midlifeflyer

New? I flew a 172S back in 2005 which was insured for liability only.

Cirrus and Diamond have G1000 variants with the GFC 700 autopilot. The cirrus Perspective uses a GFC 705 interface that looks like the GFC500’s but it’s not a 500. There are probably others, though.

Same. The Garmin touchscreen navigators are basically the same except for size. Obviously no Flite Charts I once made a comment to someone that all the Garmin units from the early handhelds forward are basically all the same in basic feel and flow (there are obvious difference in functionality). Looked at me like I had three heads., but I really see them that way, so maybe I do have three heads.

Pretty much. Details deem a bit on what company’s system (hardware) you are using. For example, using a Jepp vs Garmin database is going to have the same basic map on a GTN. That’s why I asked.

We're definitely doing some serious thread creep here The lack of flyable clouds except for 3-6 days during May-June aside, I thought instrument training in the Denver area was great. The controllers are really terrific and especially since I flew out of APA we always did our VFR practice approaches with ATC. . I never felt we were burdening them. The same was true for me during my instrument training from an airport just outside of the Bradley (BDL) Class C in Connecticut. The proximity of the Charlie and the common use of towered airports meant it was rare to not utilize ATC services. Yeah, it's not quite the same an under IFR, but it is a huge step up from CFI playing ATC (usually poorly). Where I am now, we have a combination of factors which lead most of us to practice and train without using ATC at all. If you listen to the Opposing Bases podcast, they repeatedly joke about "Duke Approach" not knowing how to do practice approaches. And asking for vectors to final from the other TRACON which handles my home base approaches from the south ("Viet Nam" in Opposing Bases lingo - we are on one of those TRACON boundaries) is usually an exercise in futility. I once called them for vectors to final and they gave me direct to the IF at whatever altitude I felt like.

Absolutely. It's not about the speed; the speed is just an indicator of how easy it is. About the same effort as loading in a new COM or VOR frequency. I suspect we both teach some version of the "3-second rule." Don't move away from scanning the instruments for more than three seconds, even if you have to load a new frequency one digit at a time. That's what was so scary to me about the RDU crash. He gets the "expect RNAV runway 32" from ATC on initial contact with Raleigh Approach. That's a long way - both time and distance before it's needed. Absolutely. Delay vectors. Even a hold in the appropriate situation. The weird thing is how little it's taught given that the artificial rush-rush-rush between closely-spaced approaches in the teaching environment. Seems the perfect situation for it.

For jollies, I set this up in the PC-based GNS trainer which, because you have to use a mouse or keyboard to simulate pushes and turns, is even more cumbersome than in the actual etch-a-sketch :D. I entered a flight plan from KFRG to KHVN. Then I (1) added KBDR and (2) loaded the BDR RNAV 29 approach. To be fair, I left out the part about briefing enough of the plate to select a transition, but each took 13 seconds. Personally, I never program VTF. I don't even change to it when receiving vectors. But when I do post-rating training, so long as the pilot who does program VTF takes care of it when I create the situation where they need to change (one of my "tasks pilot don't know"), I don't care if they do.

That is odd. Looking back, I think I grabbed text you quoted from someone else and it got attributed to you.

Someone who was once an experienced IFR pilot would make sure they knew how to use the equipment on board. Although I guess it depends on the "experience." 100 different flight or the same flight 100 times? I am absolutely guilty of making assumptions here, but not the "can't happen to me" variety. Rather, this is a definite rant topic for me. This is one of a number of videos which have come up recently (several unfortunately by Mooney pilots, so it's time to leave the Cirrus folks alone) who are saying things out loud on frequency, basically telling ATC they have no clue how their equipment works or how to do something as basic as adding a new destination and loading an approach in a GPS flight plan. My concern is that there who have died because of it. In the past I've mentioned my list of GPS tasks pilot don't know how to do which I use for recurrent instrument training and avionics transitions. Nothing crazy; every one of them something that happens in the real world of instrument flight with some regularity. The list got started after a fatal accident at RDU (Raleigh) in which a pilot, based on the ATIS, loaded an approach and then was given a different approach once checking in with TRACON. Plenty of time to perform this 6-10 second task. Instead, the pilot began complaining about avionics problems (sound familiar?), crashed and died.

Maps and nav data are two different things. You will not find any significant difference in the nav data. What maps are you talking about?

An early electronic checklist!

No. That's pretty common once someone starts reading without a background. Makes the FARs seem easy, huh?

This. Unlike homeowner, auto, and some other consumer-specific policies, aviation policies are not state-regulated to meet some public-policy considerations. They are commercial policies which can have language confusing to the unindoctrinated. Some are getting better with using plain language, but you still have to read carefully. I won't paint a broad brush, but I've even run into an agent who didn't understand what the policy said.

If you post your policy (removing personal information) I’m sure @Parker_Woodruff or I or someone else can show you the language.

Exactly. And you the clause is violated, they don’t have to.

I agree with @Parker_Woodruff on this. Keep reading the policy. If it’s like the ones I’ve read, there is probably something in there that treats a pilot flying with your permission as an insured for liability purposes.

The open pilot clause insures you for hull loss. I’ve never seen a policy that insures (protects) the Open Pilot.

Is that what it says? The Avemco policies I've read apply the sublimits to people in the airplane, not to people on the ground.

Yep. The choice not to subrogate is based on considerations other than the legal right to subrogate.

Yeah, I kind figured it was something silly like that.

You would never attempt to pull the chute?

Depending on the extent of the damage, the preliminary information on how it happened (and the results of an asset investigation), it's often more trouble than it's worth. Remember, this is not no-fault - the insurer has to prove negligence. So, while it's done, it's not common. Even less likely with a pilot the insurer approved by name. As one underwriter told me, "we don't sue pilots we've approved." In the case of flight schools/renters, many schools/FBOs require their customers to have non-owner aircraft ("rental") insurance. So, many of those subrogation claims are company-to-company and they just work it out.

Think of it this way. The Open Pilot clause is a promise by the owner/primary insured to the insurer that only pilots meeting certain minimum requirements will be flying. It’s mostly there to protect the insurer. It does not make the “open pilot” an insured. (The open pilot - someone with permission to fly - might be an insured for third-party liability purposes, but that’s a different part of the policy)

I just don’t think the insurer saying, “you had a passenger. We think your passenger was flying and caused the accident. Prove it didn’t happen that way,” is a realistic scenario. There would be far more information available to indicate that was the case before an insurer took that position and was in a position to attempt to meet its burden of proving it.

Maybe. But I heard nothing in there to suggest this was an otherwise competent IFR pilot who exceeded personal minimums.