Jeff_S

@Robert C. Robert, let me know if you need soft copy of the Users Guide. It explains how to use the database replication feature for both the Nav and MFD databases. I can send you a copy if you need it.

Hi Russ. Yes, the airways procedure isn't any different in .34 that I can see. What is true is that depending on what version of the original documentation you had, the feature may not have been in there. When I bought the plane, it came with the original G1000 manual from Garmin, but the software had been updated to .30 sometime after. I could tell that the original manuals were wrong because many of the features I was seeing in the panel were not in the manual. I downloaded a later version of the manual from the Garmin website, but also bought the Max Trescott G1000 book which had a lot of great tips for the later versions, most of which were in the .30 release. I've also downloaded the latest manual from Garmin again which seems to cover the .34 release in its entirety. Having that in ForeFlight Documents has been very handy!

Hey Paul. Most of the RF leg GPS approaches I see, at least around here in Atlanta, require special authorization, so I haven’t tried flying them. Would be fun to try! Russ, we had airway support for flight plans even prior to the WAAS upgrade; is there something different about it in the .34 release?

From what I remember of high school physics, all that gas in your tank would really be considered as potential energy. Yes, it is released through a chemical reaction but it’s still just potential energy. So if you’re at cruise power and want to go faster you can convert either altitude or gas (or both) to speed. Same mechanisms if you want to go slower. And yes, there are devices we have at our disposal as well for adding drag, etc. I don’t think there’s a reason to simplify the debate about which controls altitude vs airspeed, etc. The answer is they all can have an effect and you have to learn to use them at the appropriate times.

Hi Robert. There probably won’t be too many in our “tranche” for your market research project but I’ll say that I’ve definitely experimented with #s 1,2, 5 & 6. I just recently had my system reconfigured for#4 but I haven’t tried it yet. I really love the MFD indicator showing the location where you will hit your target altitude either ascending or descending. I use that all the time to make sure I don’t climb too fast or descend too slowly and bust the Bravo airspace around Atlanta. How do you use the curving track vectors? That’s something I haven’t messed with yet?

They did a lot of work to run one wire! Scottie's team just loosened the left side panels and were able to run it through there in about 15 minutes. Perhaps not as fully-professional, but since I was sitting there waiting for it they wanted to get it done quickly. Another A/P had to pull that seat earlier this year when tracking the fuel-sender signal and that turned a 15 minute fix into a four hour job at $95/hour...so I am really leery when anybody starts talking about that!

Hi Lee. The Flight ID is normally just your tail number, and that's what's programmed into the ADS-B box (or an older -S capable transponder). However, I read in several places that when you have ADS-B, they really want your flight call sign to match what the box is emitting, and when we do Angel Flights we use a modified call sign with CMFxxx, where CMF replaces the first three digits of your tail number. So for me, that is CMF34S, said "Compassion Flight 34 Sierra" on the radio. So now if I'm doing an Angel Flight I can dial that into the system and the ADS-B will output that Flight ID. If you have a panel-mount GTX-345, you can do it right from the buttons. But if you have a remote mount they have to do a config change to your panel user interface (at least for the G1000...not sure about any of the GTN units).

So Paul, you sound very knowledgeable in this regard, let me post another question and I'll do it in this thread instead of via PM in case it interests others. My A/P has no trouble tracking the centerline in cruise flight. But when in GPSS mode, I've always noticed (even before the WAAS upgrade) that it is slow to begin the leading turn to stay exactly on course when making turns. This is especially noticeable at cruise speeds, less so when you have slowed to do an approach, but it is ALWAYS outside the turn path and then has to correct back in. However, if I just use the heading bug it commands a standard-rate turn immediately and I can easily get it to stay on course even at cruise speeds. My avionics shop showed me how to get to the G1000 system adjustment and we massaged that a little bit to see if it would help, but it hasn't really. It's not a big deal and I never get more than a dot or two of deflection, but I've been wondering if this is something that can be fixed and what the cost would be. I'm willing to live with a one-dot deflection if the cure is too many $AUs! I'd appreciate your thoughts. Thanks!

Here's a little tip I learned the hard way when upgrading a G1000 panel with the GTX-345R. At least in my bird, there weren't enough wires going from the panel back to the transponder to do all its functions. That is to say, there WERE enough wires, but only because my installer "borrowed" the one that was connected to the yoke IDENT button so he could use that wire to provide the "alert suppression" feature. (Still not exactly clear what that is, but I gather it overrides some GTX alerts when the G-1000 will be providing the same alert.) So as soon as I flew away, I discovered that the yoke IDENT wasn't working. However, since this had been a problem in the recent past because of some bad wiring in the yoke, I just assumed that same problem had resurfaced. I finally got it back to the avionics shop to have them fix it, and that's when they discovered the wiring issue. They took care of it, though, and routed a new wire back in so the yoke IDENT button would work at no charge. BTW, this is Precision Avionics in Griffin GA, and I can't say enough good things about Scottie and his team. If you're in the Atlanta area, I would strongly recommend them as a shop. Oh, also, I had them reprogram the system so I can change the Flight ID (for doing Angel Flights) which would have ordinarily been a simple fix, but because of a procedure change that Garmin implemented -- without telling anyone -- it took him an hour longer than usual. I can't remember the specifics, but if you're having any work done on your GTX-345R make sure your shop has consulted with Garmin on all the latest features before they start doing anything.

