midlifeflyer

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?

Watching people talk "at" each other just to vent their personal belief systems with no chance of reasonable discourse or learning taking place is an annoyance. OTOH I have no trouble recognizing it for the worthless nonsense it is and simply ignoring it. And no problem recognizing an attack on another as a reflection of the personality defects of the attacker that gives me no information on the person attacked.

I've been using "roll your own" printed checklists for years. I've tried electronic ones, even those that allowed me to create/edit them but have always gone back to the ones specifically created and formatted to me. Like some of the others, I found the electronic checklists more trouble than they are worth. Since getting rid of paper in the cockpit, my "paper" checklists are now PDF files ported to Goodreader and as "documents" in ForeFlight. The pdf files are also bookmarked for Normal, Emergency, and some other informational sections to get around easier if I need to.

I'm new to Mooney's also. A big help to me was reading the MAPA Pilot Proficiency Program Training Manual. I think someone has publicly posted the 2004 edition online, so just Google the title.

What the heck. Profile updated.

Ah, so for you it's all about finances and not about politics. I agree that across-the-budge cuts done without regard to political choices makes sense. Unfortunately, when the FAA appears to take their remaining budget and apply it in a way that seem to be designed to meet political rather than fiscal ends, I get a bit concerned. But I definitely admire your adherence to a viable fiscal philosophy whether I agree with it or not. So take it you were a a Bill Clinton supporter (balanced budget, surplus), and you opposed the war in Iraq knowing that it would spend a lot of money the country didn't have. Nice to see someone with a consistent viewpoint that doesn't cross party lines.

Exactly. It's unfortunately common although thankfully not really the majority.

You might enjoy reading my FAQ on this one. How Much Actual Is Required to Log an Instrument Approach?

CFI needs some serious re-training. Or at least the ability to read: ============================== 61.57© Instrument experience. Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, a person may act as pilot in command under IFR or weather conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR only if: (1) Use of an airplane, powered-lift, helicopter, or airship for maintaining instrument experience. Within the 6 calendar months preceding the month of the flight, that person performed and logged at least the following tasks and iterations in an airplane, powered-lift, helicopter, or airship, as appropriate, for the instrument rating privileges to be maintained in actual weather conditions, or under simulated conditions using a view-limiting device that involves having performed the following-- ================================ Wonder what else he's mis-teaching.

As far as I can tell, everyone agrees on the need for the government to save money and have reliable funding for it's proper functions. But as soon as you get to where those savings should come from and what are "proper" government functions, you get into partisan political choices, most of which are based on considerations having zero to do with aviation.

The history of the FAA and spin training indicates the reason was a high fatality rate during spin training. This is from the commentary to the 1991 FAR amendment that brought airplane spin training back - but only for CFIs: ============================== The spin, a controlled or uncontrolled maneuver or performance in which the glider or airplane descends in a helical path while flying at an angle of attack greater than the angle of maximum lift, was a required training maneuver for pilot certification until 1949. It was deleted from the pilot certification requirements based on the high number of fatal stall and spin accidents, most of which occurred during training. ==============================

My most recent ones were this past January as part of a checkout. Did power on and power off stalls, both visually and under the hood. Didn't see anything particularly strange or difficult compared with the other make/models I fly. Honestly, if you're afraid of stalls (or, for that matter, any maneuver) in an airplane you fly, get some training until you are more comfortable (or get a different airplane). There's a difference between disliking a maneuver and being afraid of it.

It would. My favorite retract training story: On the last flight before the sign-off, while the pilot was performing steep turns in the practice area, I pulled the gear breaker. When he got to the point in the visual approach to the airport where he would normally put the gear down, he moved the lever to the down position. Not two seconds later, he looked at me and said, "what did you do? The gear's not coming down." We had worked on a gear-down process that included being aware of and anticipating the feel and sounds that change when the gear is coming down and drag being added to the airplane. He reacted perfectly and on cue because, as you put it, it felt very different that what he expected and in fact weird.

I've seen them. Problem is, IMO, gear-up landings aren't the result of not having a mirror or a camera or some other especially cool means of checking whether the gear is down. It's (1) not putting it down in a consistent manner and (2) not checking all the things you do have to confirm it is down. The mirror and the camera are just two more things to ignore.

Thank you. There's a couple of items the local FAA folks want discussed but beyond that, it's more or less my job to direct the discussion if it bogs down. The use of demonstration stalls, accelerated stalls and secondary stalls beyond the two private PTS stalls is already on the agenda.

I haven't come across the 7 instructors 201er talks about, but this is definitely a hot topic with the FAA. I've been asked to lead an FAA-sponsored CFI discussion in the Raleigh area on stall instruction. @201er, may I use your post as a lead-in to the topic? I know what you are talking about. I always do a cross-controlled stall demonstration for my primary students and do at least one "unusual" stall at a flight review of someone who has never done them. NO. 1 comment on the cross-controlled stall: "I never realized the planr could stall with the nose so low."

Most of the time, yes. But consider a no-gyro approach - no interception or tracking involved. I think that's one of the reasons the FAA decided to specify it as a requirement.

I know, Joe. I lived in Colorado 20 years until a few months ago

Think of the FAA's "calendar months" simple as "whole months." Forget about what day of the month it is; it's irrelevant. Change "f 6 approaches (and everything else required) are completed on January 1st of 2013" to "f 6 approaches (and everything else required) are completed in January of 2013" That so-called "gotcha" is telling you something very, very simple: count months backwards, not forwards. "Today is in the month of May (not 'May 19th'). Six months before May is Apr, Mar, Feb, Jan, Dec, Nov. The approaches (and other requirements) I've flown from November on count toward my currency today."

I started my AirBoss membership some years ago mostly out of a desire to support AirNav's great informational site. I've kept my membership going ever since. I'm pretty sure the discounts over the course of a year have made it worth it for me, but I really haven't cared to keep track that closely.

btw, this is quite old in technological terms, but here's flying into Aspen fro the west, along a route roughly approximating the charted Roaring Fork visual approach.

Quite true. And a reason we don't generally go as the crow flies in the mountains. Heading around toward Eagle first is a good lower altitude option although crossing Hagerman after heading to Reudi Reservoir is a beautiful way to go although the options are fewer.

I used to just keep my full-size iPad on my lap or a kneeboard. Didn't seem to work that well in the Mooney's "cozy" (as you put it) cockpit. I have a friend who uses the RAM yoke mount and I gave it a try and liked it's positioning. Looking through the aviation junk I collected through the years, I found my old Autel yoke mount (http://www.autelcorp.com/). I replaced their board with my iPad kneeboard (an iPro from http://forpilotsonly.com/). And it works great. If I didn't have something to cobble together, I would have gone with the RAM yoke mount. I don't think the cozy Mooney is particularly conducive to good locations other than the yoke. .

So which ones will you be looking at that produce less clutter and battery issues than a wireless Stratus tossed on the glareshield on the passenger side or popped on a rear window with a suction mount? And while most if not all of these (including Stratus) can be plugged into a power source, I'm not sure how you avoid battery management issue if you are using an iPad to begin with.

They do. And if this is your first transition (especially if it's also your first transition to something substantially faster), you can expect it to be the most difficult one. They get easier as our brain begins to pick up the similarities and reserve most of your thinking for only the differences. Best advice is the famous dialog: Q. What are the two most important things in aviation? A. The next two.