and not much of one) is a bad day. Sorry.