midlifeflyer

Others will simply respond that a touch and go is not a go-around. Yes, definitely. Go-arounds should be practiced. I doubt anyone disagrees with that.

I'm sure those threads did not involve super pilots who never make such simple mistakes.

Even without the retractable gear issue, the desirability and value of touch & goes has been the subject of disagreement for a long time. There was an AOPA Instructor forum/survey done a few years ago on the subject with the range of opinions similar to those expressed here. (I'm mostly surprised at the consistency of my own opinion on the subject. I was looking for a link to the AOPA instructor forum but instead found a usenet post I made 13 years ago that said pretty much the same thing I said here. Don't know if that's good or bad )

The theory is pretty simple: The risk of doing it wrong outweighs the benefit. A touch & go is just a convenience so you don't have to come to a full stop and/or taxi back when practicing landings. It doesn't really have any other purpose (except maybe showing you can divide attention while rolling down a runway). A touch and go is not a go-around; although it looks like one form of a go-around - one that takes place after touchdown - it's done differently and has an entirely different purpose (unless, of course you treat all touch & goes as emergency maneuver practice and don't reconfigure the airplane until after you take off again) But like so many other things in aviation, risk/benefit becomes a personal choice. BTW, I once handled the case of a touch & go gear-up, Two pilots, complex transition training, CFI on board on the lookout for mistakes. And no, I'm not "against" them.

The M20J is less adamant about it, referring to a similar procedure as "ONE SUGGESTED METHOD." And of course, what works for one airplane type would not necessarily work as well - or at all - for another.

That's almost as big a religious dispute as crab & kick vs slip I was taught the common less flap in a crosswind mantra in my early flight training. No way would I even consider a full flap landing in a strong crosswind! Then came a day in my CFI training when we were going up in a C152 with the winds at or exceeding the 15 KT demonstrated crosswind component. My instructor asked how I would land; I explained the known dangers of full flaps. "Ok." he said, "let's do some full flap landings." Pretty much a non-event. The anti-flap point of view is primarily based on the concept of more effective control surfaces at a marginally higher airspeed. The pro-flap point of view is primarily based on the rollout where, in case of a mishap, slower is better. I think , like C&K vs slip, it's more a question of individual technique than whether one is better than the other.

From the M20J POH: //WlARNlNG// ///////// Takeoff manauvers, 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 I

My theory on teaching and doing crosswind landings is in my FAQ at http://midlifeflight.com/flying-faq/faq-takeoffs-and-landings/

My theory has always been that the max demonstrated crosswind component is a combination of marketing and safety. The manufacturer decides what components to test and, based on the test pilot recommendations, selects one. The test pilots are quite capable of exceeding it and probably have during testing.

There are, of course, ways to do it, although I think trying to insert a bunch of cycles into a flight plan is way too much work. One can always select the VOR as a waypoint and use OBS mode to select the inbound course. If it's a distance hold, just move to HDG mode early and input the intercept. You know, the way we used to do it with VOR and DME? But that's very different than the creation of a hold that can be automatically flown as one can with the 80/480. Edit: Guess I missed kortopates' post and duplicated it.

Ultimately there is a practical aircraft limitation beyond our comfort levels. If the wind can cause you to drift across the runway while longitudinally aligned despite full aileron into the wind, you've pretty much reached the end of the aircraft's ability to land in it without breaking something.

If you're asking how much additional power is being used by tracking in addition to using moving map capability, probably not that much. All that should be happening from an app standpoint is logging information that's already there in a simple text file. That's pretty minor in relation to all the other functions taking place live.

You won't find it because (1) vectors only requires a heading indicator, (2) non-IFR gear reliance or DR while under IFR is not officially recognized or sanctioned by the FAA and (3) any direct route clearance that exceeds ground based navaid tolerances requires a radar environment, monitoring and guidance by ATC with some exceptions for IFR certified boxes (see AIM 5-1-8(c ) and Controller Handbook 4-1-2(a) as examples)

