Garfly

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2025/april/22/jeppesen-foreflight-sold

I presume this is it:

Some relevant points in Jason Miller's 'Finer Points' latest:

This video sets out the somewhat similar situation in the US, but all based on ADSB data collection. It claims that this is contrary to assurances from government that the data would never be used for non-safety-related purposes, nor for regulation enforcement. (The key points are made between mins 05:00 and 10:00)

Midair collision involving Eurocopter EC130 B4, VH-XH9, and Eurocopter EC130 B4, VH-XKQ, Main Beach, Gold Coast, Queensland, on 2 January 2023 | ATSB WWW.ATSB.GOV.AU

Yes, we're all going for our bushcraft badge.

There's a vid for that ... 😉

The final two films in the series:

Maybe a solid fuel stove like this? This guy reckons you can also use alcohol fuel with it at a pinch.

It turns out the Vilnius 737 crash, too, came down to simple wrong switch flicking:

A new and nicely done video review of the Nynja from France. English subtitles are available by way of YT's CC button.

A Dynon, or similar PFD, is only able to report TAS because it's fed air data (pitot/static) along with outside air temp and is privy to pressure altitude, so it has all it needs to calculate TAS. (Like you can do manually - and roughly - on some old style Air Speed Indicators by dialling in OAT against PA). But an EFB - if we're talking portable tablet devices - has no clue as to TAS because it gets no air data.

Sweet AND sour? ;- )

My wild guess would be that maybe half of all VFR aircraft flying around these days are using some kind of ADSB-out device. Just judging on the number of aircraft one now gets to hear AND see. (And all IFR flights must have it.) Even more would be making use of some kind of IN-only solution. The government subsidy plus low cost gear plus increasing acceptance all seem to be working. So when you're ready to formulate questions I'm sure you'll get plenty of answers here..

T510, Congrats on the Cub! As you've probably worked out, self-contained solutions involve an approved portable ADSB IN/OUT device (like a Uavionix SkyEcho2) used with a tablet (iOS or Android) used with an Electronic Flight Bag (EFB) app such as OzRunways and AvPlan. You could poke around on this site, searching for "SkyEcho2" or "SE2" and you'll be deluged with passionate chat about all of the above, but maybe as an intro to the subject you could look at these sites (you can also look for YouTube tutorials): ADS-B Devices | OzRunways WWW.OZRUNWAYS.COM and here: Traffic Displays - AvPlan EFB - Electronic Flight Bag WWW.AVPLAN-EFB.COM Recent events have sparked a debate about the usefulness and capabilities of EFBs and traffic displays. At AvPlan EFB we […] SkyEcho - uAvionix UAVIONIX.COM Australia ADS-B rebate program round 2 is open! Save now on SkyEcho! Learn More SkyEcho Electronic Conspicuity SkyEcho is a portable ADS-B IN/OUT transceiver consistent with the UK, Australian and New

Yes, here's a sample TAFG which does unfold an AD's forecast across a timeline. It'd be interesting to see the idea extended to a planned route. CLICK FOR FULL REZ.

Of course it is, but how does one come away from that video imagining its authors simply missed that most basic fact (among others) ? Clearly, the film's starting point is that as pilots we KNOW that Density Altitude can kill; likewise a heavy load, a tail-wind, an up-slope and, to be sure, a draggy, clingy surface. (Before we even get to our own skill level and our own aeroplane's declining vigour.) The point of the Air Safety Institute video (far beyond just preaching "caution") is that, added to all that, your POH can also kill, if you put unwarranted faith in its P-chart claims. The experiments that the video team took pains to do turned up the shocking results that book take-off figures were, in the real world, fully 30% "optimistic" (in 2 common GA types). Yes, of course, they did these experiments on bitumen but the whole point of P-charts/Tables or Take-Off Calculator apps is that a good set of numbers from any given situation can (by extrapolation/interpolation and known factors) yield rough results for most others. With, of course, an added margin for safety. But that unaccounted-for 30% error stretches 'rough' to its very limits - and in quite the wrong direction. Which is probably why AOPA/ASI recommends adding 50% to book figures and urges us to "Go fly and test this for yourself!"

The(US) Air Safety Institute rolls its own:

Yes, thanks DJP. Here it is as .pdf: advisory-circular-91-02-guidelines-for-aeroplanes-with-mtow-not-exceeding-5700-kg-suitable-places-to-take-off-and-land_0.pdf

No ... but it can't hurt to do your own reality check on your aircraft's book figures - assuming you even have P-charts for your plane. "I’ve personally had the miserable experience of beginning a takeoff roll in a type-certificated light plane and not being sure that I’d have enough of a climb rate to stay safe in the initial climb. I was pretty sure, but I was flying a very old airplane with a very thin POH, and I didn’t have any way to be certain. This is an experience that I never want to repeat ... " Jared Yates, Kitplanes. Predicting Performance WWW.KITPLANES.COM John T. Lowry's Bootstrap approach makes it easy to create performance charts for your pilot's operating handbook. By Jared Yates.