midlifeflyer

I think that misses the point. "Refusing to comply" does not mean trying to stop armed Federal agents from boarding your aircraft. It simply means saying one word, "No," if asked whether they can board and inspect the aircraft. Whether you do that or OTOH, say, "sure; here's the keys" is a personal choice I wouldn't presume to make for anyone but me. But understanding your rights is the first step to making an intelligent personal decision.

Don't know if there are publicly-available "documented" cases, but just like enforcement officers of any type, there are those who overstep their bounds and act with "power" rather than with "authority." Thinking it never happens is akin to thinking that the police never do an improper warrantless search. That's probably the source of the "don't let go of your certificate" nonsense when an inspector asks you to examine it. One thing the article complains about is a lack of differentiation between Part 91 and Parts 135/121 ramp checks. In truth, the "handbook" (FAA Order 8900.1, available to all at http://fsims.faa.gov/PICResults.aspx?mode=EBookContents) separates them. And for Part 91 ramp checks, the handbook clearly tells Inspectors ============================== An inspector must not open or board any aircraft without the knowledge and consent of the crew or owner/operator. Some operators may prefer to have a company representative present to answer questions. ============================== If you have the time and interest in the FAA's instructions to its inspectors on Part 91 ramp inspections, it's Chapter 1, Section 4 of the handbook. So, compelling or not (compelling is an excellent way to get your attention and your emotion; I'm not sure how one "complies" with having their door kicked down), the statement assumes something that is a fallacy. FAA does not have an "internal rule" that an inspector may board your aircraft without your consent. To the contrary, it has a publicly available "internal rule" that an inspector may not do so. That an individual Inspector might insist contrary to the rules that apply to him is not, IMO, an indictment of the system but of the individual inspector. That's not to say that the "ramp check" has not been used as a pretext for other types of law enforcement investigations, such as the recent Border Patrol incidents AOPA is trying to fight or as a pretext for a state or DEA drug search of an aircraft.

The article has the same fault as those the author complains about other articles. Accurate information couples with things that are wrong.

Seen what? Was that supposed to link to something?

Depends completely on the airport layout and the relation of your destination to the runway you land on. There can be Ds and C's more complicated than Bs.

This Pilot-induced unintentional ballooning is simply having excessive airspeed in the landing flare but trying to flare as if you didn't. It means you did not control your airspeed in the pattern (not just on short final) in a way to produce a "normal" landing. So long as you always have a long enough runway and don't try to force the airplane to land until it's ready, it's easily controllable (even given a pilot who made the mistakes that led to unintentional ballooning to begin with). OTOH, forcing the airplane down can have serious repercussions, especially including wheelbarrowing the airplane with no directional control.

Sporty's just updated its E6B app for the iPad to include, among other things, weight and balance. Don't know for sure but I think they did it with the Android version also.

I used one in Colorado for a number of years. Well above 10,000' and in hot weather and pretty strong turbulence. Haven't had one let go in flight. I guess it's which vacuum mount.

Figured I'd update this thread rather than start a new one. I ended up going with the RAM rather than my cobbled-together yoke mount. I have a full-size iPad and fly a number of aircraft including the M20J. Problem was that the position selections available for the cradle left something to be desired. Tended t be too high in some aircraft, covering instruments, or too low in others, interfering with control movement. I came across this http://www.gforcemount.com/GF260.htm It's a new suction iPad mount that also uses suction instead of a cradle (btw, I'm a fan of G-Force - used one of their suction mounts for years with a Garmin 296 and 396 handheld). It go me to thinking - why wouldn't a RAM twist suction cup (RAM -B-224-1U) work as well? As it happens, I have the Stratus I suction mount so I took the suction piece off and tried it on a flight yesterday. The RAM mount set-up remains the same; the only difference is replacing the cradle with the suction mount. The mount held firm on the iPad (my iPad is in a smart-cover-compatible hardshell backing but the "naked" iPad should just as well). Between the location of the cup on the iPad and the RAM arms, I was able to get the iPad in a position that was ideal for me. Airflow around the iPad is unimpeded. My SmartCover easily went on when we stopped for a short time and I decided to leave the iPad in the cockpit, but removing the iPad from the cockpit would have only taken a twist of the locking device. Very happy with it - I just ordered a suction cup unit since I want to keep the existing one available for my Stratus.

