Rick Junkin

A primary WSO duty! Because if YOU look good, WE look good BTW, "Nice Landing". Never miss an opportunity to stroke your nose gunner's ego. Now, where are those donuts?

I are one of those, too . Cut my tactical teeth in the Phantom II, but way post-Vietnam. You've got me on that one, I don't recall that phraseology.

Yeah, I agree Paul. It was a semi-inside joke. RagsF15e and I flew the F-15E Strike Eagle, he was a pilot and I was a WSO. One of my duties was to back up my nose gunner in critical phases of flight. "Short final, good gear" was a standard call-out from the WSO before landing. I still say it to myself

I worked from home managing/supporting activities at sites on both the east and west coasts as well as all across the country. 14-16+ hour days were the norm, with 0530 meetings on the east coast and occasional 1800 meetings on the west coast. Not my idea of a good sustainable schedule. Unfortunately delegation wasn't an option. But the biggest negative factor was the lack of in-person leadership and availability for my teams. So I also travelled a lot to try to fill that void. It helped, but was exhausting. I lasted 4 years. It's not surprising that AOPA wants a resident president. I'm guessing the long-distance agreement was a part of the contract with Darren with a periodic assessment clause, and the board and Darren determined it wasn't working the way they had hoped.

I worked from home managing/supporting activities at sites on both the east and west coasts as well as all across the country. 14-16+ hour days were the norm, with 0530 meetings on the east coast and occasional 1800 meetings on the west coast. Not my idea of a good sustainable schedule. Unfortunately delegation wasn't an option. But the biggest negative factor was the lack of in-person leadership and availability for my teams. So I also travelled a lot to try to fill that void. It helped, but was exhausting. I lasted 4 years. It's not surprising that AOPA wants a resident president. I'm guessing the long-distance agreement was a part of the contract with Darren with a periodic assessment clause, and the board and Darren determined it wasn't working the way they had hoped.

Nobody in the back seat to confirm, "Short final, good gear" anymore?

I didn't realize they had amended the STC. The things you learn on Mooneyspace... Curiously, the blurb for the certified GHA 15 on Garmin's web page only mentions the G500/G600 with the GI 275. An oversight?

Garmin just announced the GHA 15 is available for "select" certified fixed wing aircraft and requires a GI 275 with ADAHRS. I'm surprised and a bit confused as to why it can't be installed with a G3X on a certified aircraft, seeing as how that was the interface when it came into being in the experimental market. Could be the GI 275 software certification was quicker/easier? I'm curious to see if they add the G3X down the line with a future software update.

These pictures are terrible but still want to share how picturesque the Smokys are in the winter. Winds kept us low from Gatlinburg to Thomaston (south of Atlanta) yesterday so I flew down the river valley offset from the foothills. I'll work on my photographic technique and get better pictures next time.

There is a lot to be said about the integration across the Garmin ecosystem. I went all Garmin and had a 7” G3X Touch installed for redundancy as it was the most economical option for me. I didn’t have an existing certified engine monitor in my original panel. The EIS integrates with Garmin Pilot to provide yet another display option for real time engine data on your iPad. All of my flight and engine data are saved in the same file on the SD card in my G3X. I find that convenient. The one thing I miss from my JPI 830 is the Normalize display feature for CHTs and EGTs. The experimental G3X software has this feature but the certified software does not. However you can tailor the EIS to warn you with an annunciation on the PFD if any of the engine parameters go outside the limits you’ve set, so you really don’t need to have them all constantly in view. The system will tell you if something goes out of whack. On the other hand it is also good practice to not have all of your eggs in one basket. An independent non-Garmin piece of gear for engine parameters would be nice if your PFD failed. It comes down to assessing the projected mean time between failures (MTBF) for the equipment and bouncing that against your risk tolerance. For instance your JPI could fail leaving you with no options for engine data, but the likelihood of that is low. It took some getting used to but I really like the G3X EIS and the primary parameters stay in my crosscheck on the PFD strip. Having the Garmin Pilot EIS display option as a tertiary backup is reassuring, but that may be misplaced confidence depending on the display’s failure mode. You still need the G3X Bluetooth link to the iPad to be working to get the EIS data.

