midlifeflyer

There is also a theory just beginning to take root in instructor circles that when we teach stalls we are actually teaching that stalls are ok and that we can alway recover from them easily and with no problem. That's not exactly the lesson we want.

Interesting. Like teejayevans I'd suspect most people getting into an inadvertent stall due to poor piloting technique("making the mistake of stalling the plane") would be doing other things wrong as well.

As Super Dave says, ask. It's really no different than if there wasn't a STAR. I've read a number of things suggesting that "descend via" is rarely used in the US and that STARs are primarily used here for course guidance with ATC handling the vertical.

§ 91.175 Takeoff and landing under IFR. (a) Instrument approaches to civil airports. Unless otherwise authorized by the FAA, when it is necessary to use an instrument approach to a civil airport, each person operating an aircraft must use a standard instrument approach procedure prescribed in part 97 of this chapter for that airport. This paragraph does not apply to United States military aircraft. Then follow all the limitations on when you can descend, etc. Note that unlike some other FAR 91.175 does not limit itself to IFR "in controlled airspace." It applies to both. The FAA already knows there are instrument approaches that terminate or have minimums in Class G.

As a plain vanilla Part 91 operator, if you have the required flight visibility, one of the required visual references for the intended runway and are continuously in a position to descend at a normal rate of descent, you may land. FLIGHT visibility, not GROUND visibility. What is 1800' flight visibility? Your guess is as good as mine but since an ILS runway has an aiming point marking 1,000' from the threshold and fixed distance markers every 500' you have some good clues.

Absolutely the best. For an excellent introduction, though check out these two YouTube videos. They are Parts 1 and 2 of a PowerPoint presentation. I came across the slides in Ed Williams site and thought they were so good that I offered to merge the slides and video into a self running movie. Weather in the Vertical Part 1 - http://youtu.be/2pMYkSwZp0g Weather in the Vertical Part 2 - http://youtu.be/SU_ecI-vcNY

"Ease of alignment" is a personal assumption by you that will not be shared by others. So-called "crab & kick" and "slip down final" are not different techniques. They are the ends of a continuum in which diffferent pilots will have different levels of comfort that may even change with the specific situation. The amount of flaps I use does not typically depend on whether there is a crosswind. Especially in a Mooney. I ony increase airspeed to deal with gust factors, not steady-state crosswinds. I always think it's fun to wait until the wind starts to blow you over before correcting for it — NOT! I much prefer to stay ahead of the airplane by transitioning during the rollout from xwind flight position to xwind taxi position. I'm not sure what you mean by this one. I use the amount of rudder that I need to maintain runway alignment, no more no less. How much do you turn the steering wheel of your car when you are hit by a strong side gust? Enough to keep in lane or enough to crash into the barrier? Don't see any reason to. FWIW, here's my FAQ on crosswind landings: http://midlifeflight.com/wordpress/flying-faq/faq-takeoffs-and-landings Don't spend too much time at the site; I'm transitioning to WordPress and things are a jumble. The FAQ file seems to be working though.

FltPlan.com seems to be the choice for Part 91 corporate and 135. Walk into an FBO that sees a lot of them and that's what you will see up on the computers most of the time by far. Accuracy is quite amazing. Two extra nice features are the suggested routes - based on actual recent ATC clearance between airport pairs - and advance notice of your expected clearance.

This is definitely a "talk to" event. If the problem persists, what does your group's operating agreement or rules say about it?

Interactive text checklists have existed for a while. If you fly with a 430/530, for example, you have one. I'm audio versions exist also. Good thing? Maybe. Maybe not. I've had friends who ran through them like a paper one but I'm not sure how you overall avoid it being a "do"" list where you read and do each item in sequence rather than a a briefing or flow-confirmation "did" list. I'm not sure I want to be behind the guy doing the 5-minute run-up.

I think it;s one of those ideas that sounds great but is actually prety limited. I always wonder how many people use the electronic checklists in their G1000s and other systems that have them available. Or how may pilots actually use one if they bought it for their phone or tablet. All the ones I've played with, even those that allow me to customize them, have been pretty bad at getting through a checklist as efficiently as a flow backed up by a "written" one (in my case the "written" one is a pdf filed on my tablet).

The resulting theory is that there will always be enough room for a [Name your favorite piston] on a runway designed for jets. Nice theory, and true to a point. But consider that a Jet coming in at 140 up to DA will land on the touchdown zone marker (my favorite was the time I was in a spot landing contest and a FedEx jet on a regular route decided he'd win)... I'm not that good but it's closer to that than to just avoiding running off the end of the runway.

