midlifeflyer

I agree with Bob. Cruise performance is, to me anyway, not an exact science and ballpark without running too hot is close enough for me. Takeoff and landing performance calculations are nice but I don't usually fly into airfields where I need to calculate them. My checklists have takeoff performance over an obstacle numbers at max gross for sea level and one much higher density altitude - usually the highest one on the POH performance charts. i doubt I've needed to do a specific calculation more than a handful of times in more tha 25 years of flying, even when I lived in Colorado and regularly flew in the Rockies and, for those I have a ballpark Excel calculator with a nice fudge factor built in (I may have gotten it here). Weight & Balance is definitely an important consideration and used far more, but in addition to stand-alones, a number of EFB apps already have them. That's not, btw, a "don't bother." I've done my share of projects like that for myself and they are fun to do. Some turned out to be pretty useful and I contunue to use my biggest project of this type today.

A number of companies, the three most popular being Dual, Bad Elf and Garmin. There are a few others. An early entry was the GNS series from a German company. It was rock solid but a weird on/off switch mechanism upset a lot of people and the company fell out of favor. All are available on Amazon as well as other retailers. I wouldn't hesitate to buy a used one from a reliable source. I think Bad Elf still sells a plug-in model at that price point. The others are Bluetooth enabled. Reports vary about things you plug into the iPad as opposed to things you toss on the glareshield If you look at Garmin, you are looking at the Glo unit that is GPS-only; Garmin's more expensive ADS-B solution is for Garmin Pilot and Garmin's handhelds and is not compatible with anything else. If you want ADS-B weather as well and are going with ForeFlight, Stratus is your only option. Stratus includes GPS capability but with a catch - even that part of Stratus only works with ForeFlight. That means if Stratus is your sole source of GPS location data, you would not be able to get location data on any other app without at least a WiFi connection (whether WiFi gives your app enough location data to be happy varies). That btw, is where my attitude toward having a WiFi-only iPad modifies a little. If you are going to go the Stratus route to start with, I think it may make more sense to spend the extra $100 on internal GPS for the iPad instead of yet another piece of external GPS hardware if you are going to use location services on the road with other apps.

The 3G/4G/5G will fade out. Like mobile calling itself, it's designed to be ground based. The internal GPS will continue to work, although, since it has to "see" the satellites, different pilots in different parts of the country flying different airplanes at different times with their iPads mounted in different panes in the aircraft have different reports of its reliability. External iOS-compatible GPS units didn't show up solely to service the no-3G market; most of the EFP app producers recommend one be used (w're not talking Stratus; just a plain vanilla GPS unit costing $100 or less. My own decision to go WiFi only was a combination of (1) feeling my needs for internet access on the ground would be met by WiFI and, in a pinch, tethering to my phone and (2) a GPS that I tossed on the glare shield would pick up a more reliable signal than the one in the iPad, which might be in my lap. So far (4 years and 2 iPads later), I've been satisfied with the decision (4 years and 2 iPads later)

Didn't you say earlier you only had a Wifi-only iPad? In order to know its location (which is necessary in order to know time, speed, altitude, and distance and other things that are based on its location) your iPad need to have a GPS connection. A WiFi-only iPad does not have an internal GPS. If you have not connected an external GPS to it, it has no way of knowing altitude, speed or location. A 3G./4G iPad does have an internal GPS and it does know altitude, speed and location (so long as it is in a position to receive a good GPS signal) without an external GPS.

I'm not certain what you mean by "read data." What data. In order to have the maps and charts and airport information (runways, AFDs) in flight, you don't need an in-air data connection at all. You download all the charts and maps while connected to the internet on the ground and carry them with you. In order to see your position in the air, you need at least a GPS source, whether internal or external. In order to get weather in the air you need a weather source, most typically Stratus if you are using ForeFlight. In terms of "how high" can you receive weather and other data with only a cellular connection, it depends a lot on where you are. It's not something I would rely on. I'm not sure if that answers your question.

A lot of total time can mean a lot even without much currency. And even then, sometimes all it takes is a little currency. Depends on the aircraft involved.

