midlifeflyer

The time numbers produced by FltPlan are so incredibly accurate I never bothered.

My issue isn't whether I can float halfway down the runway and still have enough room to slow down. I much prefer to land reasonably close to the touchdown zone. I don't think jets are a good comparison. They land in the touchdown zone and I understand (confirming this with some jet drivers) that their approach speeds are about 10 KTS over their over-the-fence speed, a very small percentage of their velocity. Ours tend to be much higher, closer to 30 KTS with a 30% speed reduction needed to reduce to our over-the-fence speeds. Easy for a dirty 172 with super-effective flaps; less so for an efficient airfoil Mooney.

I reconfigure. But the problem I came across was, on a precision approach to minimums, I didn't find that to be enough to prevent a longer landing than I like or a go-around due to being too hot. So I also reduce power about 200' above DA to slow down a bit more. It's a small enough configuration change and done high enough to not affect the quality or stability of the approach.

It should not be a big worry. He's not going to try to put the nose down and push the prop and throttle full forward until it redlined. The power settings and configurations for single engine complex aircraft are very close to each other. Anything he might reasonably try is going to be very close if he has any experience with multiple types. The biggest variables are going to be personal preference ones like whether to fly the approach with or without flaps or whether to descend on the glide slope at 90 or 105 or... My single biggest issue when I transitioned to a Mooney J was slowing down at DA for landing due to the extra aerodynamic slipperiness of the Mooney. That took a few extra practice approaches or to decide on the best and most efficient technique for me given my general preference for no-flap approaches.

@201_MSE, I don't think that's it. The pre-1991 J POH has two such charts, both showing both liftoff and obstacle numbers. And your still identifies itself as a "Normal Takeoff Distance" chart along the right margin.

Although not as extensive, it's also part of the first lesion I give VFR students who are transitioning to complex or high performance aircraft. Even in as something as slow and dirty as a Cutlas or Arrow, I'm not sure how one stays ahead of the airplane when descending to mix into a busy traffic pattern without a basic understanding of the configurations that will get you there before the airplane does with a minimum of workload.

I agree with DS1980 also. Yes, you want to configure the mixture for go-around power but no, I'm not that crazy about the idea of doing much more than guesstimating the mixture setting that will accomplish this. Especially during the workload of the landing phase. My thought is that, while it's nice to be super precise, there' same lot of room between too rich and too lean -about 3000 feet of density altitude according to many manufacturers. I've personally never done more than a guesstimate of the setting for landing, even during 20 years of flying in Colorado. Go-a rounds have never been a problem

I'm actually quite surprised your instructor has not already discussed with you a flight in which you will take the time to develop those numbers yourself. To a lot of CFIIs, it is as important a component of the initial stages of instrument training as attitude flying itself. The exercise of developing those numbers reaps great benefits in learning about aircraft performance.

East or west, 4,000 or 14,000, smooth or craggy, mountains are mountains and the wind goes over and through them pretty much the same way. And they deserve the same respect. The difference in density altitude is a difference in your airplane's capability, not on the effects of mountain weather.

Here's what it looks like (attachment below). I put in KTTA and KMYR as the departure and destination and touched "Routes." You will initially get a screen that says there are no routes. Be patient a few seconds. Me too. The recent ATC routes has historically been more robust that the one in ForeFlight. That may be changing. Flightaware recently announced that if you file IFR using it's planner, your expected clearance will be available in ForeFlight. That may mean they are getting together to make the route selection process more robust.

Having hopped between aircraft for the past 20+ years as both pilot and instructor, I'm not overly concerned. But good advice nevertheless.

Thanks for the replies. I ultimately found that using my standard flow made sense, especially since I fly multiple aircraft. Different flows for different aircraft seems to violate the whole idea of a flow. I think I was trying to catch less important items and making the flow more complicated than it needs to be.

Garmin-Garmin and Foreflight-Stratus are exclusive ADS-B relationships. That's exactly the way it works.

I usually have the few seconds available to put a re-route into my iPad. You'd have to go pretty far to be in the wrong weather display. At times, I've even entered it, or at least the first new waypoint I need to go to, into my iPad before entering it into my IFR box. Tells me what direction to start out from my present position much faster.

Then try ForeFlight. And WingX. And Garmin. Although some of the bells and whistles are different, for most, it's the UI that leads to choosing one or the other. The one thing I can tell you about FlyQ is that it is currently not as robust for IFR use as the others. I did AOPA's FlyQ webinar (check here or here)in June and thought it was missing some essential features compared to the others. (Purely political, but there are also those who don't like FlyQ just because AOPA, supposedly a GA rep, is using it to compete with other developers and supporting one organization (Seattle) over others.)

