midlifeflyer

I agree with you. The hypothetical states the airport is Class G. Although the question doesn't tell us where Class E begins above the airport, the lowest it can begin is 700 AGL (assuming the absence of some unique airspace configuration). According to the question, that's the altitude where the the pilot breaks out of the marine layer and sees the airport. So, once breaking out, the pilot is below 700 AGL and in uncontrolled airspace. IFR without an IFR clearance is legal in uncontrolled airspace. So, at that point he may cancel his IFR clearance (which applies only in controlled airspace) and continue his descent to landing under IFR in uncontrolled airspace. There can of course be other factors that could change the answer. For example, the presence of other aircraft in nearby controlled airspace can make otherwise "legal" IFR in uncontrolled airspace reckless operation under 91.13 (I always though it interesting that 91.13 was the "unlucky" all-purpose gotcha for pilots). But I agree that A is the technicaly correct answer under the hypothetical. Smart to cancel IFR when there is a solid overcast at 700 AGL? Probably not, but that wasn't the question.

I can't speak about New Mexico but can give you some ideas about Colorado. The Colorado Pilot Association's (CPA) award-winning course is usually given June and August. It was June and September this year http://coloradopilots.org/mtnfly_class.asp Sometimes the local flight schools will do classes, but that generally in the spring at the beginning of the flying season rather than the fall. Same for some of the type clubs. Maybe sacrilege, but I think the Bonanza Society does one every year or 2. If you're interested in private instruction, a safe bet is one of the CPA instructors http://coloradopilots.org/mtn_instructors.asp?menuID=91~91 although there are pretty good mountain instructors at most of the Front Range flight schools. If you have any questions, feel free to PM me. I moved to North Carolina in December after 20 years in Colorado and taught mountain flying there (among other things) so I know a god number of these folks personally.

I can't disagree with that even a little. It's excellent advice.

..and then I'd like to hear the real story from his attorney. The client's perspective on the process is often very different from the attorney's Only kidding. If a client asked me to discuss his case on a public forum, I'd decline.

I guess you're willing to take the risk of facing federal felony prosecution; most others aren't.

Personally, I don't think one way or the other is "best" all the time and for all people. One thing I hopefully have not done in any of my posts is recommend a course of action for anyone. I've tried in my "contributions" to the thread to provide general information. What one does with the information is that person's choice, not mine. Having dealt with the FAA and law enforcement in various situations, the best I can say about what I would do is that I have a decent understanding of my rights and their authority and that I won't know what I would do in particular situation until the situation occurs.

I'm pretty sure he'll tell you you misunderstood what was said. Whether considered a "right" or a "privilege," suspension or revocation is subject to a "right" - to due process under the 5th and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution. In general, all that requires is a process that provides a hearing and opportunity to challenge the government's action. Add to that the blurring of the original technical distinctions between the two, and, unless you are talking about Constitutional rights, it doesn't matter much, practically speaking, what you call it. For example, we have a Constitutional right to travel; there are those who argue this means that you have a "right to drive" with or without a drivers' license. And no, they are not trying to be funny. Most likely, what you heard was a reference to the Pilots Bill of Rights. which changes some of the landscape of that process. It's not too hard to get the wrong takeaway from a discussion of that legislation.

I'm not sure what you are getting at. Do you know anyone who tosses out their maintenance records after 1 year and thereby lowers the resale value of their airplanes? Or are you suggesting you only need to produce those portions of your aircraft logbook that show 1 year's worth of maintenance and current inspections and only those portions of your pilot logbook that show currency and can withhold the rest? If so, I'll have to disagree with you. I'm guessing so would the FAA and NTSB in the ensuing certificate suspension proceedings. Or are you suggesting you intentionally lie to the FAA about having those things?

Just as an alternate possibility, my solution to that example (which comes up in a number of situations) was to separate the "Engine Run-up" from the "Before Taking Runway" on my checklist. That type of ergonomic rearrangement of tasks is part of the "flow" of creating your own checklist. I don't want to dissuade you from moving to an electronic checklist. Some folks just love them. But it's more a matter of personal preference than which is capable of doing the job correctly.

The bottom line is that, for all the chest-thumping by some of us, none of us know exactly how we would react in a given situation. And we need to keep in mind that not all warrantless searches are improper. Sounds like you understand your rights. You made an informed decision at the time to comply with what you saw as a minimal, and to you reasonable, intrusion. Makes sense to me.

The checklists were created in Word and ported to a bookmarked pdf. They are "Documents" in ForeFlight. Most of the tasks are re-arranged to fit a flow pattern, making flow-and-check easy for me. I always hesitate posting them because they are personalized. A friend of mine, a good pilot, once tried to use mine and had trouble because everything wasn't where he expected it. So I won't post the checklists here, but I will put in the following graphics. The first is the last version of a checklist (its a Comanche) before I went iPad. The second is my current M20J checklist showing the bookmarks.

I think it's a good article in terms of the limitations of different types of checklists. But I'm not sure how it leads one to select one medium over the other. Unless you're part of a crew where standardization has value, medium and usability are very personal things. I've been using self-authored checklists since I started flying and every revision I've done has had a single goal — making it easier for me to use. Interestingly enough, since my iPad, my checklist has actually grown. With paper, the part of the usability goal included using as little paper as possible — keeping things to one or two pages seemed to be easier than having to flip around. Now, with my checklists bookmarked pdf files on my iPad, I'm using more pages which allows me separate phases of flight, use larger fonts, include extra information, all without adding bulk or difficulty in finding things.

The question is, what do you mean by an "electronic checklist"? Do you mean what is in essence a "paper" checklist in a pdf file and available on your tablet (which I use)? Or do you mean one that prompts you for an item, you check it off, and then prompts you for the next one, like the integrated ones in some on-board GPS/MFD displays (which I've tried i the past and really didn't like):

I agree. Also a knee-jerk reaction with inaccurate information. There are also a number of completely separate things being discussed in the thread and they likely deserve a different response: 1. A run-of-the-mil FAA ramp inspection. 2. A ramp check used by an investigatory agency, not the FAA, as a pretext for some other investigatory activity. 3. A standard customs/security check when crossing a border into the US.

I'm curious. Is that what you do and say when a police officer stops you for a possible traffic violation and asks for your license and registration?

One of the accurate things in the article (albeit unnecessarily presented as something devious) is something a lot of folks don't understand: The "handbook" tells inspectors what they should ask for during a ramp check; it is not a guide as to what the pilot mush have on board. The inspector is certainly entitled to as for them but, that's subject to whether (1) it's available and (2) the person in control of the aircraft consents. For example, the handbook instructs inspectors to "Determine if pertinent and current aeronautical charts are available." What we need to separate in our minds for understanding is that "asking" is not equivalent to "required to answer." I think, though, you are at least partially mistaken about logbooks. Pilot logbooks, for example, are open for inspection at the reasonable request of the FAA or law enforcement (61.51(i) — there's no reason to think that a request is "unreasonable" just because it happens at a ramp check (although it might be), if you are one of the pilots who, for some unknown reason, carries it with them. Student, recreational and sport pilots are required to carry their logbooks for certain purposes; the rest of us are not. Consider the following scenario: a student pilot on a solo cross country bounces a landing and there happens to be an FAA inspector around. The inspector conducts a simple ramp check and asks the student pilot to inspect his certificate. Noticing it's a student certificate, the inspector asks the student for his logbook so he can see the proper endorsements for the cross country flight. I have no problem with the concept that the request to show the logbook is reasonable and that the student is required by the reg to comply.

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.