donkaye, MCFI

Of course it was tongue in cheek.

Actually, yes, but it was in bad weather and incorrect use of the parachute. It was the accident over Donner Summit a number of years ago. The parachute failed by being deployed at too high a speed and the plane disintegrated. So, having a parachute didn't necessarily help when used incorrectly. This person had just taken the Cirrus training course a couple of weeks earlier.

To the OP: You've got to be kidding. In heavy turbulence which airplane would you rather be in: a "plastic" one or one built like a tank with a steel roll cage around the cabin? I personally don't like a side stick either, and I want complete pitch control, not pitch control limited by the resolution of a trim motor. Since the transformation of my airplane over the past few years, there is no way I would trade down to a turbine or even an Acclaim. I feel fortunate to have purchased mine before Mooney quit making the best single engine piston airplane out there.

You are sitting right on the edge of a cliff and most certainly will fall off in the not too distant future. It was the failure of my EFIS 40 (Electronic Flight Information System) that led to my upgrading my panel. BK wanted over $18,000 to repair what amounted to 30 year old technology, totally hardware oriented, that required new expensive hardware for any change that was made for it--and all it was was a glorified HSI that had infinitely less capability than what is now the Garmin G5. I would rate its value today at $0.00. In fact less than Zero if you were to sell your airplane today. The sooner you get rid of it the better. Regarding the KLN90B, it was the best of its generation, but that was 2 generations ago. The GTNs have so much more capability that it's time to usher in the new generation in my opinion. Say goodbye to the trusty KSN81 and KY196A while you're at it. They, too, have pretty well out lived their usefulness. You'll be much happier with the GTN 750Xi than the GTN 650Xi. Better yet, get both as long as you're at it.

I just picked up a Bravo there last week and ferried it to Stockton for a pre-buy. Since they had done the Annuals on it previously, they didn't want the conflict of interest. They have a brand new facility.

I can't offer much assistance here in that I have never flown a plane with the Garmin EIS except for the G1000 and that is different from what you are asking. To me one big negative of the EIS is that it takes up screen real estate unless you buy the separate 7'' display. JPI makes good products, but a student I have has the JPI 900 and the numbers are so small in the column beside the engine graphics that I need a magnifying glass to read them comfortably. I'd personally never buy it. I do like a dedicated engine monitor, and I have really been satisfied with the MVP-50. The EIS does have the ability to send data the iPad in real time so you cans how your engine is running without downloading the data when you get home. However, if it were available when I did my upgrade, I think I would still choose the MVP-50 because of all the things it can do. In particular it has two registers for fuel used, one for fuel used since adding fuel and one for fuel used for each trip that resets automatically on engine shutdown. If I'm taking my plane to a student to do instruction it is easy for me to determine how much fuel I used for the trip without any computations. There are other things I like about it like simultaneous readouts of temperature in both °F and °C.

I have a hangar at San Jose International Airport (KSJC). I have been naming the City of San Jose, California as an additional insured on my aircraft policy for the past 25 years as a requirement to lease from them. If your plane damages their hangar, they want to know that they will be compensated. There is no cost to adding them. If it goes against what you feel is right, then don't lease from them. I'm sure there are plenty of others who would.

As a flight instructor I get 33% off of Foreflight, so I subscribe to the top level for that. I'm not a major user, but I like the 3D aspect of checking out airports I haven't been to before. My main iPad program is Garmin Pilot, and I have Jeppesen Charts tied into it. I, also, use the Jeppesen iPad program JeppFD. I use the Garmin Onepak for all my in panel avionics. Although I've recently spent a lot of time talking about the 760, it is just the "normalizer" of the variety of avionics in student's airplanes. In my airplane I use it for approach charts, and through the FS 210/510 and hardwire, get backup traffic and weather and XM radio. Inotherwords I use everything that is available to pilots in conducting safer flight. For some all of this is not financially possible. So, take whatever comments I give for some of this hardware and buy whatever you can afford to make your flying safer. I'm fortunate at being able to be the guinea pig in testing out all of this stuff.