I flew with Sirius/XM weather plugged into a 396 and now, ADS-B on my iPad. There are a few differences in what they include. For example, lightning strikes on Sirius/XM; not on ADS-B and you can get Sirius/XM on the ground as well as in the air; ground only sometimes with ADS-B. There's a pretty good comparison of the two on this ForeFlight page. I have not seen the few differences to be worth the Sirius/XM subscription costs. The currency of information is substantially identical - 8 to 20 minutes old for NEXRAD. One difference between the two that should be paid attention to (true for all weather sources) is that the presentation of NEXRAD data can be different. Different providers use different dBZ sales. Although the blue-green-yellow-red increase in returns is pretty standard, the threshold that moves, say, from green to yellow, can be different on different displays.

There's a bunch of advice on the internet in helping with iOS 7 battery drain. Google ios 7 battery saving tips I do most of the setting change recommendations. My in-flight-specific ones are: Close all apps that are not being used. Keep wifi or bluetooth on only if you need to actively use one of them. Lower the screen brightness as much as you can while still keeping it readable. Put the iPad to sleep unless you need it for something That last one is a biggie and based on the concept that an EFB is first and foremost, an enhanced electronic chart. If I'm en route, navigating by navaid (including panel GPS), I don't need my chart out all the time, whether it be "paper or plastic." For longer trips where I am really concerned, I also plug it in, or at least have the "cigarette lighter" plug available in my flight bag.

Maybe, but since a 28-day data change is upon us anyway (I'm running my update right now), does it really matter?

That's weird. I'd write to ForeFlight support on that one. I have a database of Colorado mountain passes that I loaded into my 1st Gen iPad. When i bought my 3rd Gen iPad, they came right along with ForeFlight and haven't been lost in the iOS 7 update. Have you tried (1) iPad reboot and (2) uninstalling and re-installing ForeFlight?

Definitely. In complicated theory, it's one of a number of evidence rules that makes things irrelevant, not because they are really irrelevant, but to foster some policy. In simple terms, we don't want to let a bad or unsafe condition continue to exist by giving a disincentive for repairing it. So there's a rule that makes a defendant's later repairs irrelevant for the purpose of assigning fault. From a litigation standpoint it neither proves a case for the plaintiff nor acts as a defense for the defendant. Kind of like the Miranda warnings. If the police violate the rule, the confession can't be used. But that doesn't mean the criminal gets off (even Miranda himself didn't get off; he was convicted).

I'm still fairly new to the area but I think it really depends on what's most convenient for where you want to be. Even RDU itself is pretty GA friendly and, of course, such things a rental cars are generally easier and less expensive at a bigger airport. I'd recommend Sanford (KTTA) but it's closed for runway rebuilding. Chapel Hill has an airport but you'll want to call in advance; it's been closing down for years and its GA friendliness seems to ebb and flow.

I'm really not aware of any FAA rule, order, guidance or interpretation that said that whether something is an instruction or not depends on airspace. If you have a reference, I really would like to see it. Yes I'm saying that whether something is an instruction or just a suggestion depends on the words used. Like everything else in language and communications. In this case it's the use of the word "suggested." Kind of like the word "clearance." VFR aircraft can't be certain they are cleared into Class B unless the word "cleared" is used. Or "practice approach approved" instead of "cleared for the approach" to let VFR aircraft know that they are not on a IFR approach clearance when or practicing instrument approaches under VFR. Operationally, the ATC Handbook gives at least one example of using "suggested heading" as a means if ensuring the pilot understands that what is being said is only a suggestion and not an instruction. I"m pretty sure pilots won't have too much trouble telling the difference between "maintain at or above 3000'" and "suggested altitude at or above 3000'"

Definitely true. But in this case, the "bureaucrat's" interpretation is the one that leads to problems in the real world of FAA enforcement actions. CFI's don't bring enforcement actions. FAA lawyers do. I can pretty much guarantee, "My CFI told me I don't have to comply with an instruction in certain airspace" is not much of a defense. The real world is that 90% of the time, ATC will give a VFR pilot a "suggested" heading. It's the other 10% that can lead to problems for the pilot. It's important to understand the difference between the two. Should be pretty clear based on how it's phrased.

I don't think there's a change in interpretation. If the controller uses the phrase "suggest," that's all it is. "Suggest heading 230 for traffic" is not an instruction. "Turn right heading 230 for traffic" is.

Did you click on the link? The FAA Chief Counsel has already expressed his opinion. But if you prefer a CFI to the head FAA lawyer, I'm one.