eaglewing7

You'd be amazed at the stuff you see at some flight schools. Alright, you'll never manage to retract the gear, but flattening tires is certainly a common sight. The worst offenders are students with ratcheting tie downs, which generally are a godsend after using ropes or pull tight straps - but not when students are less than attentive to what they are doing...

I just looked in Aperture, I ended up keeping 41 pictures, which means I probably took somewhere around 80. Which is surprising, but also makes sense at the same time. Sometimes you just end up flying around with your camera slung around your neck, and then you land and remember oh shit I was going to take pictures wasn't I... I'll take a look at posting a few later today or tomorrow.

Congrats on finding someone to be a regular passenger. And ferries can be interesting. I did one September 2015, one of four C172R's from Ontario to British Columbia. Three days, and 21.5 hours.

I've always found flying with passengers to be a much more rewarding experience than flying alone. And I've had some really awesome flights by myself as well, but having passengers on board especially when they start nervous and then through explanation and your own enthusiasm become enthusiastic as well, is very rewarding. Unfortunately, I've only done a sum total of 1.1 hours this year, today specifically - although it was a fun flight by myself doing low level circuits in the Citabria.

Roger that.

Is there a way to remove the right side columns, as was possible with the previous incarnation of the forum's software? Otherwise, it certainly looks slick.

I have heard of different airlines using single engine taxi procedures, both before takeoff and after landing. From what I can recall, Jazz uses it on the Q300/Q400 series, and Porter on the Q400. I would imagine Encore would use it as well. It makes a difference at large airports, especially with lengthy taxi durations, delays, etc. I've also heard of more than a few companies that use the procedure on jets, for the same reasons.

It depends on the individual aircraft. I've seen injected 172s where you need to prime only until you see peak fuel flow indication. Others are happy to peak and then hold, etc... As for a warm engine, you should not have to prime at all (warm being 30 minutes or less since shut down). If you do prime a warm engine, you are asking for trouble.

Your last interpretation is correct. Consider the province of Quebec. Being a Francophone province, they tend to speak French, and ATC will be provided in French - but they are required to speak English as required (then again they don't like it but that is another story).

Time and again people think that English is the only language allowed for ATC/radio communication, and that is simply not true. ICAO has mandated that there are six standard languages that can be used. They are; English, Spanish, French, Arabic, Russian, and Chinese.

You are landing in a significant crosswind. As shown on the display the wind is from 249° at 61KTS. That is an incredible amount of wind. I for one cannot see any aircraft landing safely with that amount of wind, especially at nearly 90° of crosswind. Next time choose a more into wind runway. The reason you crashed was likely due to the fact that the aircraft ran out of rudder authority, and at that point you're dead on a crosswind.

And why, in a 172 do you need two altimeters, especially when they are set to two different pressures?

Big green circles - those would be irrigation circles. A round field, with an irrigation system that rotates around a pivot at the centre of the field. Completely realistic, and used all around the world. At least be somewhat knowledgeable before you spout off about inaccuracies.

She looks better than new, any chance of giving the panel a bit of wear, just to give her some of the character of the birds plying the BC coast? One other thing I wasn't going to mention, you left out the dents on each side of the panel, directly in front of the pilots seats... Most Beavers have them, especially the ones that have been operating for a lot of years - they are imprints of foreheads, the original Beaver never had shoulder harnesses, so if a Beaver came to grief (which most have in their time), the pilot and forward passenger often ended up getting a rather hard knock to the head on the panel. Ouch.

Sneaking in just before official night?

Certainly brining new customers into X-Plane, will be a good thing for Laminar. But it is my opinion, that just because someone or some group is revered for what they have done with regards to one sim, doesn't mean a damn thing at all when they step into a different arena. PDMG may be the greatest thing since sliced bread for FSX, but who the hell are they in the eyes of the X-Plane community? I've gotten on just fine with the variety of developers in X-Plane so far...

Am I the only one around, who really doesn't care for the long drawn out revelation BS? Seriously, it has taken years for them to say what they have been working on. I really couldn't care less whether or not a developer is working on something, that may be released at some point, that will be announced at a future date, that will be a game changer... Just announce the damn thing, all at once, when you're close to releasing it for sale. I find the drawn out release process to be annoying, rather than exciting, and as a matter of fact, I tend to ignore the news flash updates, when they do arrive. Flame away.

I've made my views on drones/UAS/UAVs known on other forums, suffice it to say that I am in favour of these devices being regulated. But I do believe there should be a line drawn between commercial and private use, but any regulator has to ensure that private owners do not begin using their drones for commercial purposes, etc... I also look at it from the point of a aeroplane pilot, where I want any device that can pose a significant threat to safety, to be regulated in a way that protects myself and others. There have been too many cases where drones have been flown well into the approach paths at many airports, and conflicted with jet and other aircraft traffic. But I digress... Here is something that I came across, just received it in the daily Vertical Magazine email: http://www.verticalmag.com/news/article/30405

Looks great, can't wait to see the finished product. Any plans for the -2T, or maybe the rest of the DHC line up? I kid. Take a well deserved break when you are done.

That's a shame, it would be nice if the grass/dirt/gravel field takeoff and landing issues could be fixed. But, I guess like all digital products, eventually they reach their end of life cycle where developers no longer update/support them.

Pretty good hit to the spinner cone on that Q. Probably no damage to the engine thought. Is it just me or is the Daily Mail a tad bit sensationalist?

Not a crash, rather a forced landing, and a rather nicely done one at that. Minimal damage, and only minor injuries (but what do you expect when an aircraft jars to a stop, people tend to be tossed around a bit, similar to a car accident, regardless of whether or not you have your seat belt on). And yes, this is an Jazz aircraft, not Air Canada. Please inform me how this could have been a disaster? A gear collapse on landing, which results in a yawing moment, which then takes the aircraft off the side of the runway at low speed (which the aircraft would have been at, because the crew knew there was a problem after taking off in Calgary, and also because this is a landing incident). Yes, the right engine had a blade separation event, but even so, at the low to idle power of landing, the odds of a full penetration by the composite propeller blades is low. Yes it did penetrate, but not all that far (odds are there may be an A/D in the works from Bombardier suggesting that operators install a bit of additional sheet metal on the fuselage adjacent to the blades, just as a cover your ass move).

I highly doubt that. There is a lot of money behind this program, and while this is certainly a serious setback for Virgin and Scaled Composites, it will likely drive them to push for future successes. Sad that the pilot has died, but as was noted in the BBC coverage of this event, this further proves that the quest for space is, and always will be a dangerous undertaking.

That would certainly be a problem. Which makes me wonder why Garmin did not go with auto dimming, like on the GNS430/530, etc. It always worked quite well in my opinion, and if you needed it brighter momentarily, just shine a light on the photocell and it brightened up... VFR at night, could be a problem in some areas then for sure, but in sparsely populated areas, it may actually help. Of course, my other concern would be an electrical failure, good luck flying with the backup artificial horizon, hidden down by your knees. With regards to another piece of "glass", I've flown a Seneca III with an Aspen panel, and it was quite nice, because it is compact, so it doesn't take up the whole panel, and has a ton of information based on how you layer it in, but I've never used it at night, which makes me wonder how they act at night? Any idea?

Funny how the first thing I noticed, was that the heat/defrost vents were closed or restricted. Never see that up here, always open, and ready to go. Then again, we probably only have some use for them six months out of the year. Looks like a great flight. I have a question for you though, how much of a distraction do you find the G1000 to be when flying VFR, and especially at night? Seems to me that it probably does draw attention away from the visual aspect of flying, and you may end up with your head inside too much?