midlifeflyer

No, other than the availability of CD/DVD and online solutions, hasn't changed that much. My guess is you are referring to the Aviation Seminars weekend ground school (yep, they are still around). A day and a half of cramming followed immediately by the test while the stuff is fresh in your mind. I used it for my private, instrument and commercial. Did Gleim test prep (computerized practice exam, not the audio/video course) for my CFI and CFII. Two things to note about the choices: First is that whether you like or hate Martha's hair or Gleim's written materials or Machado's sense of humor is strictly a matter of person preference. The second is to be aware that there are two completely different types of courses out there. One is geared solely to passing the knowledge test. To stick with King, you can see the differences on their website. The "Written Only" is geared to passing the knowledge test. The "Checkride only" is more the ground portion of flight training and (I don't know about King specifically; but the Sporty's ) some of these will follow a syllabus - I found it particularly helpful with my students who tended to be professionals with little time to spare. I simply followed the same syllabus, which allowed my student to prepare before a lesson and review after a lesson as many times as he wanted). Most providers have both and often have them combined, but I think it's important to understand there is a difference. I recall one pilot who bought an expensive DVD "flight" course and was sorely disappointed because it didn't hep him pass the knowledge test.

Did you find the tapes? I'm curious enough to listen but not search myself

LiveATC archives transmissions. So if someone has been monitoring the applicable Approach facility for LiveATC, there's a good chance yo can find the transmissions in the archive. Offhand, it looks like a couple of missed approaches followed by the diversion.

WingX Pro and Foreflight were the earliest tablet apps and their competition with each other on features and functions the main reason we have all we have today. They both continue to improve!

Thanks. I appreciate the comments. For information, it's not for a purchase. I am a member of a flying club with 3 Js (ans some other aircraft). One is in the process of leaving with the possibility of a Screaming Eagle to take its place. If it comes to pass I'll be in the happy position of being able to pick the airplane based on the mission. Just trying to get a handle on what to expect.

Thanks. Other that the obvious need to stay even more ahead of the airplane due to the increased speed, any major differences in the way they handle?

I don't think automatic depiction of extended runway centerlines is a 430/530 function. The setting of the OBS is the only way to simulate it (other than loading a coinciding approach) I am aware of.

Can someone with knowledge of both models give a summary of the main operational differences between the 201 and the Screaming Eagle?

Pretty much same location for me but a suction mount since I fly club airplanes.

It's going to be pretty small. I have a 24" crate which is about as big as it's going to be to get into the back seat. I've simply tethered larger dogs. What I've seen a lot of recently in posts and videos is putting a dog bed in the baggage compartment. Seems to allow for a lot more options. So would pulling out the back seats in a Mooney, although the baggage compartment solution seems to be a good idea from a comfort and security standpoint. Out vet recommends lining it (or a carrier) with disposable diapers in case of accidents - makes for a much easier cleanup.

There's a service bulletin on this http://www.mooney.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/sbm20-239a.pdfwhich is incorporated into an AD http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAD.nsf/0/85ae60363500442386256a4d004911ca!OpenDocument&ExpandSection=-8,-5#_Section8

I think that's right - a WAAS feature (it's in the 430W/530W). But considering the steps to turn it on (next to last choices on the menu when in the flight plan page) not too likely you would have done it accidentally.

Here's the E/F page from the PPP manual

So sorry I had to miss it. Looks like a good time was had by all.

Kind of surprised no one has picked you up on the offer.

I bought mine used and have been very happy. If I'm willing to accept the seller's statement that he or she had no trouble with it, a warranty for a sealed item with nothing more to break than an on/off switch unless I drop it, is not worth a 20% of the purchase price (assuming the $499/$100 someone mentioned) to me.

"The M10J performance goals include cruise speeds greater than 170 ktas and a range of more than 1,000 nm while maintaining a competitive market price." Some "baby."

I "liked" Parker's response. With the right company, this should be negotiable. For the purpose it is better to work with an independent insurance broker/agent than with a company directly. The problem I see with depositing the deductible is that the high deductible applies to everyone. IOW, if the new partner causes a hull claim, fine, but if one of the others does, the high deductible still applies. It's not fair to the others to be stuck with that and it's certainly not fair for the newer pilot to pay the deductible for someone else's accident. On thing I have seen done in situations like this is is the same deductible but with a higher premium, with the low-timer paying the premium differential. I was that guy in a group ownership a few years ago and felt it to be quite fair.

I wouldn't want to be "as prepared as possible." Reasonably prepared for the level of risk I perceived, definitely. But one can go overboard as well. Wish I knew where it was or saved it but I recall someone taking a photo of his cockpit with mounted iPad, iPhone, 396 or 496, and a 430/530 suite. I wondered how he could find the time to scan the actual cockpit instruments And even that wouldn't be "as prepared as possible" to others. The definition of what is "overboard" as well as what is reasonable preparation will vary from person to person and the perception and acceptance of risk. My personal risk analysis tells me that the likelihood of an electrical failure that ends panel navigation and communications failure without time to get to an acceptable diversionary at the same time as both my iPad primary and Android backup chart apps crap out also is highly unlikely. And if it happened, a bunch of paper charts would not help much. YMMV. In fact I'm sure some would say I have gone a bit overboard in preferring my backup EFB to be running a different operating system or in using one at all given the Garmin avionics in the aircraft I typically fly.

Like Bob, I don't carry paper except for my "emergency" sticky note pad. No crashes in the three years I've been using an iPad in flight. The difference with Bob is that my electronic backup is not only a different app but a different device using a different operating system. And like triple8s, I have no plans of dying in the near future either

I think I made a mistake on this. The Skew T does show the information. But jlunseth was talking abou the app and at least the last time I looked, the SkewTLogPro app did not show the curve representing the dry/then wet adiabatic cooling rate of a hypothetical lifted parcel. That's the one (the black line in the diagram below) that, when compared with the actual temperature indicates atmospheric stability or instability. That was one of the reasons I didn't get the app and prefer to rely on the NOAA's javascript version at http://rucsoundings.noaa.gov/gwt/

I think it does, at least for those who know enough about interpreting the information the Skew-T provides. It measures the degree of atmospheric instability and different levels and those are related to storm intensity as well as icing potential.

9News reports one dead. Not that it's any better if it's a stranger but I sure hope it's not one of my friends

More or less accurate. But (1) it's probably going to be one judgement against both for a single amount, not a proportional award against each, so you'd be stuck with the excess $250,000 on a $1.25 million judgment either way, and (2) they'd try to collect the excess $250,000 from whichever of you is easier to collect from. Assuming the company has substantial assets, that's more likely to be them than you, so the "dilution" of the insurance coverage cuts both ways. That's of course assuming the insurance company doesn't settle the case for the policy limits (statistically the most likely result) , ending it.

If a question is raised, the FAA is not hoping to worry about your official job description. If you are transporting company persons or property (other than yourself) and receiving compensation for it, it requires a commercial pilot certificate if it is in the company's airplane. A Part 135 certificate if it is in your airplane. "Compensation" is very broadly interpreted to include your receipt of anything of value in exchange for providing the service. Not even a slight tinge of grey in this one. See the Mangiamele interpretation as an example. http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/pol_adjudication/agc200/interpretations/data/interps/2009/mangiamele%20-%20(2009)%20legal%20interpretation.pdf