midlifeflyer

I used to do things like quit organizations when I didn't like something going on internally, but, somewhere along the way, I figured out that if I quit an organization solely because I didn't like it's internal politics, I wouldn't be a member of anything.

I browse my logbook, sometimes to reminisce, but I leave MyFlightBook to those types of milestones. My page shows over 20, including highest and lowest airports, number of airports I've landed in, number of states I've landed in, number of countries/continents I've flown in, when I logged by 25th different model of airplane, that type of stuff. Some you don't necessarily want to know, like the longest streak of not flying.

I think that's typical. A delay for release means they need time in order to fit you in. The inability to fit you in doesn't disappear with a VFR departure. Purely technique, but I'm also a believer in picking up IFR on the ground in unfamiliar areas. Using FRG as an example, I had my "expected "clearance. It was different by the time I called Clearance Delivery. A clearance easy to copy and load on the ground can be a bear once in the air, especially when there are unfamiliar waypoints. If you are heading south on departure, you can anticipate vectors in a counterclockwise box, ultimately placing you over the JFK runways.

In that airspace, based in my limited experience (twice), I’d pick it up on the ground unless you are prepared to remain VFR until well clear of the area.

Thanks. I did two versions of the video. This was the one for my flying club. The other was more for friends and family - more music, less ATC. FWIW, inbound from the south about an hour earlier that day involved a slam dunk from downwind /base to the runway. If you are given ground references, advising the Tower you are “unfamiliar” helps. I didn’t have any local knowledge (I’m based in NC). It was my first time there. I’d use ISP previously. A little further out, but I think it’s a little easier because it’s less constricted from a practical standpoint.

FWIW, I’ve done both FRG and ISP. Definitely FRG if heading into Queens or Brooklyn. And yes, it can get busy. Not only because of the airport traffic itself, but its location in JFK’s flight path. Pay very close attention to the ATIS. It’s not just weather and runway. Example at the very beginning of this video…

There is actually a defined “pilot time” that is different than either. It includes simulation. The definition is in 61.1.

I like that word, but asking that question rarely provides an antidote. Besides, you’ll usually find the technique written somewhere.

As @MikeOH indicates, you are not acting as PIC in that scenario, but you may log pic in that scenario. That’s because “A sport, recreational, private, commercial, or airline transport pilot may log pilot in command flight time for flights— (i) … when the pilot is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated, or has sport pilot privileges for that category and class of aircraft, if the aircraft class rating is appropriate;” Is quite literal. Rated for the aircraft, not the operation.

If I’m understanding the question (and like @kortopates I’m not sure I do), yes, you have to have the VOR frequency in active to track a VOR.

I used to periodically do an airworthiness question about a piece of inop equipment. There was a strong correlation between getting it wrong and learning a certain mnemonic about burning red fruit. I regularly get a wrong answer about the need for an IFR alternate when the destination has no IAP from those whose only understanding is the 1-2-3 rule. The problem isn’t that mnemonics are a shorthand, it’s that they are often a replacement.

You mean you haven’t noticed reading the regsv being replaced by mnemonics and “belief” in what they say?

Anyone can learn to read them. Problem is that CFIs teach to be afraid of reading them. I learned how to read and write outlines in 5th grade.

Please don't say that. It leads to Regaphobia., a self-fulfilling, irrational fear of reading regulations based on a belief they are incomprehensible. The sufferer simply avoids even trying.

We'll break that down. First, yes, there is a solo sign off for a multi - flying a different category/class of aircraft. It's one of the many items listed in 61.31, where you also find things like tailwheel and complex endorsements. In this case, it's 61.31(d). It's not done often because insurance companies simply won't insure solo in a multi. That's the whole reason why "performing the duties of PIC with an authorized instructor on board" originally came along. Second, no, having the solo endorsement does not authorize logging PIC when receiving dual. 61.51, which I call the "Universal Rule of Logging Flight Time" has a series of boxes for logging PIC. One is when you are the only person on board (solo). The "sole manipulator" clause requires you be rated for the aircraft. That doesn't happen until you get a pilot certificate with that category and class listed on the back under "Ratings." A solo endorsement is not a "rating." "Sole manipulator of the flight controls" just means the only human being who is managing the three axes of flight. I talks about a lot of this in my IFR Magazine article, Logging vs. Being PIC

Well, sort of. I just did a route from KSSI to KPMP. Turned on approved IFR routes. Result was "No recently approved IFR routes found," and made up a Victor airway routing. Doing the same in Foreflight gave me 5 different ones that had been approved a combination of 63 times. Garmin Pilot: 7 given a combination of 37 times. FltPlan.com shows more than the other two. I know that different apps and sites which do this use different parameters for what they consider "recent", but zero seems a bit unhelpful for planning purposes.

I can't account for people disagreeing, but 98% of the logging questions have clear answers in FAR 61.51. And most of the other 2% have been answered via FAA Chief Counsel interpretations going 40 years. The instructor who said you can't log PIC when the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft you were not rated for (unless solo) was correct.

They are not being counted because commercial training requirements are all post-private. Your student dual and solo cross countries won’t count toward the commercial cross country requirements either.

I got curious and created a trial. Flight planning is as bad as I remember. It say it looks at recently cleared routes, but I don’t see it. And, if it does, it doesn’t let you choose. Just picks one for you.

They tried to make the transition. There was an iPad version, Flight Guide EFB that I think first appeared in 2010 or 2011. Here's an article on it from Aviation Consumer. It didn't quite make it and I think they shut down 3-4 years later. I forget what year FlyQ added them. This is a FlyQ chart I pulled out as an example when I had a FlyQ subscription.

It was one of the multiple EGBs I subscribed to. In this case, special deal for CFIs. I stopped after the customer relations debacle, so my impressions might be a bit outdated. I thin it's an excellent EFB for VFR use. Among other things, one of their acquisitions along the way was the airport diagrams from the little, brown FlightGuide books (for those who remember them). That means, like Foreflight and Pilot, they have their own set of airport diagrams for airports the FAA doesn't publish stand-alone diagrams for. Unlike FF and GP, they don't charge extra for them being georeferenced. I think that's a big plus for VFR pilots. I never liked its flight planning. It had a bad habit of creating routes whenever you put in a departure and destination. But, last time I used it, the app did not have the ability to access recently-cleared IFR routes. I think that has changed since, which would be a big plus for IFR, and perhaps flight planning in general. Most everting else comes down to whether it has the features you want and, I think even more important, a flow you feel comfortable with. That means taking advantage of the trial and playing round with it.

There was something before Madonna?

Enjoy your retirement, Scott. With continuing writing, etc, however, you may find, like I did, that I can't figure out how I ever had time to work.

Thanks for the comments on my side question about dual GPS units. It's given me some excellent ideas.

I'd want to read the entire policy before coming to the conclusion that no medical certification is required. Even without more, "currently effective" is subject to an interpretation that it includes both pilot and medical currency.