Today I broke down and bought the Jepps for half the Country for the 760. The cost for half was about ¼ the cost for the whole country. They loaded perfectly.

It looks like an Aera 660.

I just discovered today that it is important that the orientation of the GDL 52 be lights in front and antenna in the back if you are to consider using the attitude portion. If you mount it opposite i.e. antenna in front, lights in back then left and right turns are reversed, and if you mount it end to end, like I first had mine it won't show any turns. So I changed my mounting position on the suction mount.

Personally, I think it's best to have both, each serving its different purposes with intersecting uses at appropriate times.

I have to admit that I love the speed of the GTN Xi series, but I really don't notice it's improved resolution. The resolution on the 760 is fine for me and I don't think improving it would add any benefit for me.

This suction cup mount is one of the beefiest I have seen, made specifically for the GDL 5X series. It's been attached for nearly 2 months now with no loss of suction.

I've attached a link to the pictures of my mounting of the Aera 760 and GDL 52. I didn't want the GDL 52 on the glareshield, so I had Peter Casares, who has done most of the upgrade work on my plane, do the installation. The suction cup mount made specifically for the GDL 5X series is beefy and has remained locked on to the window for the past several months without loss of suction. I keep finding new additions to the 760. The latest is the ability when downloading the active track to download either the entire track (this was the only way in previous handhelds), the past 24 hours, the past 7 days, a selected flight, or specific Dates. The data can then be used in Garmin BaseCamp, Google Earth, or other compatible program to analyze the flight or range of flights.

You really need both.

I thought about posting this in my previous thread about the Aera 760, but thought in view of today's circumstances it was better to start a new thread. Today was interesting to say the least. As a result of having been completely vaccinated, for the first time in over a year I took on a ferry job that involved flying Commercially to get the airplane. If I hadn't been vaccinated, it would have been a very uncomfortable trip. The Southwest flight was totally packed and when arriving in San Diego the terminal had more people packed in waiting for flights than I have ever seen, even before Covid. (See Photo below. It was actually worse than it looks in the photo) I thought it was going to be an easy flight with no substantial weather. I did a text briefing from Garmin Pilot and scanned METARs and Terminal Forecasts. I should have spent more time and actually gone on a computer to see what was potentially out there a few hours later. When I looked down on the trip from San Jose there really wasn't anything going on. So I filed out of San Diego to Stockton on my usual flight plan; Oceanside to Seal Beach, then up V459 to Lake Hughes, then Visalia to get around the Lemore NAS MOAs, then direct Stockton. Everything was looking good up through LA. At that point I looked ahead, and in the middle of California there was a significant band of weather that had developed just behind a cold front. Tops were 20,000 feet so there couldn't be much convection, but there were a significant number to storm cells that were showing on the G1000, the 760, and the iPad. The band was moving pretty fast, since at 16,000 feet it was a direct crosswind at 40 knots. Just out of the Tehachapis I primed the TKS to make sure it was working. If I had been flying my airplane it would have been land and possibly stay overnight due to reported icing. As I moved closer to the weather I asked for and actually got a block altitude clearance in California. As I asked for higher from my initial cruising altitude of 14,000, the Controller quizzed me as to whether I really meant go lower, since some other aircraft had asked for lower. No, I wanted higher to possibly top it. The band did not extend to Stockton. so I knew I wouldn't be descending into a mess. First I asked for 16,000, then a block 16,000-17,00, then FL180, then FL 190. The temperature went to a -19°C. In the initial climb the windshield started to pick up ice. I turned on the TKS at that point. and it dissipated. At 19,000 feet I was still in cloud but I could see the sun, the conditions were smooth, there was no ice, and no convection. The stormscope showed nothing and the storm cells were moving east past me. ATC gave me a descent, which I declined due to still being around some indicated storm cells. They followed that with a pilot discretion descent. So what does all this have to do with the titled topic? I was monitoring all of this on the iPad and had set up the approach with the RNAV 29 approach plate overplayed on the map in preparation to running the approach. I got a little turbulence on the descent and I look over at the iPad and it had shut down. It had plenty of juice, but wouldn't turn back on, and I was busy being vectored for the descent since I had to stay high for so long. There was no time to trouble shoot it. I quickly set up the 760 for the approach and overlayed the plate on it. I had previously loaded the approach on the G1000, so I was set up for the navigation. When I got home, of course, the iPad turned on. I will never trust the iPad. Thank goodness for the 760, the normalizer once again. I know the plates are on the G1000, but I hadn't flown the G1000 in quite awhile, so hadn't set it up before hand. In my airplane, in which I know the avionics backwards and forwards, I have plates on both the G500 TXi and the GTN 750Xi in addition to the Aera 760 and iPad, so a failure of the iPad with that many backups is a none event. Not so today. The 760 backup came in very handy. Of course if that had failed, then I would have asked for additional vectors, as I set up the plate on the G1000. The moral of this story is you better have a backup to the iPad (preferably two) if you are using it for your primary approach plate and weather, and what better to use than the Aera 760?

