midlifeflyer

That's also the reason I teach SOPs. Doing the same thing at the same point tends to create a habit that, while it may not be impossible to break, makes it less likely, even with distractions, as I found out when I had an emergency.

I check it twice, "check" to me meaning verification that it is already down. If the "check" means more than that, then I guess the answer is 4. First is before my SOP gear-down point when I'm thinking about putting it down when I get there (although it's usually my shaking hand waiting to go to the handle when I'm close). Second is at my SOP gear-down point when, well, I put it down. The last two are paranoia points. The third depends on the pattern I am flying. The 4th is on final. There are probably a few more but they are not conscious (sort of like my hand shaking when I get near the gear-down point).

Salida is pretty straightforward except for its proximity to the mountains to the west than can cause some interesting wind patterns. This should be an extremely obvious question: do you have high density altitude/mountain experience? It becomes especially important because Mooneys are not known as great performers in those conditions. More about the takeoff than the landing.

Recovering Attorney. Primarily aviation law in my semi-retirement.

Off base. Your phone's GPS is not going to transfer location information to your iPad. On the blue dot when you are connected to WiFi - WiFi can provide some location information without a GPS but it's not reliable. For me, even when connected to reliable WiFi, the blue dot in ForeFlight disappears pretty quickly. GPS is GPS. Mobile data is mobile data. WiFi is Wifi.

The IFR low altitude enroute might not help since there are usually fixes on an approach chart that are not on the en route. If you load the approach chart in the "Charts" area and keep your sectional in the "Maps" area, it's only one tap to switch back and forth. Personally, Even when IFR, I generally prefer sectionals, especially once I am in the approach environment. So even when flying an instrument approach, I use ForeFlight's ability to overlay the approach chart over the sectional (which provides other benefits as well).

Interesting. I haven't had those issues with either the Stratus I or II. Well, actually, once. I left my Stratus on the glare shield when I went to lunch and it reacted as it should have due to my mistake in leaving it in a closed cockpit on a warm day with the sun beating down on it on the ramp.

You can. What you can't do us use the same ADS-B receiver. All of the stand-alone gos receivers that work with an iPad will work with every app using location services. It's when you get to ADS-B units that you start to see of exclusive unit-app relationships.

Stratus II provides three things an iPad GPS does not. ADS-B weather, ADS-B traffic, and an AHRS to feed pitch and bank information to ForeFlight's synthetic vision page (which works in "flat" mode without it). ADS-B weather and some traffic are also available with the Stratus I. For each of those things you don't care about or diesnt give you something you value, the value of the product is lessened. Only you can decide whether what is left has value to you.

Short comment on this part of the post. Loading VTF when VFR can be subject to the same problem as loading VTF IFR (although it really shouldn't be). More than once I have been asked to proceed to a fix outside the FAF on an approach when approaching a Class C or B airport VFR.

That is a great recommendation for both IFR and VFR pilots when heading into any airport, particularly one that serves airline traffic and that has parallel runways. Even without naming a fix, "Track the localizer inbound" is a fairly common instruction at those airports as a way of trying to ensure adequate spacing.

That's assuming you know which procedure the fix being mentioned is on. Remember that romair was on the visual; no procedure had been assigned. Here's an example. You are leaving the Denver area are are being given radar vectors. Out of nowhere, the controller says, "Proceed direct EXTAN." Once knowing how to spell it, I, and some others here would just pop EXTAN into my panel GPS or ForeFlight's search box and head there. Takes about 10 seconds. Try to find it by bringing the Denver procedures up in ForeFlight and see what happens

romair, you are describing a situation that appears to becoming more and more common, controllers mentioning a fix that is on an approach plate or SID or STAR, but not on whatever you are looking at at the time. I would treat it exactly the same as I do with any instruction to proceed to any fix I'm not familiar with. Advise you are unfamiliar (or not) and ask for it's spelling. (a) Put it in as a Direct to fix in your GPS or (b)type it in the search box in ForeFlight (or another EFB). If you still need to, add it to your flight plan in the appropriate place and make whatever other adjustments you want. The choice between 2(a) and 2(b)or both, for that matter, in whatever order, is a matter of preference. I kind of go back and forth on that one between wanting to get going quickly and wanting to see where it is in relation to everything else, but wither way works. The pre-GPS method also works - ask what procedure it is on - but that definitely takes more time.

