midlifeflyer

It is up to a point. The PTS tasks include partial panel flight, including partial panel unusual attitude recoveries. Perhaps you think it's a good idea to cover instruments up and put the airplane into an extreme bank and pitch attitude with no visual references for either student or instructorr but I suspect most CFIIS would look at that they way they would shutting down the engine entirely to simulate engine out practice for a primary student..

Sounds just about ideal. One of my best training flights involved a real missed approach off an ILS.

Depending on what subjects were missed, it can be a bigger issue for the checkride than Examiner focus for the oral. There are subjects that can only be tested on the ground, like weather. But there are so many subjects that are intrinsic to IFR flight that knowledge gaps can show up in flight as well. IMO, IFR flight is approximately 10% about the flying and 90% about the procedures. If the knowledge gap is in those procedural areas, it can easily cause a flight bust. Of course, that's assuming the missed subjects (1) are those that will affect the flight and (2) evidence a knowledge gap rather than just a bad day or difficulties with standardized testing.

CFI/CFII. Formerly Colorado, now the Raleigh-Durham area. Have not specifically taught in Mooneys (yet) but have taught in Cessnas, Pipers, Cirruses, Bonanzas and a few others here and there.

I have generally joined the applicable type club when flying a new-to-me make/model airplane. I did it with MAPA, but in doing so violated my rule that I don't join a type club unless I can get a trial membership. Sorry to say, there is a good reason for my "not-without-a-trial-membership" rule. Trial memberships are an excellent marketing tool - if you have the goods to deliver. My rule is based on the premise that no-trial equals "nothing good available." Unforunately true with MAPA. Compared with the wealth of materials available in the Comanche (talk about old!), Cirrus and Bonanza type clubs, MAPA runs a distant 47th. This forum and it's associated online magazine have been far more helpful to my transition.

Definitely for gusts, but all adding airspeed does for a steady state crosswind is increase your touchdown speed. And, so far anyway, I haven't heard of a crosswind landing accident where the loss of control took place in the air; they all seem to take place after touchdown. Why would you want to be going faster at the point where the accident happens? I used to follow the no-flaps and higher airspeed mantra. Then during my CFI training, my instructor made me do a full flap short field landing in 172 in a 20-kt direct crosswind. No excess speed allowed. It was a non-event.

I switched to an electronic log in the DOS days. But I still maintain a paper log for endorsements and with the barest entries until I'm satisfied with an eLog's acceptability are a full replacement.

i've never been told that on an airline flight.

I don't think there's a good solid answer to this one. Since the FAA specifically allows the use of EFBs to include the POH (see - AC 91-78 - Part 91 EFB) it should make no difference so long as it is an complete copy of the official manual. But unless and until there is some formal interpretation that says the original hardcopy version does not need to be carried, I guess the more conservative course of action would be to include that extra couple of pounds in the weight and balance calculation, even if you never actually use it.

I've had the same experience as you. Zero difference between what's depicted on the iPad and what's depicted on certified GPS-based avionics.

Doesn't Mooney make one available these days? Most of the others do at this point.

100% of the formatting and indentation is preserved if you use Adobe Acrobat (full product, not the Reader) for the OCR. It leaves everything intact, just creates an invisible but searchable text overlay. You probably don't want to spend the money on the full Acrobat unless you have other uses for it but you might have a friend with it willing to do the OCR job on yours.

If all you're looking for is a pdf-compatible document reader, my best choice is GoodReader.

These are all related. Setting the HSI (or bug on a DG) to the runway heading on both takeoff and landing assists with runway identification and orientation and, on a dark rainy night with runways close together, can prevent runway incursions as well.

No. But they do have control over the overlying controlled airspace and will not clear an IFR aircraft into controlled airspace when it will potentially conflict with traffic into controlled airspace. In theory only, the IFR rules mean departing aircraft can take off in IFR conditions and stay clear of controlled airspace, but it would be a guaranteed violation of 91.13 (there are cases dealing with this type of scenario). This also applies to your question: Technically legal IFR operations in Class G may be careless and reckless based on other considerations. Here's one of the cases: http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/o_n_o/docs/AVIATION/3935.PDF Try FAR 1.1 which you'll recall, contains definitions for all of the regs. ""IFR" means instrument flight rules." "IFR conditions means weather conditions below the minimum for flight under visual flight rules."

Consistent with this, the rules of IFR (instrument flight rules) flight talk about three types of operations Some discuss flights "under instrument flight rules." Others refer to flights "under instrument flight rules in controlled airspace." Still others are specific to IFR operations "in uncontrolled airspace " There is some variation in the exact terminology used for "IFR" itself, but the differentiation with respect to all IFR operations and those in controlled or uncontrolled airspace is pretty consistent. For examples of each: 91.173's requirement for an IFR flight plan and clearance applies to IFR in controlled airspace. 91.171's requirement for VOR checks applies to all IFR operations. The IFR hemispheric rule in 91.179 applies to IFR in uncontrolled airspace.

No. LongTen is strictly an Apple-centric application.

The stats say that most of the time, we are the cause of our in-flight tragedies. It's easy to point to one of these and see the glaring pilot errors. But I also recall that Rod Machado once said that the only real difference between a gear-up and talking the wrong frequency is the consequences; the psychology that underlies both is the same.

When I was flying out of there for 20 years, I just considered it a normal airport. All a matter of perspective.

Worse. There's also the ridge on the windward side. The end result can be a bit like the mixture on the floor of a canyon. For anyone interested, AOPA's foundation recently came out with a mountain flying course. http://flash.aopa.org/asf/mountainFlying/html/flash.cfm? I ran through it and, while not a substitute for personal instruction, it's pretty decent in hitting the highlights.

The bigger problem for a lot of untrained pilots flying into high D-Alt locations is the difference in TAS and runway usage. Even with no wind, that 80-71 IAS on final will be more like a TAS of 93 when it's 70°F at KAPA. The temptation to go slower or force the airplane onto the runway is both great and potentially dangerous, as is the temptation to pull the aircraft off the ground too early on takeoff and climb too steeply (there were a number of stall/spin accidents in the Denver area attributable to that one).

I think it may be more like what's good for 1-2 geese who have had their units tested for interference when using specific apps isn't necessarily good for 300 geese with a variety of tablets, smartphones, laptops and accessories in the cabin. btw, a friend of mine did end up having interference with avionics from his iPad running the Jepp app. In a Mooney, no less.

Depends what you mean by legal "for IFR flights." As a paper chart replacement, definitely. As a replacement for a panel installed, IFR certified primary navigation box, definitely not.

Same here. Also works well with Android phones and tablets.

Agreed. It's pretty common for mountain airports to have features leading to downdrafts. The river at GWS is one of those. It's a reason that a steeper approach than normal (4.5° rather than 3°) is usually recommended, even if the runway isn't short and there are no obstacles.