Vance Harral

That's exactly what I'm describing in my story: a cold-call pop-up. And Rich is describing departure from an airport with no instrument approaches. Both of these things constrain the services ATC can provide, in a manner that's entirely on the pilot. My story is not a complaint about Denver Approach. I've found them to be very accommodating over the years.

I really like EI and this comment is not intended to bash them. That said, @oregon87, you need to be aware that EI has a history of connector problems, and at least in my personal experience, they have not always been honest about it. We installed a UBG-16 in 2009 and I'm glad we did, but over the course of the next several years, I had no less than 5 EGT/CHT drop-outs due to broken thermocouple wires right at the quick-connectors for the probes. I assure you these were installed exactly in accordance with the instructions: wire doubled before crimping, two drops of oil on the spade, wires secured, but not "overtightened" per the installation manual. Still, continual breaks. I contacted EI both in writing and by phone, cordially, on a couple of occasions. I politely asked if this was a known problem, and if they could offer any guidance or assistance. I was told, in essence, "This problem is particular to you, we know of no chronic problems with our connectors. You must be installing them wrong." About a year after I gave up complaining and resigned myself to ordering a large batch of spade connectors and replacing them regularly ( I still have a dozen in my spare parts bin), EI announced their "new and improved" OLC-1 connector. Obviously, I raised an eyebrow at this: you guys wouldn't have redesigned the connector unless the previous solution had a problem. The OLC-1 completely resolved our problems with wires breaking, so good on EI. Nothing wrong with improving a product after lots of field test. But even though it was over a decade ago, I'm still salty about being told the problem was with me/my shop, when in fact it was a design flaw all along. After a few years of working with the OLC-1 and noting that it was reliable, but arguably a little difficult to install, EI came out with the OLC-2. Same concept, but independent set screws for each wire. Another improvement, so good on ya', but yet another indication that the connectors were an evolving solution. So given this history of continually updating your connector design, it just rings a little hollow to say here in public that "to see numerous issues with a single aircraft would be exceedingly rare". That just not true, dude. I'm living proof.

Back to the "poor man's battery capacity test", purchase of a not-too-expensive clamp-on ammeter and a little data gathering is an eye opener for more than just checking battery health. Having recently been through a DIY G5 HSI installation, we performed the load test described in the installation manual, and it was really helpful in understanding just what kind of load each circuit in the aircraft presents. I previously had only guesses about this, and a load-shedding plan based on them. Some of my guesses were right: obviously pitot heat and incandescent external lights use a lot of juice. But other devices I planned to turn off in the event of an electrical failure turned out to be a bad tradeoff: lots of distraction in not having the equipment, in exchange for only 1-2 minutes of additional operating time before the battery (assuming its healthy) has bled out 80% of its rated capacity.

I've had generally the same experience, though explained to me by ATC in different terms. After flying locally for about two decades, I'm comfortable departing VFR with scattered/broken at 1500-2000' AGL for various reasons: simple pattern work, scoot out underneath to better weather, etc. Once or twice I've tried to pick up an pop-up IFR in those conditions - for convenience moreso than safety - and Denver Approach wants you at 7000' MSL (ish) before they'll issue. That's not actually the bottom of the MVA (all of metro Denver has a "Diverse Vector Area"), but I think operationally they just don't want to deal with low traffic on a pop-up. Anyway, KBJC is up on a mesa, about 700' higher than everything else around here, and official pattern altitude is 6700, so "get to KBJC pattern altitude first" sounds about right. To be clear, I'm not advocating scud running. One of the reasons I've tried to pick up an airborne IFR clearance like this, is so I can tell my instrument students real-world stories about the problems departing VFR and trying to pick up a clearance while airborne. It's certainly reasonable to do this in a lot of situations, but marginal conditions over your departure airport isn't really one of them. Simultaneously dodging clouds to stay VFR while trying to negotiate and copy a clearance is pretty high workload with two pilots, and borderline foolish by yourself. Fortunately, the temptation to do this seems to be waning in the modern era, when you can get a hold of clearance delivery via cellphone at nearly any airport, even out in the boonies. That doesn't help at KBDU, though, where there are no instrument approaches, no TERPs survey, and therefore no way to depart IFR. KBDU is a fine little airport, but I don't recommend it to GA traveling tourists. Between the inability to get in/out IFR, higher proximity to mountain rotor, and much higher likelihood of noise complaints, it just seems like a poor tradeoff to me. It's only a 15 minute drive to either KBJC or KLMO from there and self-serve fuel prices are the same or cheaper at those airports, so arguably difficult to justify choosing KBDU as a destination airport. Arrive at KLMO if you want a small airport experience, KBJC if you want the opposite; and by all means, drive or fly down to KBDU on a nice weather day if you like, for a glider ride or aerobatic flight in a Citabria.

