midlifeflyer

BTW, the biggest change I noticed is, I guess part and parcel of having a split screen. I've now turned by iPad to landscape mode when flying.

Heck, not much in aviation is

The manual is part of the plane you own. It's also a book that can be bought, sold and given away. What you can't do (in theory anyway) is make a copies of the book and buy, sell, or give that away.

US copyrights ultimately expire but it's unnecessarily complex and depends on whether the work was created before or after 1/1/1978. There is also the issue of how and whether it's extended by such things as republication or modification. If you are interested, the US Copyright Office has a decent if confusing explanation brochure, Duration of Copyright (although even after reading it, you don't get the full picture). But the creation of copyright rights based on the act of creation has pretty much been the rule for a long time. Kind of similar to the way trademarks work. Registering a trademark doesn't create a trademark. Using a trademark creates it. When trademark is registered federally, you are registering something that is already a trademark. Same with copyrights - you register something that is already copyrighted in order to get the benefit of some extra protections.

Some years ago, when I had a Garmin GPSMap296, I turned to the HSI page to do some partial panel work. My friend and safety pilot was amazed at how accurately I flew because he didn't realize I had an HSI in front of me. I've always found that my only real issue with traditional partial panel (loss of vacuum instruments) was not the loss of the AI but the loss of the DG. What consistently threw me a bit was the mental arithmetic of determining how many degrees to turn to get to a new heading and then dividing by 3 to give me the number of seconds to time the turn. None of the tops and tricks (even the ones I taught to others) worked well for me. The HSI page took that issue away completely. No arithmetic. No timed turns. No lead-lag. Just nice turns to headings depicted on an HSI. Without AHRS, the HSI in ForeFlight's SV still accomplishes the same. The HSI alone is worth the price of admission to me and is a bit more to me than "of little use" in case of emergency. I agree it's mostly a pretty toy beyond that.

You may be recalling incorrectly. The situation the FAA is concerned with is when a company decides to separate aircraft ownership from the rest of the company and creates a subsidiary to be its flight department. It's not the form of ownership that's the issue; it's that the subsidiary is being created for one purpose - to provide transportation to the parent. That's a 135 operation. Completely different situation from pilots co-owning an airplane and has nothing to do with whether the subsidiary is an LLC, a corporation, a partnership or a human being.

This came up on an email list I participate in. FWIW, this was my response (copy & paste): People will argue the point all day long but, while the value of an LLC in the case of a sole owner is somewhat open and depends highly on a lot of specifics one gets into when one hires an attorney, I think once one gets into a co-ownership situation, it should be done as a matter of course. Two benefits that come to mind immediately are asset protection (which in no way negates the need for insurance) and flexibility. The asset protection part is this: You will always be liable for what you do. You crash your airplane and harm someone else, and no limited liability entity can take away your personal liability (#1 in any list of things the average person doesn't understand about LLCs). Not enough insurance and your personal assets can be reached. In a co-ownership situation where both pilots are direct owners of the aircraft, there is a high potential for you to be liable, not for what you do, but what your co-owner does. In other words, if your partner injures someone, there is the potential to be be held personally liable and your personal assets reachable solely because you are an owner of the airplane. That's not for your half of the damages; that's potentially for all of it if the injured party can't collect from your partner. A LLC is designed in large part to avoid that transferred or "joint" liability of the co-owners. The second thing you have is a lot of flexibility. The operating agreement between the co-owners of the company can pretty much do what you want it to between yourselves. Some reason for other than a 50/50 relationship? No problem. Types of contributions can be identified (such as a CFI/owner being credited for investment in the form of instruction services). Addition and retirement of partners can be done without transferring the aircraft. Theoretically the airplane can be completely sold without changing aircraft title. Advance decisions on how to handle upgrades and major repairs can be made. Many potential disputes can be, if not resolved in advance, at least designed to use procedures to save time and money at the back end. That's just a short list of the possibilities. Hope this helps with you thoughts. And I would be remiss if i didn't say this is just general information and not legal advice specific to your situation (I don't even know your situation )

No photos but I got a chance to fly with it today without the attitude reference (no Stratus 2 with AHRS, just a GPS feed). Still pretty impressive.

N6719N is correct. Copyright protection in the US doesn't require the "copyright statement". It exists automatically through the act of ownership. The primary purpose of the notice is to create a presumption of intentional infringement. IOW, can't say, "I didn't know it was copyrighted." But it doesn't prevent one from being successfully sued or prosecuted for infringement.

I think it's slightly more than that. QICP was a program that gave a stamp of approval to providers for the quality of their online distribution systems. There is still plenty of FAA guidance on what a weather briefing involves, from the AIM to the PHAK to AC 00-45G - Aviation Weather Services. And a whole series of FAA weather products. Don't check an FAA TAF and have a problem because of missing something that was in it, and one will quickly find out what a "official" briefing is. ForeFlight just came out with MOS-based forecasts, a very useful tool with a big diclaimer - don't use it for alternate planning purposes. That's what TAFs and Area Forecasts are for. "Official weather source" has never meant that much. AFAIK, there has never been a "requirement" to have a recorded weather briefing. Recording is merely evidence in an enforcement proceeding that you looked at the group of FAA weather products in preparation for your flight. That hasn't changed.

You are exactly what John had in mind.