I think the original BadElf is the only external iPad GPS that would be near ones lap (plugged into the iPad). The rest connect via bluetooth or wifi and sit nicely on the glareshield.

you mean like mentioned in post 29?

it depends. Some people report good results in the air with the built in GPS. Others have had issues. Yes, I get good results with my Droid Razr in my car. But I also know it's assisted by wifi location services (which works even if you are not connected) so I opted for external GPS for my iPad. Btw, on the price list, a good yoke mount is less than $100 if you want one, Stratus is only required if you want in flight weather and, even then you can still pay a bit less for the 1st gen which is still available. And if you want to forego geo-referenced approach charts, taxi diagrams and some other "pro" features, you can still get the less feature rich FF version for half the price. Ultimately the biggest required investment is the decision to go ipad. I did solely for FF but have used it for so many other things.

...and it's in an update released today. I doubt if I was the only one who mentioned it.

since using FF, I find myself spending more time on the sectional than the en route charts on IFR flights since 2 taps takes me from one to the other. More general situational awareness for me. The's probably why I didn't notice it.

Good point. I switched mine to IFR to take a look. At my opacity setting (less transparent than yours) it was still usable but definitely more crowded. Bumping it up slightly took care of that and still allowed me to see weather. But given the IFR approach workload, perhaps the opacity for this plate should be further up in the settings group. Edit: I made the suggestion to FF to move the chart opacity setting "above the fold" in the dropdown.

Here's an example (ignore the "steep turn" at OZOPE; just playing)

Did you try rubber-banding your route on to the approach chart fixes? Very cool.

If you look at the new approach chart overlay, it's really incredible.

Interesting. Apparently the unit wants some confirmation that this is in fact the waypoint you want the vertical guidance to. I guess it makes some sense, asking for confirmation instead of making an assumption that shows up nowhere else in the unit.

I'm in the "wait until you get off the runway and stop unless there's a reason for an early retraction, like a real short field landing" group. I don't know the numbers on how many accidental gear retractions there are when intending to retract flaps on the roll, but based on the number of flight schools that are prohibiting touch & goes in retracts and teaching waiting and other anecdotal data, it appears to be significant. And even if its small, it seems to me to be the most unnecessary and most easily preventable form of all types of gear up incidents, with a zero downside.

According to the manual, the last waypoint in the flight plan (might be a Direct To) is the one that's used by default. So it sounds like it should act as you expect. Could you have set something incorrectly in one of your manual setups? Like using msl instead of "above waypoint?" Another thing that might give you the dashes is if, for example, you said you wanted to be at 1000' above the waypoint 5 miles out (as you might for a traffic pattern) and yo were already 4 miles out. Once past the active target, it goes to dashes. We've now exhausted the sum total of my knowledge Might try resetting the default behavior using the menu and seeing what happens.

I can't tell from the post: Are you sure that your turned bluetooth on in settings and confirmed the connection there before using it? I ask because of the symptoms you describe. For example, in ForeFlight, the blue dot will appear with no GPS based on WiFi triangulation alone but it disappears soon after. First step I take when connecting my external - whether the GNS which I happily used for 2 years or the Stratus I use now - is to confirm the connection. Not with a blue dot in the app but in the iPad's Settings app.

Has anyone figured out whether (or if so why) the throttle/mixture full before returning to the start position has any effect? Interestingly, it's identical to the POH hot start procedure except for the throttle/mixture full interlude. I have 3 M20J models available to me in a flying club. A month ago I flew one for a trip and had trouble starting hot after a lunch stop. Friday, a much warmer day, I took a different J for a trip and after a 45 minute stop in 90° heat decided to give this technique a try. Sure enough, as advertised, the prop cranked 3-4 times and caught and ran with no problem. Just the different airplane? Or is there actually something to moving everything full forward before starting?

My personal checklists are similar to yours but they are on my iPad at this point - bookmarked for normal and emergency and abnormal procedures (as well as some. It seems the most of the time I spend with them is the process of making them more useable in flight.

I'm in a small group of pilots with a recurring question: Part 135 and Part 121 operators (even single pilot) use their checklists and have a wonderfully low accident rate. So do Part 91 commercial and corporate operations. Our group - non-commercial/non corporate Part 91 pilots actively resist the use of checklists. And we have a comparatively bad accident rate. About as good as motorcycles. Despite the clear correlation (not to say causation) between the use of checklists and accident rate, we simply refuse to use them. How come?