If I take off from Longmont and can't see Pikes Peak by pattern altitude, I declare an emergency!

I have an opinion on who can sign off the work, but I'll refrain from posting it, because @EricJ is correct that my opinion doesn't matter. Regardless of who performs the work and makes an entry in the logbook, though, note that avionics firmware upgrades often require printing a new version of the AFMS that accompanies the firmware update and putting it in the aircraft with the POH/AFM; as well as printing new ICAW documents (if any), and filing them with the aircraft records. If you don't do at least the former, you're technically unairworthy. This AFMS/ICAW paperwork requirement is often missed during firmware updates, even by good, responsible shops, so I can sort of understand why Garmin only wants their (presumably trained) dealers to do the work. But they have little room to be high-and-mighty about it. Among other reasons, @Ragsf15e is right to complain about the details of the IGRF error message. There is a "Revision 8" of the AFMS that accompanies the v8.00 firmware, but the table of error messages on its last page still says "Magnetic field database out of date", rather than "Magnetometer IGRF data out of date". Looks like the workflow at Garmin let that discrepancy slip through.

I am presently in a "discussion" with Garmin Aviation Support about how the G5 uses magnetic deviation data, and the person responding to my inquiries keeps bringing up the IGRF database. He is not doing a very good job, IMO, of explaining what this is used for. I'm hoping maybe the collective wisdom of Mooneyspace can shed some light on this, and it seems germane to this thread. In general, magnetic variation data - which is what I understand the IGRF to contain - is used to calculate True Heading given Magnetic Heading. I can see True Heading being part of an AHRS compensation algorithm, though I don't understand the details. But what prompted my query to Garmin Aviation Support was a statement in Section 1.4.1.2 of the latest version of the G5 Pilot's Guide at https://static.garmin.com/pumac/190-01112-12_j.pdf; which says, "The G5 corrects for shifts and variations in the Earth’s magnetic field by applying the Magnetic Field Variation Database." That section of the Manual is titled "G5 Heading", and the implication is that the G5 uses magnetic variation as part of its heading algorithm, i.e. that it does/could/might display true heading on its DG/HSI page, rather than magnetic heading. I thought to myself that surely that can't be the case, but wanted clarification from Garmin. So I asked them about it. The reply from Garmin Aviation Support about this - after a delay of over a month - was as follows: Thank you for contacting Garmin International. The G5 can display both. When the GMU is connected, the G5 will display magnetic heading. If that connection is lost, then it will provide True Heading provided by GPS track information. This video further explains IGRF data and what we do with that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fapV6WClc7Y&t=1s The first part of the response make sense: when a GMU11 magnetometer is connected to a G5, its DG/HSI page displays magnetic heading. As far as I know, the system has no need of IGRF (variation) data to do this, but I'm ready to be corrected on that if someone knows differently. Again, I can see how the AHRS compensation algorithm might need true heading as an input, and therefore need variation data to compute it from magnetic heading, but that's independent of the heading displayed on the DG/HSI page The second part of the response, regarding the G5 showing "True Heading", makes no sense to me. If a magnetometer is not connected to the G5, I don't see how it could possibly show any kind of heading, either magnetic or true. I do understand that the G5 shows GPS track without a magnetometer (indeed, our first G5 was installed standalone as an AI and that's how it worked until we installed the second one as an HSI). But track != heading, and I'm starting to think whoever wrote the manual either doesn't understand that, or is a poor communicator. I wrote back to Garmin Aviation Support and asked, "If an aircraft equipped with a G5, but without a GMU magnetometer, is pointed true north; and flying into a headwind so strong that its ground track is actually true south; what 'heading' will the G5 display?" That was a week ago, still waiting for a response.