This post illustrates some of the advantages of the LLC as a form of co-ownership. Just for balance, an alternative to this arrangement - where the person who invests in new equipment has his share of the LLC increased by the purchase price - is an arrangement where a member does not gain a greater share of the LLC (most importantly voting rights) by buying equipment solo and only part of the purchase price is credited to a financial share if/when the airplane is sold.

My iPad is only a "WiFi" version. It works fine with Stratus. You correctly heard that only the iPad with the 3G/4G data capability (it's not a modem) has an internal GPS. All that means is, you need to use an external GPS in order for ForeFlight (or google maps or any app that uses your location) to know where you are when you are not using an internet connection. A "WiFi-only" iPad and apps that use your location, including ForeFlight, works fine with a number of external GPS units. Stratus has it's own GPS unit in addition to its other features and will work just great with your iPad. BTW, synthetic vision works fine without Stratus, so long as you have GPS capability (internal or external). What all Stratus generations add is ADS-B weather. What Stratus II (not Stratus I adds) is an AHRS to give you pitch and bank information on the synthetic vision screen.

I'm a ForeFlight user but really, whatever EFB you are already using is likely to have those features also. If not right now, wait a bit. Some have even had synthetic vision before ForeFlight.

Assuming Sounds like a practical question rather than a regulatory one. I recall a dual cross country with an instrument student when he asked for vectors and got a laugh in return. Although the fact that it is Center rather than TRACON is a small clue, the real reason is the availability or lack of availability of radar approach control services. The best indicator of whether you will be vectored or receive the full approach is in the AFD entry for the airport. Look at the AFD entry for KAST and compare it with the one for Boeing Field. See the ® next to the one for App/Dep in the Boeing listing that is missing from the Astoria one? The ® indicates the availability of radar for the approach. There are exceptions to everything but if there are radar services, you can generally anticipate being vectored*; if there are no radar services, you will get the full approach. (*an example exception: radar services are generally available but terrain precludes it at the FAF intercept altitude)

Ah. An easy one They can be much more of a headache than that.

...and it is not just a damage issue. I've seen long paid-off liens that were never discharged. That can be a real PITA especially if the lender has gone out of business.

There are others also. It's not an uncommon restriction or recommendation in low-wing aircraft. As another example, the Cirrus manual mentions it in two places. In both, it's a recommendation, not a limitation. I haven't seen every version, but seems to me that it's typically a recommendation not a restriction or limitation, like the famous "avoid slips with flaps" Cessna is famous for. The reasons seem to vary, but it usually has something to do with fuel, either an interference with flow or venting. Thank goodness it doesn't mean "no slips allowed." A prohibition on crosswind landings would kind of dampen the usefulness of an airplane.

The fixation argument is rooted in the exact same process that makes you appear to be thinking that those arguing in favor of visual cues are anti-airspeed control. Mis-charaterization works both ways, you know. No hard feeling here either

Couple of pieces of genaral information for a very misunderstood subject. 1. No, one does not need an operating certificate or commercial pilot certificate to rent an airplane. You may require commercial insurance but that depends on your policy; some insurers permit limited rentals under the base owner policy. 2. Yes, setting up an LLC will not protect you from liability as the pilot of that aircraft. Entities providing limited liability protection are not intended or designed for that. OTOH, it may provide a degree of protection if someone other than you flies it, whether or not that someone is a "co-owner," a renter or a just a friend. 3. A practical reason for setting up an LLC is definitely that others will use the airplane. But there can be others. The benefits and pitfalls can vary by state law. 4. Setting up an LLC is easy and relatively inexpensive in most states. Setting it up correctly is a different question and generally requires at least some professional advice. 5. Yes, you can set it up later but, if you do, it will also require an ownership change which will have FAA re-registration requirements and may have tax consequences. If one is considering taking advantage of some of the benefits later (i.e., bringing in co-owner or limited rentals to friends), it can be cost-effective to get that stuff out of the way at the beginning.