I don't find that to be the case. With a nose up attitude of about 8° at touchdown you can and should see at least two centerline strips ahead. If you don't, then you flared too much too soon. It should never be necessary, and is in fact dangerous in my opinion, to look out the side window prior to touchdown. You might not be on centerline and might be drifting. I've flown and taught in all model Mooneys except the D and G and none of them have an obstructed view of the runway at touchdown if flared properly. All Mooneys, and for that matter all airplanes, land the same if flown with a stabilized 3° glideslope and with the proper airspeed +/- 1 knot.

There's a need for both. Each serves unique functions with Garmin Pilot providing briefing and flight plan filing services. Internet access on the 760 is limited to some weather on the ground (IR Satellite, METARS, Radar (Base and Composite Reflectivity, and TAFs), and database downloads from Garmin. Until recently Garmin was making all of its interfaces the same with a Main Menu of Icons. They recently changed the Garmin Pilot interface and eliminated the Menu Page Icons. Instead they have a row of icons along the bottom of the application. This does save an extra tap. Also, the number of icons has increased so it makes it easier to see them all. The 760 is easily viewable in sunlight, where the iPad is not. Also, I like having the 760 on the yoke for quick access to frequencies and data I use frequently. For me the iPad is too big and I prefer the aviation dedicated unit to the iPad, even the mini.

So I checked out the 3D vision on a flight yesterday and it seemed to work as advertised. I just "Caged the Gyro" when in level flight and the Horizon was reset. In turbulence it could be more sensitive than in smooth air. I, also, discovered another upgrade in the 760 I hadn't see before. With Metars available from XM or Fis-B both the headwind and crosswind component to a runway are displayed on the Airport (Waypoint) Page under Runway.

Yes. Having completed the vaccine regimen and waited an additional 3 weeks to build up immunity, I feel comfortable flight instructing again. I still maintain requiring masks in the cockpit and carry a bottle of sanitizer wherever I go.

It looks like the FS210 is compatible with the 760, so it should work for you just like the 796 for attitude. I'll check my internal attitude source to see if mine works. I'm not expecting much, since my unit is not panel mounted, but yoke mounted. Raul, in the final analysis there are just so many other added features to the 760 that when used for awhile, I don't think you would NOT want to go back to the 796. It does take some getting used to, though.

Although I made a checklist for the 796, I never used it, so didn't notice it was missing. Maybe they could add it in a future software update. Regarding the AHARS, I'll have to try the internal one. As you say, it is available externally from a number of sources. I do know the attitude can be reset in flight.

The timers on the GTNs display seconds and can be reached in either a couple of taps or a couple of knob turns with the latest software update to the GTN Xi. When I got my instrument rating a clock was needed to time some approaches from the FAF to the MAP. With today's GPS approaches to most airports in the country, when has there been a need for timing? I think the FARs need to be updated to remove that instrument requirement.

I guess you get what you pay for. It lacks a trim servo, lacks the option for yaw damper servo, follows track instead of heading, can't be used for instrument approaches, requires resetting the Baro at every baro change, and is generally too complicated to operate. I've watched this pilot's review of the Dynon, and thought it, too, if compared to the Garmin G500TXi, was too complicated for general use.