I concur, and wouldn't be surprised if not all UHMW tape products use the same adhesive. Glad to hear you've had better luck than me, but I still recommend against it. Just gun shy now, I guess. The irony is that when I first used the stuff, I was pleased that it seemed to be more adherent than the "expensive" Teflon stuff from Aircraft Spruce I had previously used. I now understand that wasn't a good thing.

Ah, my old topic has been resurrected. My primary contribution at this point is to say that @jetdriven was absolutely right about the McMaster UHMW tape aging poorly, even on hangared aircraft. I bought a large roll of this stuff because it was an inexpensive alternative (I'm as much of a CB as anyone!) and put it in several places on the airplane. I really wish I hadn't - especially at the interface between the cheek cowl panels and the fuselage/nose bowl, which you can see in the pic below. It has caused permanent cosmetic damage to our aircraft in that highly visible location. The adhesive turned a horrible shade of yellow in less than a year. I tried removing the tape shortly after it did, but only the top layer of clear film came off, leaving behind a permanent stain that I've found impossible to remove, despite numerous attempts with plenty of elbow grease, and even with harsh solvents. Our airplane has never been a beauty queen, so the impact of my mistake is small, and I don't lose much sleep over it. But if I'd had a show winning paint job, I'd be absolutely heartbroken about it. Stay away from the "cheap" UHMW tape at all costs.

Traditionally it's the other way around: twist first and verify the "buzz" of the SoS system. Then push to engage the starter. I didn't think you could push in without first twisting all the way clockwise. If you're pushing first, then twisting, you may be using the ignition switch in a manner it's not design for, and that may be part of why you're getting odd behavior. Also, be aware that the behavior where the vibrator engages via twist, and the starter engages upon push, is only true of "most" vintage Mooneys, not all of them. If you look at the factory schematics for the last few years of the M20C/D/E/F, the "S" output of the ignition switch is wired directly to both the starter solenoid and the IN terminal of the SoS vibrator. In these later models, nothing at all happens until you both twist and push. That's the way our 1976 M20F behaves. I used to think something was wrong with the way it was wired, based on the way everyone describes this "twist first to engage the SoS, then push to engage the starter". I finally realized it was designed differently right from the factory.

I have no doubt this can be helpful, but it is certainly not necessary, at least not on the starboard wing of an F model. Leaving those riveted inspection covers in place may, however, increase the amount of cussing and skinned knuckles. Ask me how I know.

This isn't necessarily a Mooney-specific question, but posting here because I think it's factory original, and I'm guessing others here with the same clock have answers. It involves a clock identified as a "Mid-Continent MD-91 (LET)" Short version: why does this clock have two power connections? Long version: If you search for this clock on the internet, you get plenty of pictures, auctions on e-Bay, etc. But no installation/maintenance manual that I can find, not even at Mid-Continent's factory site. Below is a picture of the back of the unit, from one of those online surplus sites. Notice the unit has two connectors on the back. As I said, I think this is factory-original equipment, though I'm not 100% sure. Thing is, the factory schematics for our airplane show a clock with only two terminals, not four: The factory schematics show one of these terminals going to ground, and the other to the battery, through a 5-amp fuse. That makes sense: this is an old-school electric clock which needs power, and if it's going to keep accurate time, it needs power all the time, which it gets from the ship's main battery. If I trace the wires from our clock, one pair has a connection to ground, and a wire going down the side of the fuselage - I presume to the battery. So far so good. The other pair has a connection to the same ground, and a wire that goes through a 1-amp fuse to a bus bar that is energized when the master switch is turned on. At first I thought this was some form of redundant power, but that seems unreasonably complex for such a simple instrument. I'm now thinking it's just a light. But I haven't flown at night in a while, and I honestly can't remember if this instrument is internally lit or not (even if it is, the bulb may be burned out). Does anyone have a manual for this clock, or just know what that second power connection is for? If it's a light, anyone care to speculate why it's on the master switch bus in our airplane, rather than the lighting bus?

That is not an O-ring, at least not in the traditional sense. It is a "Stat-o-seal", which is a sort of combined washer and O-ring assembly. You don't buy the O-ring separately, you buy the whole Stat-o-seal assembly. I don't have the specific part number handy, but the guys at LASAR are more likely to be able to help if you ask for it by the right name.

No. I was surprised by this when BasicMed was first pitched, but you can instruct on BasicMed.

