toto

Thanks for that. Honestly, I didn’t intend to open a question about any particular supplement or manufacturer’s guidance - I really just meant to ask about a conflict between the manufacturer and the regulation. It sounds like in Garmin’s case they had no reason to require the use of the ground-based nav source for the final approach segment aside from wanting to align their guidance with the regulation. So when the regulation was updated, they updated their guidance?

Fair enough. Here’s the relevant section from my AFMS:

This was shared a while back when we were talking about the Flying Ultimate Issue …. But it has some interesting insight into the new ownership.

It’s an interesting topic. My immediate thought was that Garmin provides guidance on use of the GTN as primary for a VOR approach on the final approach segment.. I grabbed my GTN manual (screenshot below). Garmin suggests that VLOC mode is “required” and that the pilot “must” switch from GPS to VLOC before the final approach segment. If the AFMS for the navigator requires using the ground-based nav source as primary for the final approach segment, does the AFMS control the decision?

There was a thread about this earlier in the summer - sounds like there have been some official confirmations. https://mooneyspace.com/topic/51648-lasar-mooney/

Things seem much worse at the former Belvoir Media (now Flying) than I realized. I’ve always liked the Belvoir publications, and I was an Aviation Consumer and IFR subscriber for many years. I dropped those subscriptions only after the Flying acquisition, when I thought the “Ultimate Edition” was a bad sign of commercial consolidation for the publications. Anyway - I’ve always liked Paul B, and this article was eye-opening. https://avbrief.com/paul-bertorelli-on-the-future-of-aviation-journalism-its-challenging/

I played around a little bit with Miracheck. It’s kind of an interesting idea, where you have a digital presentation on your iPad but then there’s an audio callout using speech to text with a required “Check” audible response (which automatically ticks the check box on your tablet). It’s not a “smart” checklist in the sense that it’s aware of the aircraft condition, but it’s a bit more like a crew workflow with the audio callouts and responses. Ref: https://miracheck.com/

The Garmin SmartChart is a full replacement for the NOS or Jepp chart. There is no underlying “official” chart or plate - you just use the Garmin presentation and nothing else.

Garmin now has their own chart presentation, which does not use the NOS or Jepp format. https://www.garmin.com/en-US/aviation/garminpilot/smartcharts/ Here’s a random screenshot from my phone of what this looks like:

Nicely done

I’ve been wondering what this means for those of us in the serial number range that’s eligible for the 2900# AFM supplement. Our aircraft have the same type certificate at 2740 as at 2900, but the vs0 numbers are critically different in the flight manual (see chart below). I assume an aircraft that doesn’t have the AFM supplement is under the vs1 limit, but an aircraft *with* the AFM supplement is over the limit. There’s no STC, so it’s really just whether you have the supplement stuck in your flight manual or not. I’m not sure whether it’s possible to reverse compliance with a service letter? Can you write a logbook entry that says “uncomplied with SL92-1 and SB M20-252?”

Very cool. I enjoyed their Australia video series on YouTube - for anyone who hasn't seen it: https://www.youtube.com/@MooneyN228RM

Since the discussion about G100UL has gotten kind of depressing, here's a happier note I saw in my EAA newsletter today. The Lyondell UL product fueled the Unlimited Experimental category at the AirVenture Cup this year. https://vpracingfuels.com/blogs/press-releases/vp-racing-aviation-ul100e-wins-at-eaa-airventure-cup I haven't seen much about the VP / Lyondell fuel recently, but they seem to be taking the hint about materials compatibility. https://vpaviation.com/ (It's the top mention under "Testing Achievements" ...)

Nice! Way better

I think my manual says 2-3 gallons …. Let me check … ETA: Yeah, it says 2.5-3

Fwiw, my premium for 25-26 is the same to the cent as the premium for 24-25.

Out of curiosity, what would a repair like this cost at a competent paint shop?

If you’re the admin today, you might have many hundreds of new accounts that look legitimate. It’s only because they post spammy crap that they’re clearly spam. Manual verification would be super painful on a day like this - my vote would be to shut down new account signups until there’s better automation in place.

This has gotten so bad today - I agree that the board should prevent new account creation until this is sorted.

There are clearly ways to deal with automated posts, and different forum platforms have different options. Craig mentioned that the current version of IPBoard has limitations, and he was hoping for an upgrade that would help. I’d be very happy with an occasional MFA prompt if it means stopping the spam.

@mooniac58 is the admin There’s a thread over here

They do manual user verification, which Craig mentioned was impractical

Yeah, today seems like the worst day so far. This is brutal.

Ugh. My paint isn’t as new as yours, but it’s still in good condition and I feel your pain:

A turn back at 200 feet wouldn’t benefit from a BRS, but I suspect that a Hooker harness or Amsafe airbags would make a difference in survivability. Either one is an easy retrofit, but most of us don’t have them.