Robert, I'm curious what "calibrating my WAAS installation" means in this context. I don't remember doing anything like that when I had my WAAS update done this year, nor any instructions for it. Is that something you just did for fun?

If you’re on VTF, then you are already in heading mode (assuming you’re using the heading bug to follow ATC guidance). Once you get established on the localizer, you should just be able to press the APR button and it will determine the best angle to use, capture the localizer and then the glideslope. If you’re hand-flying the vectors, then yes, perhaps you’ll need to press NAV first and then APR. I don’t hand fly vectors cuz there are so many other things I’m taking care of in this phase of flight. I’ve never actually used the feature, but as I understand it, you would press HDG and NAV simultaneously if you wanted the system to keep you on your current heading until intercepting the nav course, which I guess would be useful if you were way beyond full-scale deflection and needed to keep that same heading for quite awhile before getting back on Nav course. I guess that situation has just not come up in my flying.

Since you are usually in NAV/GPSS mode in the preliminary stages of an approach, the method I learned is to press APR when established on final. This will activate the ability for the system to capture and track the glide slope. What has always been annoying to me is that when you go from GPSS to ILS, the tracking ability seems to decline and the plane will wander a lot more, especially if there are cross winds. Proper "help" with the rudder is essential. It never goes full-scale deflection, but it does seem to wander a bit. On the other hand, the GS capture has always been very smooth for me.

Yes, I am aware of the "ignore user" feature...I have resisted using it because sometimes it's amusing to see what the trolls have to say. My skin is tough enough to laugh off our Aussie friend. To answer one of his questions, though...I have NO expertise with the ATC system, which is exactly why I'm trying to study it more! But moving on... I have now read and analyzed the latest salvo directly from Bill Shuster, as well as the actual document provided by the Trump administration laying out their preferred approach. And about a dozen other articles that were published in various forums, mostly just using those two sources for citation. I also have read two different studies -- one from Embry Riddle, and one from MITRE -- that analyzed the "privatized" versions of ATC in place in Western countries and tried to show if there is any benefit or harm. (The differ in their conclusions.) But the latest thing I've read just came out by AvWeb this morning, which I thought was a rational analysis by someone on the inside. I don't know if anyone else here cares about this but I'll post it anyway just in case...this is copyright AvWeb: Why Privatizing ATC Would Break The System By James Van Laak | November 19, 2017 One of the most important conversations going on in aviation today has to do with the proposal to remove the air traffic control organization from the FAA and turn it into a privatized entity. Proponents claim that this would free the function from the bureaucracy and petty budgetary pressures of the FAA and lead to more efficient operations. They also claim that it would result in more rapid modernization of the air traffic control system. Opponents to the privatization proposal base most of their arguments on three points. First, they point out that air traffic control function is working well today, and that there is no reason to fix something that is not broken. Second, they claim that moving to a privatized system will inevitably lead to a user-fee system dominated by the airlines, which would penalize the general aviation sector. Third, they point out that this entity would have a monopoly control of the air traffic control system with minimal oversight by the government, a recipe for corruption and gross mismanagement. As a pilot with over 47 years of experience operating under the FAA’s authority and five years as a senior executive at the agency, I have a strong opinion about these issues. In summary, I find the privatization arguments to be weak and driven by political dogma, and the arguments against completely valid. But beyond my traditional aviation credentials, I am also an expert in the design and operation of complex systems. This leads to a different and, in my view, more important conclusion about the issue based not on whom the controllers work for, but how the system works. Air transportation as we know it today is a complex system that requires many different elements to work together well, not just ATC. Obviously air traffic control is a critical piece of that system, but it is neither the only one nor even the most important. Other elements are required to ensure that the flying public is safely transported to their destinations. These include: Pilot training, certification, regulation and enforcement Airport design, construction and operation Aircraft design, construction and operation Aircraft maintenance and modification regulation and oversight Avionics and navigation systems design, certification, maintenance and oversight Air traffic procedures, including airspace design and special-use airspace management Weather information dissemination and air traffic avoidance procedures And many more Our safe and effective air transportation system works as well as it does because all of these elements are predominantly under the control of one agency that can make them work together. Airmen are trained and overseen to make sure that safe operating practices are followed. Flight standards inspectors ensure that the navigational and airport systems comply with established standards. Aircraft are designed and maintained to be safe. Aircraft navigation systems meet the requirements of the air traffic control system so that both know what to expect from each other, across countless combinations of ground, air, airspace and weather conditions. This integration would not be as effective if the many functions belonged to different organizations even within the government. Pulling a critical piece out of the government to create a new and far more contentious barrier to coordination would be damaging and would certainly result in more near misses and more. It is true that some countries have implemented a privatized air traffic control function, but their ability to do so benefits from American leadership of the overall aviation system. FAA regulations, standards and processes form the foundation for most of the world and thereby hold the system together. All pilots know that the FAA has problems in the way it does its job, so it is fair to ask how many of these might honestly be made better by moving air traffic to a privatized organization. By my count, damn few. If perchance some improvement was found in one or two functions, it would be far outweighed by the breakage caused when air traffic was separated from the world air transportation system as a whole. This leads to the most important conclusion of all: Air traffic control should not be privatized because doing so would gravely weaken the safety and effectiveness of the premier air transportation system on the planet. James Van Laak is a former Deputy Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation at the FAA. He served in the U.S. Air Force as a F-106 and A-10 pilot and worked at DARPA and at NASA as a manager on the International Space Station. --- I'm coming to the same general conclusion. I don't think anyone can claim that the current system is perfect, but there is room for improvement around the margins that don't require a wholesale replacement such as what is proposed. I am assembling the facts in my head to support this assertion, so if I get the time and energy I'll put it all together.