No, I don't want that, but I have had to deal with that, and have become proficient in doing so as part of the larger skill of rapid navigator reprogramming. In the scenario you're describing, the fix you've been cleared to - the one that's no longer in your flight plan because you loaded VTF - must have been a fix prior to the FAF, because the FAF is never deleted from the flight plan with VTF, in any version of any navigator software. In other words, it's either an IAF or an IF. It's my position that being asked to reload an approach when you are still approaching an IAF or IF for that approach, is not a crisis, and should be a tool in your tool bag. When fixing the VTF problem, the approach you have to reload is the same approach you've already loaded, just with a different transition. So it's not like you have to select a different airport or a different approach, just a different transition. If you can't do this in the space of a few seconds with a GTN or IFD, or even with an older GNS, then I respectfully submit you could use some more practice. Again, I want to be really clear that I'm not advocating pilots load VTF as a matter of course, contrary to the AIM guidance. What I am saying is that fixing the VTF problem isn't any more difficult or time consuming than fixing other types of problems you're going to run into, regardless of your position on whether you ever load VTF.

I see the old saw of "Don't use VTF" has come up again, and that it's now been codified in the AIM (of which I was unaware, thanks for the link). I don't disagree with the guidance itself, particularly with the older GNS navigators and their etch-a-sketch user interface. The problem I have with the way this guidance is usually phrased, though - including what's now codified in the AIM - is the implication that reprogramming your navigator based on a final set of intercept instructions from ATC, late in the approach game, is somehow "unreasonable" and must be avoided. That it's too high of a workload during that phase of flight, and that you're too likely to screw up if you even try it. Reducing workload is always a good idea, but it's my position that you're always subject to last-minute changes to your approach plan from ATC, and that being nimble enough with your navigator to handle them is a required skill for the proficient IFR pilot. If you're proficient in that way, the "Don't use VTF" guidance becomes moot. If you're not... well, you can avoid the problem where VTF omits points you may be cleared to; but there are similar problems unrelated to VTF that you're not going to handle well. Here's an example: where I fly, it's not uncommon to be told to "expect the GPS 29 approach to KLMO", which you can dutifully load in the recommended manner, selecting either WOLTS or FIPPS as the IAF depending on which direction you're coming from. Roughly half the time, the next ATC instruction - late in the game - is "cleared direct FIMUR, cleared for the approach". FIMUR is an IF, and ATC is permitted to clear you direct to an IF rather than an IAF if the resultant turn to the final approach course is less than 90 degrees. This is becoming more common, as T-shaped and V-shaped GPS approaches see more and more use. To comply with such a clearance, you must push a non-trivial sequence of buttons - again, late in the approach game - even when you "did the right thing" of loading the full approach. Here's another example: say you're approaching KBAZ (New Braunfels, TX) with winds from the northwest. There are equally good approaches to equally good runways 31 and 35. This is an uncontrolled airport, there is no tower/ATIS to tell you which approach(es) are "in use". As the wind moves around and various CTAF reports roll in, the proficient pilot has no issue switching from one of these approaches to another, relatively close to the airport. The un-proficient/less proficient pilot will be reluctant to change the approach they loaded early in the game, even if there is good reason to do so. Sticking to the plan in this manner avoids getting wrapped around the axle of re-programming the navigator, but introduces other risks. For these sorts of reasons, late-in-the-game reprogramming is part of what I teach as a CFII, during the final stage of instrument training and in IPCs. If I'm simulating ATC, I don't care what you load in the navigator (including VTF). But whatever you load, I'm going to give you a late change and see how you handle it. If you load VTF, I'm going to clear you to an approach fix that's no longer in the flight plan. If you load a full approach with an IAF, I'm going to clear you to a different IAF or IF. If I can't reasonably do either of those, I'll just say that "due to wind changes, need to clear you to a different approach". If the pilot has trouble with any of these things, I'll suggest additional training with an iPad trainer or similar, to become more familiar with the navigator. The analogy I use is that of a typist. Sure, you can get by with hunt-and-peck, but professionals know how to touch type. Having said all that, the main reason I give students late-in-the-game navigator programming changes is, I want them to understand the ultimate tool in the tool bag: "Unable, I'll need vectors until I can reprogram my navigator". As with so many things in aviation, I want my students to have plans for what they're going to do if they get into a scenario they hoped to avoid, rather than thinking they can somehow guarantee the scenario won't happen in the first place. In my mind, saying, "I don't allow myself to get into a situation where I have to reprogram the approach", is like saying, "I don't allow myself to get into a situation where I have to land in a strong crosswind". Of course you can make go/no-go decisions that minimize the risk of that, but you can't guarantee the weather at your destination (not even if it's the same as your departure); and we still encourage training for crosswind landings. So it goes with navigator programming, in my opinion.