Sorry, but that is quite simply impossible for mere mortal pilots. If you don't stare at the ASI you will surely meet your maker (No, I'm sure that, just like those of us who focus on pitch, power and visual cues, those of us who focus on the ASI are not excluding the use of the other (although some of the ASI-only proponents do sound that way) On a more substantive note, GPS and tablet apps will typically give you ground speed (some, TAS) not indicated airspeed. So relying on that could have significant issues in addition to head-in-the-cockpit syndrome, whether the differential is due to winds, density altitude or a combination.

The LoPresti design goals were similar with the result that so is much of the handling, particularly the need to control airspeed on final within very tight parameters. Curiosity - are you exclusively a Mooney pilot? I ask because those who fly multiple makes and models tend to see more similarities than differences while those who limit themselves to only a select few tend to see everything as completely unique. But really, at this point, you really seem to be looking awfully hard for things to argue about when the "common ground" is enormous.

Ultimately, that's a discussion you should be having with your CFI but here are the general guidelines I personally use and teach: 1. There is no difference between the crab and slip methods. In both, you eventually need to have the airplane (with some notable exceptions that don;t apply to most light GA aircraft) land with the airplane longitudinally aligned with the runway. The common argument between proponents of the two is only about when in the process one transitions from a crab to a slip. 2. Only increase airspeed if the crosswind is accompanied by gusts and then by the usual 1/2 of the gust factor. There is ultimately no reason to increase airspeed otherwise and many reasons to keep it slow. 3. Always be prepared for an alternative. And don;t hesitate to use it. There's nothing shameful about a diversion and your concern about being late or arranging transportation or having to stay overnight is pretty small compared to the aftermath of the smallest landing incident. Speaking of changing winds, true story: The winds changed significantly for a student of mine on his checkride. After listening to the ATIS, which was reporting a crosswinds in excess of the max demonstrated crosswind component, the DPE asked the applicant his intentions for what was to be the last landing of the test. The applicant replied that he would divert to another airport and wait it out. The DPE was pleased (I'm prety sure my student passed at that point) and suggested they do the final crosswind landing together.

Grumman (or whatever manufacturer) Tiger. Similar wing to the Mooney. Same landing problems when being off-airspeed. That's the one in which I was introduced to the concept of removing the ASI as a landing training exercise. In my nutshell, everyone in this 5 page thread agrees that it is necessary to fly the proper numbers (I'd go further and say the proper numbers are important no matter what make/model one flies). Disagreement exists solely on the training techniques that effectively get us there. Personally, I'm pretty bad at flying by the seat of my pants, so I don't. (I don't consider attitude flying as in the definition of "seat of the pants.")

Land or go elsewhere. If you have Stratus, yes. But it is the same surface wind information you get by listening to ATIS or AWOS, although you can't get it much further out. You can also get it by calling Flight Service (or Flight Watch for a little while more).

The real point is that they don't have to be that decent and experienced. Pre-solo students do it just fine.

I picked up the technique from the guy who takes a view he disagrees with, exaggerates it to something it's not and then attacks his own construct, accusing the other side of using straw men.

Flying pitch and power and using visual cues doesn't take special talent. It's Student Pilot 101. Do we really forget how to fly when we move to more complex aircraft? No one has said not to fly the numbers. But some of us apparently insist on fixating on one instrument only.

No body is arguing that the numbers should not be flown. The disagreement is how to get there. "Fly the numbers" is a nice mantra but I think folks will take that as and excuse to fixate on one or another rather than fly the airplane. I recall the first time it was done to me. Make/Model I never flew before. Also one where it is unforgiving if you don't fly the right numbers on approach. Two landings and then the CFI took out a newspaper and covered the panel. I thought it was nuts until short final just before the flare and he pulled away the newspaper. For God's sale. Fly the airplane.

But I think we are making two completely different assumptions about "ignore the numbers." Yours is that it was a recommendation to always fly that way and never consider expected performance. My assumption is that it was a training exercise designed to help with landing issues by teaching how to land with eyes outside the cockpit. I've used "cover the instruments" for years with everything from landing issues to student pilots having problems flying ground reference maneuvers. Most of the time those issues seem to be based on chasing one numerical parameter or another, Covering the "offending" instrument does not fail to produce a better maneuver so that, when the pilot returns to having all the instruments available he doesn't . If you doubt it works, it just means you haven't done it.