The screw for the Bravo cowling is AN507-1032R7. I use #10 Tinnerman washers under mine. Both are available through AS. @Marc_B gave you the link for the Skybolt fasteners. It looks like you have Skybolts installed, and I highly recommend these over the original Cam Locs. The wider flange on the Skybolt 2800 series is a big improvement and will keep them from pulling through the fiberglass. The cowling intakes take primarily a #4 fastener, but you may want to get a couple of #5 for any irregularities in your cowl thickness.

Closing the loop on this, or at least my part of it. I put the Garmin Pilot advanced profile I built for my M20M in the downloads section. Don't use the output from this profile until you have validated it for your specific application. The output from the profile checks well against the Foreflight profile I have trusted for years, as well as against my historical empirical flight data. I only validated it at my SOP cruise setting of 30/2200, 13.2GPH LOP. The data basis is the POH, so the profile should be accurate enough for planning purposes at other cruise settings. But don't get too excited if you're looking for a comprehensive profile that will work for any power setting, 'cause this isn't it. It's pretty much the same as the Foreflight M20M profile in that it only has performance data for the RPM/MP combinations in the POH, and I only entered airspeed data for ISA +/- 20ºC up to 20,000'. So if you cruise at 2200RPM between 24 and 30", or at 2400RPM between 32 and 34", you're in luck. If you're running 29/2400, which I believe a lot of people use, this profile doesn't have data to support that planning. It's a fairly easy but tedious task to add your empirical 29/2400 performance data to the profile table, but it may be easier to just enter a single basic set of cruise parameters (TAS and FF) and accept the variability in accuracy with altitude and temperature changes. I entered the peak TIT data directly from the Section 5 charts into the Garmin Pilot advanced performance table to set the ground truth model. Nobody flies like that, but those are the only numbers in the book. Fortunately GP has a function called "Cruise Modifiers" that allows you to apply an adjustment to the values in the table to match your empirical performance. It works by applying a % increase or decrease to MP, TAS and FF from the performance table. Each parameter is independent and can have its own adjustment up or down. I put in a selectable modifier for 35º LOP TAS (-4%) and FF (-8%), and another one for 100º ROP TAS (+3%) and FF (+19%). I came up with the adjustment factors by comparing the GP output for a flight plan with the Foreflight output for the same flight plan at several altitudes and then picked the "best fit" adjustment factor. I also compared adjusted GP output to flight data for validation. All of this can be modified by the user to fit your specific application. If you run 150º ROP you can adjust the ROP modifier up to accurately reflect your increased FF and TAS. I also derived specific LOP and ROP tables external to GP as a part of this exercise. I originally had entered them into GP (780 data entries... ) but realized it would be easier in actual use to employ the Cruise Modifier function with only the peak TIT numbers entered. At least I have all that tabulated data now. Oh boy. If anyone has or finds something better please let me know. I'd like to say building this was a fun task, but...

I had that thought as well but I couldn't find any mention of it online anywhere. You would think if this was a "thing" there would be some discussion of it on one of the aviation forums. However, I'll try to experiment with that idea when the next cycle comes out. Retired guys with time on their hands look forward to these kinds of activities.

@Ragsf15e Here's an excerpt from the GTN Xi Pilot Guide that details what happens in the event of an approach downgrade due to lack of position integrity. There should have been an advisory message on your 750, but I think it's easy to miss if you aren't looking at it because it isn't persistent.

I'm going to shoot from the hip on this one until I have a chance to review the AFMS for both the GTN and the GFC500. From the GFC500 perspective, the only tone I'm aware of is the disconnect tone. I don't recall any tones for when the A/P changes modes, even for a reversion like this. I've been troubleshooting GFC500 anomalies with a buddy of mine in his Bonanza and there haven't been any tones when his reverts to PIT and ROL from NAV and ALT. For the GTN, I recall reading a caution/note that talked about verifying the approach type annunciation at the FAF to confirm you are getting the guidance you are expecting. In this case it must have changed from LPV / LNAV/VNAV / LNAV+V, which ever WAAS was allowing, to LNAV just prior to the FAF. I believe the AFMS gives the range from the FAF that the box performs this check and downgrades the approach guidance. However, to your question about audio alerts, no, there are none when this happens. I'll do some studying and see if I can find something more definitive.