That's ok since it's purely a question of technique not a procedure required by aircraft limitations or safety. Personally, since I fly multiple aircraft types, consistency in procedure is paramount. From C-172 to A36 Bonanza, I prefer no-flap approaches (with one exception). With retractable gear, it's gear down at GS intercept on an ILS, but no flaps. I have indeed found the long-body Mooney (M20J) a bit different in terms of it being more difficult to slow down after reaching minimums than other aircraft and have played with a few variations on the theme. The one that seems to be working pretty well for me is a further power/speed reduction and the addition of flaps in the latter stages of the approach (but still stabilized by 500 AGL). But even that is still tentative.

Another GoodReader vote here. So much more capability for organizing and annotating than iBooks and other choices.

I don't know. If I was making the rules I would say no. And I think (but not sure) that with the Air Safety Foundation online courses, if you already took it, the course only thinks of a retake as a refresher and you don't get new credit. But with so many good ground courses to choose from on a variety of topics, why would you want to take the exact same one over and over again? (PS - we do need to get together when the weather warms up a bit!)

That may be the piece that complicates understanding for some. Advanced and Master Wings are strictly brownie points or bragging rights phases. Higher level flight activities (i.e., commercial standards rather than private standards). If looking to maintain basic proficiency and FR replacement, all one ever needs to do is complete a Basic phase in a 12-month period.

The goal is for you to replace the entire flight review. You don't get "oral credit" for completing a couple of courses; you get full flight review credit for completing a full Wings Phase. which includes not ground and flight instruction.. The new program is cumbersome but, to simply it a lot, the overall goal is to replace waiting 2 years for your next instruction with a program that has you obtaining recurrent training on a more regular basis. So, when you take a course, you get classroom credit; when you fly with a CFI, performing certain tasks - which tasks are listed, but it pretty much covers the PTS so you get a good exposure - you get air work credit. When you get the correct combination of the two, you complete a phase and get credit for a complete flight review. The complaint of confusion is legit; it could be set out a lot simpler. The other complaint that keeps people away is, "why should I have to spend 3 hours with a CFI when I can do it all in one." Also legitimate if you think you don't need recurrent training. Of course, the difference between the "normal" GA accident rate and those of Part 91 corporate, Part 135 and Part 121 (who fly every day and get recurrent training) accident rate suggests such thinking just might be in error. Besides, a lot of us get recurrent training anyway; why not get FR credit for it?

Only time will tell if the fears of those who have been fearing the terrible deadly effects of pot since "Reefer Madness" will be wrong once again. Your guess is that there will be a major increase of DIU-pot. Mine is that DUI-pot users are far less likely to have the "I'm ok! I can drive just fine!" attitude of they typical DUI offender and that the increase will be pretty insignificant. Is there such a think as a "statistical fact." Sounds like an oxymoron.

You explained my point quite accurately. Adding to anecdotal statements, I know it's ancient history but prior to 1994 my law practice included criminal defense work. Handled a lot of DUIs. Came across an allegation of DIU-marijuana once (and it wasn't because pot wasn't being used much; use has been widespread since at least 1970).

Sorry, but I think you're imagining a problem that is not too likely to exist. Pot has been around in widespread use for 50 years. Check the stats - DUI pot is very, very rare. The desire to drive around while incompetent may well be one the the differences between pot and alcohol, somewhat going along with the general tendency to be less violent. There's actually information available on this but I guess time will tell...

And if you have a heading bug, put it on the numbers (good for take offs also). What surprises me most about these incidents with carriers is that I thought it was pretty much SOP to either load an approach or tune in the localizer when available, even when flying the visual. I came close once or twice, but not since adopting these techniques myself.

In theory they could nab you when you next visited or seek extradition after the Feds or another state grabbed you. But aside from that, the current Federal hands-off policy on the Colorado law is based on Colorado having what the Feds see as a good regulatory scheme in place. The offense of transporting the stuff out of state, and the limitation on visitor purchases is likely part of that.

If I'm not mistaken, the expansion to 6 seats is further than the proposal before the FAA. It may have been little more than a political move to get the FAA moving on the 4-seat proposal. Like when I grew a beard and mustache in college so my mom would be happy when I shaved the beard part off.

The good news is that the AOPA Air Safety Foundation educational materials, quizzes and videos do not require AOPA membership. But I agree - the organization's commitment to pilot education and safety keep me a member as well as a separate contributor to the Foundation.

I've been a member for more than 20 years. I've let many other aviation memberships lapse for one reason or another. But not AOPA. The disclaimer is that I'm an attorney on the legal services plan (as well as a paying participant to protect myself) but that's been a very small part of my time as a member. I've been unhappy with some things they have done recently. The immediate past administration wasn't all that great and I'm not comfortable with an AOPA-sponsored pay-for app (Fly-Q) that gives one provider a competitive advantage in an area where there is so much innovation. But for the most part I've been pleased with what the organization has done over the years and tend to avoid "I don't like what they did TODAY, so I'll quit" short terms, knee-jerk reactions.