midlifeflyer

I've done the plain wood dowel. Calibration was over the course of a few flights when I always refueled to the same level.

I've flown with progressives with transition lenses with no problem. OTOH, avoid polarized lenses. They have a tendency to make glass panels and tablet screens disappear. Full YouTube video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78GdcXCM9nk#t=29

Class C works exactly like Class D. No clearance required but you must establish 2-way communications before entering. What togerl said about hearing your tail number is correct - responding with your tail number means you have established 2-way communications. Not hearing your tail number means you have not. For transitioning, again like Class D, all you need to do is tell them your direction of flight. Landing at SNA? Simple. Exactly like Class D. Nothing special except you call further out. "SoCal Approach. Mooney 1234X. 20 north with [ATIS]. Landing John Wayne."

In which case he, just like the examiner in the early part of the thread, would be making up his own rules. There is no FAA requirement for a paper backup or, for that matter, any backup for an EFB, although "It is suggested that a secondary or back up source of aeronautical information necessary for the flight be available to the pilot in the aircraft." Not to say it's wise to not have any backup that a smart examiner would not be well within his rights to test what would happen if the iPad failed in flight. But paper is definitely not required.

Well, I have a feeling the FAA might look askance at aircraft records maintained on tissue paper. I don't know of any aircraft mechanic who would sign one as the standard for his way of doing business. I understand they are a bit difficult to sign. And it would sure be fun to watch the negotiation of an aircraft sale in which the putative buyer asked to see the aircraft logs and (tissue paper aside), the seller informed her he destroyed all records of "maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alteration and ...100-hour, annual, progressive, and other required or approved inspections" that were more than a year old. Yes, in theory, you can write the records on toilet paper and they are valid. It's also true that you can write a check on a piece of toilet paper and it is also valid. Just try to get a bank to cash it!

most FAA paranoia is created by us, not the FAA.

From viewing the samples, the goal is different. The King videos are to get the rating. This is an attempt at a "post-graduate" course. Less about the rules of the system than what actually takes place.

No one would suggest for a moment (I hope) that an iPad is a replacement for installed, certified cockpit avionics.

I think the issue is different for a passenger. For us, we are trying to make sense of everything and getting conflicting information that can be worsened by the bumps. For a passenger, they are just taking it as it comes and don;t particularly care if it feels like we're turning to the right while some dial or picture in front of the pilot says something different. Of course, if the passenger is prone to motion sickness, there's a problem, but I think it's a different dynamic than what is happening to us. BTW, my worst disorientation (other than a hot day with lots of bumps) was in IMC. It was the first time I flew in actual from the right seat. Looking to the left at an angle to scan the instruments, the cloud variations streaming by the left side window made me feel we were in a constant right turn.

Not really. AC 20-173 "addresses installation of EFB components." That means EFBs that are "incorporated into aircraft type design under 14 CFR part 21 or as a proper alteration under 14 CFR 43.3." The FAA guy is going to correctly expect to see that the installation either came from the manufacturer that way or there is an STC in the aircraft logs. Like the rest of the AC 20 series, it primarily provides airworthiness guidance on how tog go about obtaining airworthiness approval for an installed component. What we are doing with our yoke clamps and our "portable" (not "installed") tablets is not covered by the AC, although it does mention them.

I'll add my vote to the "you get used to it; it goes away" group. The bumps aside (and not playing a doctor even on TV), I think that one of the things that happens is, with no visual cues, you are getting different and sometimes conflicting information from your senses. In actual, it can be worse since you get visual cues of movement from your peripheral vision. If you have done unusual attitudes where the instructor has you put yourself into the unusual attitude ("close your eyes. now fly straight and level. now make a 30° bank turn to the right") you know how wrong your body can be and how disorienting the lack of visual cues can be. Add to that the limited familiarity of getting new cues from a bunch of stupid instruments that sometimes conflict with what your body is telling you and you can understand why disorientation is normal. In your case, it is leading to nausea. For others it might be dizziness or something else. The good news is just as you intellectually learn and get used to relying on the instruments and disregarding bodily cues, your body learns to deal with it. Hang in there.