100% concur. It's especially confusing because it implies the GNS/GTN navigators have some "mode" or "state" they go into, where the approach is "active". That's not the case. An instrument approach - which is just a flight plan with multiple legs - cannot be "active" (or "inactive") in the navigator. Only a leg of a flight plan can be active, and only one leg can be active at any particular time. I teach students that "activate approach" is simply shorthand for "Create a leg from present position, direct to the initial approach fix of the approach that is currently loaded, and make that the active leg in the flight plan" (VTF is a special case of this which substitutes a point out at infinity for present position). Since that's a mouthful, and won't fit on a screen, Garmin invented a shorthand phrase for it - "activate approach". I get that, but would have been much less confusing if they'd chosen "Goto IAF" for full approach and "Goto VTF" for VTF.

That's been my experience as well. I periodically cover other attitude instruments and fly myself or ask my instrument students to fly using just an iPad and a GTX 345 AHRS connection for attitude. What I've observed is that it will keep you upright in a pinch (haven't had the really bad experience PT20J has), but it is "swimmy" - seems to lag a bit, and seems to show small banks when the aircraft is actually level. I've had worse experiences with the AHRS in Stratus/Sentry devices, that so many people seem to be counting on as a backup these days. I continue to find instrument pilots who feel good about having Foreflight and a bluetooth connection to AHRS as a backup solution, but who it turns out have never actually trained with it; so I always cover everything else and ask them to fly that way. In roughly 25% of these scenarios, there is a major glitch. One time it was the device falling off its suction cup mount, which is bad, but presumably fixable. The more disturbing thing is that I've seen a Sentry have a major pitch glitch, even with a good mount. We were flying along, and the indicated pitch began to oscillate between zero and about 15 degrees up, for no explicable reason. I no longer trust these devices as a backup.

The difference in path length is certainly greater at slower speeds, due to the smaller turn radius. But there is a practical limitation: the slower you go, the less steep of a level turn you can maintain without exceeding critical AOA and stalling the airplane. Vs1 in a 172 is 44 KCAS. In a 2G turn, that increases to 44 * 1.4 = 62, so you're probably not going to find a lot of instructors willing to fly a 60-degree banked turn at 70 knots even in a 172. Private pilot "steep" turns are spec'd at 45 degrees, and the steeper commercial pilot turns are typically taught by entering at maneuvering speed to provide margin against an accelerated stall. Those lower bank angles and/or higher speeds increase the turn radius, and therefore decrease the magnitude of the effect we're discussing. To be clear, I'm not saying the simple explanation is wrong and speed differential between inboard and outboard wings never matters; just that several factors affect spiral (in)stability, and in most piston GA scenarios, the speed differential effect is negligible relative to design and loading factors.

Agreed; and while not disputing FlyingDude's math, 50 lbs of differential force (which is likely not at the wing midpoint but further inboard, at least on a Mooney, but I digress...) is on the same order as differential forces due to completely normal asymmetry in passenger and fuel loading. 50 pounds is about 8 gallons of avgas, and is also much less than the weight difference between children, petite adults, and beer-gutted, aging pilots (which I can say, because I am one). Yet none of the differential-speed explanations of overbanking mention it being eliminated/doubled by having an odd number of passengers, or burning an hour of gas out of one tank before rolling into the turn. Whether a piston GA airplane exhibits overbanking in "steep" turns or not, is mostly a function of the airframe design. Things like wing dihedral, keel area, and CG are typically the dominant factors in spiral instability, rather than the differential speed going around the circle. This explains why some airplanes exhibit more or less of it, despite executing the same turn, vs. other airplanes that exhibit less.