The curious thing is that I was about to delete and reload GP on all three devices but decided to exercise the “insanity option” first - try doing the same thing over again and expect a different outcome - and low and behold it worked. I didn’t even do the common sense power off - power on step. As I discovered throughout my career, how you hold your mouth as you’re executing the steps to operate any technology influences the FM that makes all of this stuff work.

Yeah, I thought of that and confirmed nothing else was sucking bandwidth. Pretty easy to do, it's just me and my wife here. I also tried to load up via Starlink at my hangar and no joy there either. I'm just going to chalk it up to a "huh, how 'bout that" event.

Well, all's well that ends well, even if I haven't a clue as to why the downloads previous to today took hours. I just downloaded the latest GP nav and chart data cycle on all three devices in under 10 minutes on each of them. I didn't do anything to troubleshoot or correct the issue, it just worked. Closing the loop on this one. Thanks for the assistance.

Thanks @Flyler, I’m hoping to avoid that. The fact that all of my devices are doing the same thing makes me think it’s something I have selected. None of the devices are storage-limited. But I will give it a try anyway.

Yeah we get it @Hank, you like what you have and that’s wonderful. We’re happy for you.

I have an iPhone 14, a 6th generation iPad Pro, and a Mini 6, all with the latest OS. They all do the same thing. I’m convinced it’s because they belong to me.

Quoting an old post - DON’T USE THE FLTPLAN.COM M20M PROFILE! It’s a single cruise profile and I’m pretty sure its based on the 34/2400 best power data in the POH. Definitely not what you want to use.

@DavePage @Patrick Horan Short answer is yes. Longer answer is what I’ve done may not be useful to you. I’m happy to share it with the understanding you’ll assume it is inaccurate until you personally verify it’s accuracy for your airplane. I spent about 20 hours over the past two days tabulating data from the M20M POH performance section graphs and entering them into the Garmin Pilot tables. I only went up to 20,000’ with the data, as I’m seldom above 16,000. Unfortunately I’ve only verified the tailored data for my normal ops, which is 30/2200 LOP, that I was able to compare against the Foreflight profile I’ve been using successfully. I did input the peak TIT data for 27/2200 and 24/2200 with the intent of adjusting them to LOP values once I gather some empirical data for validation. However, I built a separate calculated “Best Power ROP” table for 100º ROP ops. I extracted initial values from my previous engine data files and extrapolated the rest of the table (very roughly, I must add) using the peak TIT values for 24/2200, 27/2200, and 30/2200 at ISA+/-20ºC as a basis and fixed fuel flow values of 13, 15, and 17GPH respectively. This table is also unverified and is my starting point for refinement. I haven’t had a chance to run the Best Power GP table against my Foreflight profiles for more than just a quick look, but the GP output was within about 2% of the Foreflight output for one ROP scenario so I think it’s a good start. I won’t be using it for any critical planning without carrying lots of extra gas until I’m able to collect some flight data for validation. @dkkim73 Garmin Pilot has a performance profile for the M20TN, but I can’t speak to its veracity. The profiles they provide are proprietary and there’s no way to see what’s in them without loading them up and using them. Perhaps there is someone here who is already using it and can speak to that. You could do the same thing I did and subscribe to both GP and FF and then compare the GP flight plan output with your current trusted data. If you have a larger iPad with the latest iOS you can run both apps side by side in landscape. It’s a great way to compare them and help inform your decision on which way to go. As for reaching out to Garmin, I asked if they would add an M20M profile and got a quick reply asking me for a copy of the POH. I sent it to them but haven’t heard or seen anything since then. That was at the end of last summer.

Garmin Pilot takes many hours to download new nav and map data each cycle. It’s the same on all of my devices. What ForeFlight does in minutes takes up to 5 hours on Garmin Pilot. I have fiber internet at home and have also tried it with Starlink but get the same result. Has anyone else experienced this? I do have all of the US selected for download, the same as I do for Foreflight. What am I doing wrong?

I ran my Bravo on it and it came up with a valuation that matched what my own market study came up with. I just did the "gross valuation" without ordering the full report so I didn't get the details of the valuation. I'm satisfied it will produce a good valuation when I need it. Vref was a little more detailed on the inputs, for instance it wanted to know how old the avionics were, but Windsock gave me a good result.