I just have one question for Tommy...if you live in Oz, why the f--- do you even care? But in the future, please quit trying to make any of your points by ignoring the context of my posts and twisting them to your own intentions. As you so eloquently state in your own signature line, you really don't know anything! I have clearly stated that I would just like concrete, evidentiary support of either position and an open and reasonable debate. So as noted above, I am going to start doing my own exploration.

For those willing to take the plunge, this article from David (which I had seen already) provides links upon links that allow you to dive in yourself and read the actual documents that are getting quoted and mis-quoted on each side. I've got my regulator and mask on and preparing to swim through the material myself to see if I can make some sense of it.

I realize it was a canned response...I said it was “direct”, not “personalized.” But my problem with the debate is that the GA side of the argument is all based on speculation about what COULD happen. The GA alphabet groups are all crying wolf. We risk sounding like we don’t want the change just because we’re afraid of the change. And the proponents of the change are wrapping their argument around bashing the FAA for the lack of progress on modernization, ignoring the reality of the progress that’s been made. I would like to see a real intelligent debate with facts and figures rather than the posturing that I see on both sides.

So, I wrote a letter to my congresswoman Karen Handel on this issue, as urged by AOPA. I did actually receive a direct response, which I found pleasantly surprising (the fact that she responded). It reads thusly: Thank you for contacting my office regarding H.R. 2997, the 21st Century Aviation Innovation, Reform, and Reauthorization (AIRR) Act. I appreciate you sharing your thoughts on this issue. Over the past three years, members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee have debated the need for comprehensive air traffic control reform during Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) reauthorization discussions. What’s clear is that America’s air traffic control system is in need of modernization to accommodate growing air traffic demand. While there may have been legitimate concerns about a version of this bill that was proposed in 2016, the current version of FAA reauthorization differs significantly from the prior legislation. The 21st Century AIRR Act guarantees that no user fees will be levied on any segment of general aviation. It also aims to maintain parity on the governing board and protect access to airspace for general aviation users. Further, the bill ensures the long-term sustainability of the Airport Improvement Program (AIP), which is the main source of funding for our small airports. The 21st Century AIRR Act is currently awaiting action from the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee. Please know that I will continue to follow the progress of this bill as it moves through Congress, and will keep your concerns in mind should it reach the House floor for a vote. Again, I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts and concerns with me. To stay up to date on Congressional and district happenings, please visit my website at handel.house.gov to sign up for my weekly newsletter, or follow me on Facebook at www.facebook.com/RepKarenHandel or on Twitter at @RepKHandel. Sincerely, Karen C. Handel Member of Congress I found it a surprisingly good example of political double-speak. She doesn't come right out against the bill, and seems to favor its provisions, but leaves the door open. I guess I won't be able to tell whether or not to vote for her again until there's actually a vote in Congress!