That's true. Sometimes it's surprisingly easy. BTW, speaking of aviation and trademark fights, one of the absolutely worst examples I can think of is the litigation in which Angel Flight of Georgia sued Angel Flight Southeast and Angel Flight America over the use of the trademark "Angel Flight" in the southeast US.

No. This is a "standard character mark". It's thw words that are protected, not the way they are written. Font doesn't matter. spacing might but probably not. There are also "design marks" which are basically logos, but this isn't one. Don't look too hard for minor technicalities in an area of the law where the ultimate test for infringement is, customer identification. if I start a restaurant in town called Unique Eats and I get great reviews on Trip Advisor, some guy across the street diesnt get to trade on it by calling his restaurant Unique Eats

There are more sources for requirements than the ones in Part 91 and the TCDS. There's also the applicable certification rules themselves and equipment required by the manufacturer (see FAR 91.213(d)). So, for example, Part 23 (which applies to current manufacture) requires "For normal, utility, and acrobatic category airplanes with direct current systems, an ammeter..." (I haven't looked to see if the E is a FAR Part 23 or an old CAR Part 5 certification)

I think that's true for any aircraft with carb heat. Whether or not in the manual, it's always a good idea to minimize the use of carb heat on the ground, even on paved surfaces. Being on loose dirt or grave just makes it worse.

The problem with older aircraft isn't the aircraft, it's the manuals. Many would say modern POH checklists go way too far but older ones tend to have very little. Pretty decent bet some of the items that were added through the years are because of things that have happened in the interim. WAG but my sense is that the fairly standard carb heat check at runup (as opposed to at engine start or not at all) in later carbureted aircraft is because a long taxi at low power settings in a moist climate could conceivably create carb ice. The carb heat check is to confirm that it is both working and clear of ice.

The basic "direct to" is my least used feature.

None in terms of published procedures and approaches. But knowing airways is not about "figuring out which airway you are on." It's about hearing "Direct Briggs, V8 ATWOO, V103 Roanoke, V258..." in your clearance out of Cleveland and instead of search through your chart to figure out where the heck all the change-over points are and then entering all 5 individually into the 430, entering ATWOO in the GNS and telling it you'll be following V103 until the Roanoke exit point (only about 200 NM). That's a short flight - only about 200 NM on the airway with 5 COPs - a saving of 3 entries (not to mention looking for them). Try it on a longer flight (and better yet, let's make that an in-flight amendment to your clearance), in an area you are not familiar with, and the value of airway knowledge by a unit becomes a pretty decent time and aggravation saver. That assumes, of course, that saving time and aggravation has value to the pilot.

Best one was from a friend of mine. I did his IPC yesterday and in light of the other "hot air" (it hit about 104°F) he asked, Tell me - did you become a CFII for the glory, the big bucks, or to stay low and fly approaches in 100 degree weather and associated turbulence?" Since it turned out the air was smooth as silk, I had to go with the big bucks.

Q: How can you tell there's a pilot at a party? A: Don't worry. he'll tell you.

You mean changing from "fly" to "flying?" That's not very much of a change. As Yetti points out there are many reasons for decisions of this type; some legal, some not. One is that, maybe they've talked and reached an accord. Another is that JetBlue doesn't really care about it as a mark. A third is that there is a cease and desist letter that was sent to JetBlue. A fourth is that both parties realize that a program providing a source of family tickets for an airline is so far removed from supporting women pilots that no one is going to think they are related. Trademark Law 102 . If 101 is that purpose of trademarks is to identify the source of goods and services, then 102 is that multiple companies can use the same trademark if what they are doing is distinct enough so as to not result in confusion. The classic example is this: I don't think anyone thinks this is made by General Motors (although I am sure some would argue that the value is about the same) BTW, a quick look at the Women in Aviation website shows that JetBlue is one of the many corporate members.

I agree with you completely. And, in the real world of lawyers (not the world of what people imagine lawyers do), lawyers know "their their job is to find workable language that is acceptable to both parties." And that is exactly what they try to do more than 90% of the time. I've had far more potential good deals go south due to the unreasonableness of the clients than the unreasonableness of the lawyers. The number of lawyers I have had to deal with who were unmitigated a-holes who were a complete disservice to their clients have been incredibly few. So far anyway.

More lawyer jokes?