Flying waypoint to waypoint in the IFR system requires suitable equipment. The theoretical discussion of IFR dead reckoning is just that - theoretical. No practical value whatsoever. If you don;t think so, be my guest shutting off your navaids and flying an approach to minimums in IMC (sorry, no GPS or iPad either) based on your last estimates of the winds at different altitudes.. Or using dead reckoning to fly IFR at the MEA in mountainous terrain. In the real world, IFR tolerances simply are not conducive to dead reckoning. The regs require "navigation equipment suitable for the route to be flown" [91.205] for IFR flight. To fly direct to a point that is not a navaid itself, that means a suitable RNAV system, "an RNAV system that meets the required performance established for a type of operation, e.g. IFR; and is suitable for operation over the route to be flown in terms of any performance criteria (including accuracy) established by the air navigation service provider for certain routes (e.g. oceanic, ATS routes, and IAPs)." [1.1] As wonderful as they are, an iPad or handheld GPS is simply not suitable RNAV systems. Period. But, if asked, there is nothing that prevents one from informing ATC he or she has a handheld GPS or iPad with GPS capability. Not lying about having a certified IFR unit. They understand the capabilities of these systems and are happy to let you go direct to a waypoint while under radar coverage, knowing they wont have to correct your course constantly. BTDT. Because, as has been mentioned already, ATC in fact does not care what you do so long as you don't cause a problem for them. And this is all radar-monitored activity. In the early years it was kind of a hint/hint/wink/wink but became so widespread as to be pretty much SOP for those (fewer each year) pilots flying IFR without certified boxes, folks simply (and fortunately) became above board about it.

I think you forgot somehting that appears on some LOC (and VOR) approaches. Are you suggesting getting rid of DME stepdown fixes that serve to reduce minimums? Perhaps make all of them with (a) higher minimums so all can fly them or (b ) NA for anyone without DME capability? Just like the DME stepdown situation, the best simplification is understanding your equipment. It's been said that there's a trade-off for the simplicity of actually flying a GPS approach - complexity in the set up. Add to that the complexity of understanding the capabilities and limitations of the equipment.

Might be the wine but I'm not sure I understand. It's WAAS that adds the information that calculates the advisory glideslope on an LNAV approach as well as the approved vertical guidance on LPV and LNAV/VNAV). There's no advisory glideslope on an LP approach - that was intentional, the FAA wanting to ensure that one did not confuse LP (lateral guidance only) with LPV (lateral and vertical guidance). I guess the same issue potentially exists with respect to LNAV approaches. I'm guessing the FAA was a bit less worried about confusing a lateral-only approach (LP or LNAV) with a reg-certified lateral+vertical approach (LPV or LNAV/VNAV) than with confusing a lateral-only approach (LNAV) with a lateral-only approach (LNAV). [Note: LNAV+V is an annunciation from the unit, not a reference on an approach chart] The bad news is the confusion exhibited by pilots, including those who fly with these systems. There is, btw, a fairly decent description of all this from the FAA: RNAV (GPS) Approaches Of course, since I really didn't understand my answer might make no sense

Here's an example: http://api.foreflight.com/directory/tracklog/view.html?id=1912525 The nice thing is that there's an ability to export to Cloud Ahoy. In addition to not needing two possible conflicting apps open, it's especially nice for Stratus users because Status does not talk directly to Cloud Ahoy.

There are often debates between folks who know things and folks who think they know things. Trust me, not just in aviation

It should say what to do on the back of the certificate - check off the ownership transferred box and mail it to the FAA Aircraft Registry. The address is there also, where it says "This Certificate must be returned to..." For further reference, the applicable FAR is 41.47.

Rather than a simple, "No, that's incorrect," I will ask - what in the regulations and/or AIM makes you think that? You can start with the PCG definition and go from there: VISUAL METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS- Meteorological conditions expressed in terms of visibility, distance from cloud, and ceiling equal to or better than specified minima But be specific. Your memory of what you think the rules might be doesn't count.

Hardly an expert since I'm learning this myself, but unless your camera is sophisticated enough to correct for this (and you know how to use those settings) for the simple/GoPro crowd, the solution seems to be a neutral density filter that reduces light entering the camera by about 4 f-stops. It apparently causes the camera to compensate by slowing down, causing the series of prop "stop actions" to change to a less intrusive blur.

Troy, in both cases, if you can see past the tops over the tops, you are above them. Mountain flying 101.

The theory is downright simple. Even if one thinks the risk of accidentally raising the gear is low, why do something so completely unnecessary to a normal landing instead of deferring it to after leaving the runway?

I like the plan. The only part I question is avoiding non-towered airports. If you do them in actual, they will be pretty quiet; if you do them with a safety pilot, well, traffic lookout is a big part of that job. And if, it's a general dislike of non-towered airports, you really need to get over that. Good chance your best deviation option some IFR cross country day when the bad weather is heading your way is going to be non-towered. The other thing to consider including is proficiency exercises. How about, after the missed on the first (because the weather was too low) you decide to deviate. Although you may plan where in advance and in the real world you would probably do this in advance as soon as you were aware of the possibility of needing to go missed, make a point of not briefing the second airport approach until on the missed off the first one. That's just an example. There's all sorts of stuff you can come up with to make currency flights do a bit more on the proficiency side.

You'd probably get some disagreement on that from a pretty large group that firmly believes innovation is best fostered by at permitting protection of trade secrets and the temporary monopolies of copyright and patent protection.