In addition to the flight documents mentioned, not all GTNs have the expensive Jepp approach charts nor, for that matter full sectionals, en route charts, AFDs etc. There are also features on an iPad that one simply can't add as quickly or as easily to a certified avionics package. I have synthetic vision on my iPad with AHARS pitch and bank capability. Don't have that in the GTN series; need a glass panel for that. But ultimately, despite the bells and whistles, it's the functionality of the iPad as an "Electronic Flight Bag" defined by the FAA as "An electronic display system intended primarily for cockpit or cabin use [that] can display a variety of aviation data (e.g., checklists, navigation charts, pilot's operating handbook (POH)) or perform basic calculations (e.g., performance data, fuel calculations). " That's a bit more or different than what a GTN is designed to do.

Airline pilots aren't sure how to use FAA charts.

Two others already asked whether the autopilot was engaged. If so, if set (either by design or pilot choice) to climb rate, it would try to maintain that climb rate regardless of the airspeed it produces. If we are dealing with shear, that would account for both the sudden pitch up and the need to fight it. "Shear" in this situation doesn't need to be much. I just did a club annual in gusty conditions. I didn't consider the gusts that big a deal but the autopilot apparently did, resulting in the airspeed getting pretty low an autopilot climb. Edit - just saw that last post - "was not on auto pilot until at altitude." So that wasn't it. But it still could be "us" acting like an autopilot and needing to fight the trim. Alternatively, have you checked to see if there was a runaway trim issue?

Why? In the first paragraph it says It is intended for all operators conducting flight operations under Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 121, 125, 135, or 91 subpart F (part 91F) and part 91 subpart K (part 91K) Pretty much leaves us out. The one that applies to us is AC 91-78, Use of Class 1 or Class 2 Electronic Flight Bag (EFB).

My flying club has 3, 2 Js and a screaming eagle.

Nah. Instructing makes you a better pilot. I don't think getting the certificate does.

You are right. But over the past few years, the FAA has (fortunately) been changing from reliance on the Julian date on the top right corner to a more user-friendly date in the bottom left corner. Many charts at this point have both. IOW, that "Amdt 9D 05JUN08" in the bottom left referred to in the OP will have the equivalent Julian number in the top right and vice versa. For an example, see the current RDU ILS OR LOC 5L. 12068 on the top right; Amdt 5A 08MAR12 on the bottom left.

Shoot an email to Hilton and ask. He's pretty responsive.

I think both. US history pretty much starts with a rejection of the European model of governments with absolute power. A centuries-old cultural history of monarchs and other non-democratically-chosen tribal rulers is something very difficult to break away from. And it probably made sense with nation-states extending ancient inter-tribal war customs. Even here, there have been times Americans welcomed or at least condoned despotic activities by our own government. A strong belief that strong, central governments with large amounts of power can be very comforting to some from a safety and security standpoint.

I think it's just a different regulatory mentality, more cultural/historical than anything else. The same question came up here - not the FAA proposing to mandate training, but pilots, apparently concerned about their own ability to adapt, assumed everyone should be required to have the same degree of help. Their comments probably were similar to those you are hearing on the European forums. As a number of folks said, while the US doesn't mandate specialized training, with the exception of a few who have been able to self-teach themselves, most have gotten involved in some level of training. And in some cases, insurance and FBO rental folks have required training the FAA hasn't. There are numerous books and training videos on the subject, with stuff directly from the manufacturers and third parties. And Garmin, for one, even has it's own proposed syllabus.

There are indeed. And headsets that do it all by themselves, both via plug-in and Bluetooth.

As I understand it the FCC rule against use involves the number of line-of-sight towers you would impact. Highest I've used my phone was just above the traffic pattern for a private airport. We had a gear malfunction and decided to head home instead of land where the nearest airport with appropriate services was over 40 MN away by air and more than an hour and a half in a car. So I called him. I have heard stories, though of at least text messages getting through at higher altitudes although I haven't tried it myself.

I'd be keeping my eye out for a GPS approach to Runway 02 or ATC is just going to figure out how to route traffic for an approach to 24.

I was looking at something for myself and a friend and saw something I think relevant to this thread. A number of folks urge the benefit of practicing VOR approaches despite GPS in case of an airport where it's the only viable choice, such as in the case of a GPS failure. I think it might be more valuable to fly without GPS on one of those non GPS approaches with a multi-stage missed, like "Climb to 1000, then climbing right turn to 3000 on heading 130° and XYZ VORTAC R-87 to OHNOH intersection/XYZ 18.5 DME and hold." GPS makes those incredibly easy but it can be a bit of a bear to do it "manually" if one hasn't for a long time (BTW, although altitudes, distances and identifiers were changed to protect the innocent, that's from a real missed off an ILS).