No Don, all G1000 models of any plane have the G1000 elements as part of the Type Certificate, so that is the point of contention. It does make it harder to add piece-parts to your panel the way you can if you have separate radios, PFD/MFD, etc. So getting updates to the system relies on both Garmin doing the programming, and Mooney certifying it for release. So far, Mooney has actually been a leader in keeping its older G1000 planes updated, with (now) reasonable availability of WAAS upgrades, ADS-B compliance, etc. The Cessna/Diamond/Beech folks are still struggling with these issues in their older G1000 planes. As I've stated elsewhere in these pages, my next quest is to rid myself of the last vestiges of spinning gyros in my panel. This means replacing my backup AI with the new Mid-continent SAM module, which is in the Ultras. I think this can probably be done without further approval but I just haven't investigated it in detail. Beyond that, I'd like to replace the S-TEC 55x (driven by a hidden electric turn coordinator with spinning gyro) with Garmin's new GFC600 autopilot, but since this definitely integrates with the G1000 that will need to be blessed by the Garmin/Mooney Duumvirate (yes, that's a word...I looked it up!).

Good question. I guess it depends on how old your Ovation is. For some, the jump to the latest G1000 may be enticing...I know there are some concerns about having the fully-integrated panel compared to piecing something together with components, so it's a personal choice. I do like the G1000 but recognize its limitations. I think the pilot's side door is a big draw, not so much for the pilot as for all the passengers as it helps with ingress/egress...and the stretched door makes it easier to get in the back. There really isn't a performance difference in actual flight, I don't think. There's no doubt that it's an evolution and not a revolution, but I think there are some worthwhile upgrades. Without having some legitimate way to write it off as a business expense, I wouldn't probably spring for a brand new model, but perhaps in a couple of years if one comes available I'd be interested. But I don't suspect Mooney is targeting the current Ovation owners as much as the broader market, so the push to compare against other models makes sense.

I detect sarcasm in your post. But to be fair, the announcement was about delivering the first Ovation Ultra, signifying that both the Acclaim and Ovation Ultras are in production and being sold. So it wasn't about selling an airplane as much as announcing to the world that the Ovation Ultra is now available. I also noticed that the Ovation Ultra was the cover picture and featured story in this month's Flying Magazine. It helps that a key writer for the magazine, Pia Bergqvist, flies an older Mooney so she is enamored with the brand. This is all good news to me.

Attempting to economically justify any airplane purchase for personal travel is doomed to failure. I think trying to compare costs between different airframes is also a pointless exercise. You don't buy an airplane because its costs are lower. You buy it because it speaks to you in some way that others don't, and those are not all tangible things. Some folks like the simplicity of fixed gear, and some like the low drag and looks of retractable. Some folks like the security of a parachute, and some think it's the Pussification of the American Aviationscape! Nobody wins these arguments. But to get back to the original poster's thought, the fact is that there are very few Ovations on the market these days, which was not the case three years ago when I bought mine. And simple law of supply and demand would suggest that with less inventory, prices could go higher. It all depends on how much people want to jump into the Mooney way of life. But again, no one should be buying an airplane hoping it will appreciate in value...rather, you buy it to appreciate ITS value to you!

I've noticed the same thing. There are far fewer Ovations to choose from right now than when I bought mine in '14. Perhaps it's self-gratification (no, not THAT kind!) but I choose to believe it's because we know we've got such a great airplane that there's no reason to sell! Honestly, for my current mission, there is no other airplane I would buy. And in corollary, I was pleasantly surprised at this year's Mooney Summit how many Ovations were parked on the lot. I thought it was an outsized representation given their relative numbers in the Mooney fleet. These birds are really getting flown around.

I'll be interested in the responses as well. I agree that that documentation is sparse. I know when I bought my plane it had just undergone a "required 7 year inspection" or some such, but there's little to say exactly what is required in the POH or anywhere else. I suppose this would be in the actual service manual, which I don't have. Russ, it may be worth a call to Mooney to have them point in the right direction.

Too soon to speculate on the cause. But I know that when the ICON was first announced, my boss at the time (also a pilot) and I became very concerned about how it was being marketed. The video was showing it as a water toy with lots of low flight over the water, sweeping turns...exactly like a "fighter pilot". Sure was thrilling. But also brought into question how this plane would be used. I know ICON put a very stringent training program in place so we assume Hallyday went through that. I wonder (just me speculating) if having solid flight experience might actually be a detriment in this plane. "Flying just like a fighter pilot" when you don't have the years of training and backup safety systems that fighter pilots enjoy may be just the recipe for disaster. Someone with less experience would (hopefully) treat the endeavor with more caution until the appropriate competence level is achieved. But hey, history is rife with examples of Type A personalities who achieved success in one milieu and translated that into flaming death in another. The Beech Bonanza had such a reputation for quite a long time, which it finally outlasted.

That just sounds like a good drivers ed course to me. I had those behaviors drilled into me at age 14...we got to start driving early in Kansas farm country. But I suspect it takes a certain type of personality to actually embrace that ethic...so which came first, the behavior or the pilot’s license?