A friend of mine recently sent the FAA a Petition for Rulemaking to modify the current ADS-B mandate To summarize, the Petition proposed that aircraft not equipped with ADS-B Out be allowed to continue to operate within the 30 mile Mode C veil, so long as they remain below 10,000 msl and outside of Class B and C airspace. The petition goes into a bit more detail but the thrust of the argument is (1) most Mode C veil areas outside of Class B and C limits are in rural areas with small airports with pilots who rarely, if ever have a need to head into Class C and B airspace, (2) requiring those pilots to upgrade to ADS-B Out is an unfair financial burden for those pilots, and (3) there's no real benefit to air traffic control to offset the burden. Please take a look at the Petition and, whatever your viewpoint of it, comment.

Given the same source hardware - GPS or AHRS - they are most likely all equivalent except for the way they are accessed and displayed. There might be some slight difference in the detail of the synthetic terrain depending on the source of the data but it's doubtful that it makes a difference for an iPad except for bragging rights. ForeFlight has traditionally been more conservative about this kind of stuff than the others; that was certainly true about it being "late" to TIS-B traffic, finally giving into customer pressure to utilize the capability Stratus already had. I haven't seen Garmin Pilot's SV and don;t have any inside knowledge but consider that Garmin is in the business of providing SV for its G1000 and other certified, experimental and LSA offerings. I wold seriously doubt there would be any reason for a satisfied Pilot user to make a change.

Ah vertical guidance - as in glideslope. Sorry, I misread. I'm pretty liberal in my trust of non-certified GPS but I doubt I'd trust glideslope capability in anything other than a certified panel mount, even in an emergency.

So did the Garmin X96 series, back at least to the 196 - an HSI page that used GPS information for track, altitude, and HSI. Garmin Pilot has had that pretty much since the earliest versions. That's pretty much what you are getting, plus the synthetic vision view, with ForeFlight if you don;\'t have the AHRS capability provided by a Stratus2.

I think you may have misunderstood Hector's comment: That's aTTitude. Not aLTitude. IOW, Stratus2 has an AHRS (Altitude and Heading Reference System); a portion of what it in a full-fledged glass panel system. IOW, with a Stratus2, you will have an aTTitude indicator that shows pitch and bank in addition to the other stuff (GPS altitude, GPS track, Ground Speed, etc), which you will have with just a Stratus1 or a compatible GPS feed.

Could have listed aviation app for all three (and with FIS-B one also has updated information in flight), although it weather is a significant issue I may well call LockMart to discuss specific questions I have. There are also "big picture" weather sites I look at to get an overview. The one I go to most often is http://maps.avnwx.com/

I have done them both ways. If I'm pretty sure it's going to be just fuel and a bathroom break, I'll estimate my next departure since flight plans are held long enough to account for most extensions. But that's rare on a long tirp. Mostly I will want to stop and at least have a lunch-break. Most often while I may plan the next leg and save it well in advance, I will typically wait to file it until I have a better idea of when I might take off. The EFB and online apps I use for this all have the capability to file a saved well within 1 minute (more like less than 30 seconds), so it's the method I use more often.

No, other than the availability of CD/DVD and online solutions, hasn't changed that much. My guess is you are referring to the Aviation Seminars weekend ground school (yep, they are still around). A day and a half of cramming followed immediately by the test while the stuff is fresh in your mind. I used it for my private, instrument and commercial. Did Gleim test prep (computerized practice exam, not the audio/video course) for my CFI and CFII. Two things to note about the choices: First is that whether you like or hate Martha's hair or Gleim's written materials or Machado's sense of humor is strictly a matter of person preference. The second is to be aware that there are two completely different types of courses out there. One is geared solely to passing the knowledge test. To stick with King, you can see the differences on their website. The "Written Only" is geared to passing the knowledge test. The "Checkride only" is more the ground portion of flight training and (I don't know about King specifically; but the Sporty's ) some of these will follow a syllabus - I found it particularly helpful with my students who tended to be professionals with little time to spare. I simply followed the same syllabus, which allowed my student to prepare before a lesson and review after a lesson as many times as he wanted). Most providers have both and often have them combined, but I think it's important to understand there is a difference. I recall one pilot who bought an expensive DVD "flight" course and was sorely disappointed because it didn't hep him pass the knowledge test.

Did you find the tapes? I'm curious enough to listen but not search myself

LiveATC archives transmissions. So if someone has been monitoring the applicable Approach facility for LiveATC, there's a good chance yo can find the transmissions in the archive. Offhand, it looks like a couple of missed approaches followed by the diversion.

WingX Pro and Foreflight were the earliest tablet apps and their competition with each other on features and functions the main reason we have all we have today. They both continue to improve!

Thanks. I appreciate the comments. For information, it's not for a purchase. I am a member of a flying club with 3 Js (ans some other aircraft). One is in the process of leaving with the possibility of a Screaming Eagle to take its place. If it comes to pass I'll be in the happy position of being able to pick the airplane based on the mission. Just trying to get a handle on what to expect.

Thanks. Other that the obvious need to stay even more ahead of the airplane due to the increased speed, any major differences in the way they handle?

I don't think automatic depiction of extended runway centerlines is a 430/530 function. The setting of the OBS is the only way to simulate it (other than loading a coinciding approach) I am aware of.