This is one of those things that is technically true, but is so overstated as to arguably be false for a typical GA piston aircraft. Consider a Mooney with a 35' wingspan, flying an "aggressive" 60-degree banked turn at 120 knots. The handy calculator at https://calculator.academy/aircraft-turn-radius-calculator/ tells us the radius of the turn is 738 feet. That means the centerline of the aircraft is 738 feet from the centerpoint of the turn. The path traversed by the inboard and outboard wingtips do not differ by the full wingspan, because of the bank angle. Employing some trigonometry, cos(60)=0.5 and therefore the wingtip paths of a 35' wingspan aircraft are only 17.5' feet apart relative to the center of the circle in a 60 degree bank. Specifically, the inboard wingtip traverses a path of 729.25', and the outboard wingtip traverses a path of 746.75'. Circumference of a circle is 2*pi*R, so the circumference of the inboard and outboard wingtip paths are 4582' and 4692', respectively. That's a path difference of 2.3%, therefore the airspeed difference is 2.3% as well. Bear in mind this 2.3% is only the difference at the wing *tips*, not the effective difference across the whole wing, which will be smaller. I don't have a formula handy for that, but across the whole wing we're probably talking about a difference in effective airfoil speed on the order of 1%. So yeah, the outboard wing is moving faster than the inboard wing and generating more lift. But not enough to make any noticeable difference, and certainly not enough to be the primary cause of over-banking tendency in the turn. Extreme cases, like a glider with an enormous wingspan flying very slow and tight in a thermal, experience the airspeed delta effect to a greater degree, but you're not going to get that scenario in a typical Cessna/Piper/Mooney/Bonanza/etc. Overbanking tendency in steep turns is caused by many things, and the airspeed difference between the two wings is almost never the primary cause.

Avemco does not have a blanket policy against insuring an aircraft owned registered to an LLC. I can say this with confidence, because I hold in my hand at this very moment a letter from Avemco addressed to the LLC that owns our partnership airplane, thanking us for insuring our aircraft with Avemco this year, and offering to renew the policy for next year. Either the person you spoke with at Avemco is misinformed, or there is something more to the situation than just the fact your aircraft is registered to an LLC.

Did this have anything to do with one-engine-inoperative flight? In a conventional twin with one dead engine, zero side-slip requires holding the ball slightly off center, see https://www.boldmethod.com/blog/und/how-does-zero-sideslip-work-in-a-multi-engine-aircraft/

I see this advice pretty frequently when people mention being concerned about prop strikes in Mooneys. I'm not inclined to "correct" it, because it's good advice for nosewheel airplanes in general, and it certainly makes a non-trivial difference in a Cessna or other aircraft with an oleo strut on the nose gear. With an oleo strut, the amount of force required at the tail to raise the nose a couple of inches is only a few pounds. In my airplane - an M20F - at rest, the nose gear doughnuts are hardly compressed at all. If I exert significant force on the tail, I might get them to expand an eighth of an inch or so, theoretically gaining an addition eighth inch of prop clearance. But holding full up elevator at normal taxi speeds won't generate enough force at the tail to do so. If I exert tremendous force on the tail, I can of course lift the nose wheel off the ground. But that would only gain ground clearance if I taxi at takeoff speed. So... within our partnership, we tell each other to taxi with full up elevator by all means, because it's good muscle memory. But we also tell each other not to have any illusion that it actually increases ground clearance at the nose and reduces the likelihood of a prop strike. There's just not enough force at the tail exerted by full up elevator at taxi speeds to make any difference. Short and/or mid-bodies may be different, I'd be interested to hear opinions from others on this.

By all accounts, the EI tachs are reliable. Having said that, I'll throw in a couple of minor gripes I have about the one in a flight school airplane I give instruction in. First, no matter how many times I tell myself I'm going to remember to record the tach time before the student turns off the master, I essentially always forget. That requires turning the master back on to get the tach time, which is of course an opportunity to accidentally leave the master switch on. Analog tachometers with a mechanical tach time display don't have this problem. This is a pretty minor gripe, though, and arguably less critical in an airplane you own. Second, the display when mounted on the lower left-side panel in a 172 is essentially useless from the right seat under most conditions. Between the acute angle, and even the slightest amount of sunlight on the instrument, I often can't read either the LCD numbers or the LED lights without leaning over far enough to be a little creepy. This may be particular to the airplane in question, though. In Maurader's picture above, the tach is obviously mounted on the opposite side of the panel from where the pilot sits, and I'm sure he'd mention if the display was an issue for him. Again, these are minor gripes, just throwing them out there for you to consider.