midlifeflyer

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).

When on the map page, click on the menu icon and then "Demo." Of from the main home screen. click "Demo." Once there you will see three icons. Of the three "GPS" will bring you to such things as setting your current position (like an airport or in the air somewhere). The "NAV" icon will bring you to a screen where yo can set certain parameters including altitude and speed. The simulator assume GPS Steering. So if you set up a flight plan or a Direct To and go into the NAV area to set your airspeed, you will fly. On;ly reall issue is yo have to go back there to do such things as change speeds.

Yep - the "Do you want to stay suspended" question that pops up on the GTN

Emphasis on "if" which depends on unit, position and settings. I think it best to think in terms of when to make the switch as a personal SOP (if you use the 5T mnemonic aid, think of it as part of the "Twist") even if it's only to confirm that the unit is doing it properly. "Talking over" for the missed also depends on unit, position and settings. For example, the general Garmin standard when the unit does not include altitude information for approach segments is to suspend automatic sequencing for the missed so that on those "climb to 1,000 then left climbing turn to 2,000" misseds the unit doesn't start sending you to the missed approach hold (and that terrain in the way) prematurely - that's the "remain suspended?" question on the 650/750; just a SUSP annunciation on the 430/530. That switch - making or confirming - should also should be part of a personal SOP. But otherwise, just like procedure turns, etc, GPS can be used for any segment of an approach other than primary lateral guidance on the FAC.

VLOC "mode" isn't a mode in which a GPS simulates a VOR. There's a real VOR receiver head in there. The GPS probably is more precise in any given situation but the FAA has taken the position that unless the approach says "GPS" in the title, you may not use it to substitute for the nav source that is in the title for primary lateral guidance along the final approach course. The reason is likely something as basic as "because we haven't tested the approach flying it only with GPS."

The free-for-CFI program is not intended to be a temporary, time-limited one.

The only "requirement" for it might be if you have a VOR and are taking an instrument practical test or have a CFII who insists on it for an IPC. There's not too much reason to use one these days except for a few airports that do not have a "better" GPS approach to the same runway. And I'm not too worried about those since, they tend to be pretty straightforward procedural and, well, I can still use the GPS or a tablet to maintain situational awareness. Checking my logbook, my last practice VOR approach was in May 2010.

It is never a bad thing to make sure the pilot and ATC are on the same page. But I will differ slightly on the way you put it. If ATC doesn't instruct a specific pattern entry method, I wont "ask" for a clarificantion. I will "tell" them how I plan to enter. "N34X, cleared to land. Making right base," not, "how would you like us to enter the pattern?" If they need something else, they will tell me. Some will think that's just a difference in semantics but I think it's an important distinction in terms of how we view our relationship with ATC.

The main point is that the left/right traffic issue is non-existent at a towered airport. The AFD and other documents tell you the traffic pattern so you know what to do when the tower is closed. A Tower will typically give you a pattern entry instruction. In your situation, depending on where you were to the east, I would expect a "make right downwind" or "make right base" instruction. In their absence, the Tower doesn't care, most likely because there isn't enough other traffic to worry about at the moment. And they are expecting you to simply do something reasonable that gets you onto the runway expeditiously - like that right downwind or right base entry.

Nice to see something good for a change

I join those who warn about developing bad habits. Although I think it counts for no more than 20% of instrument training, the first step in instrument training is morphing the private pilot's emergency instrument reference flight into a sustainable instrument scan and aircraft control regimen. While scans are ultimately personal, good CFIIs are usually essential to their development. My general mantra about the use of a safety pilot is that its is the instrument student's equivalent of solo flight - best done as part of a syllabus to exercise and reinforce what was learned. It is simply not a substitute for training. Unless you are going to grab a local CFII and get "homework assignments" to do with your safety pilot, IMO you are better off doing cross country flights (there's a reason the FAA requires a minimum amount of cross country PIC time to qualify) to airports you have never been before, utilizing flight following and heading often into Class B and C airports. That builds experience in dealing with the unusual and, more importantly, with ATC.

Me too, most of the time. Extended slips are also very uncomfortable for passengers, especially rear seat passengers. My usual transition is as I begin the initial level-off for the flare as I cross the numbers. When teaching primary students, I demonstrate both my personal technique and a slip all the way down and emphasize what I have said here - that they are ends of a continuum and they are free to choose where they want to perform the transition, although I do want them to learn the slip all the way initially because of the practical aerodynamics it teaches.

In theory, it's the maximum crosswind the manufacturer's test pilot demonstrated in the aircraft's certification that should be able to be handled by a competent pilot with average piloting skills. In reality, I've always believed it's a number that represents, after testing, the manufacturer's decision about what sounds best in terms of a balance between marketing and safety.

Yes. Generally true. It can be otherwise, though. I wanted to rent a Warrior while on vacation. We headed to an airport that had a crosswind pretty near the max demo for the airplane for the landing part of the checkout. First attempt, with a crab until about 25 or so AGL, resulted in a go-around when I simply couldn't get stabilized to my (our) satisfaction. On my second shot, I established the slip much earlier - over 100 AGL - and simply rode it down all the way to touchdown. Different strokes for different the same folks.

Both. For example, the "J" manual contains the following warning in the "limitations" section: Takeoff maneuvers, prolonged sideslips or steep descents when the selected fuel tank contains less than 8 gallons (48.0 Ibs., 30.3 liters, 8.7 IMP. Gal.) of fuel have not been demonstrated and may cause loss of power. Mooneys aren't the only aircraft with this warning about potential fuel flow issues in extended slips. Cirrus, for example, has a very similar one.