midlifeflyer

Here’s what I don’t understand. I have been in online groups since the days of AvSig on Compuserve and rec.aviation.* on Usenet. MooneySpace is one of several forums I participate in now.it is the only one that has continuously been attacked so voraciously. why?

Yes. All it means to me is that FF feels it’s not ready for prime time.

I literally bought the Ghost for the battery life when mounting outside the airplane. Inside the airplane, I don't care; I run the cameras off an external battery, so battery life is not an issue. I only care about camera WiFi capability to make sure they are pointed where I want; otherwise it's set and forget. I wasn't aware it's compatible with the NFlightCam cable, Good to know.

Since I’m going to make stops every 3 - 3.5 hours anyway (I don’t see aviation as an Iron Man competition), I plan based on the worst fuel burn. I’m still monitoring fuel usage with a totalizer or keeping track of my time expectations and keeping an eye on the fuel gauges since I will always believe them when they go low.

Not 360 (actually, I'm not a fan, but yours don't go crazy) but on flights like that I use a Drift Ghost X. The reason is that it actually has a 3-hour battery. Set it before climbing into the airplane and forget it. I won't post the whole video here (this is your thread), but this a snapshot of a Cessna 172 flight we took out of Squamish, BC and around Whistler. (I should have mounted it on the other side, away from the pitot.

Thank you. I knew I had to be missing something. But I stand by my answer

I don’t understand the reference to G1000. G1000 is an OEM product not available as a retrofit. the answer to what is needed to upgrade steam gauges to GI275 is, “money.” I obviously don’t understand what you are asking, what do you have in the panel now?

Garmin Pilot, Foreflight, and FltPlan Go! That’s it.

FWIW, I've done large dogs with no crate; just a seat belt tether. Tarp to protect the back seat (mostly just in case). The large dogs I've done have treated it like a car (I ask how they are in cars). Toby, the Golden in this video, jumped on board and curled up in the back seat. Fell asleep shortly after takeoff and awoke during the descent. Same for Hunter a pointer - he was great. As we taxied, he "pointed" at other airplanes taking off and landing.

The way it’s suppose to work. Get TRACON to do its job so pilots can do theirs. An ATC and pilot partnership.

This afternoon is a no-go for me. If you are going to be busy, don't worry about it. If you think you'' have time, PM me.

It's #113. "Not Cleared for the Visual. "

BTW, if you happen to be a PilotWorkshops IFR Mastery subscriber, there's an IFR version of this scenario. In that one, the pilot is told to "expect visual approach," is vectored onto final, but does not hear he words "cleared for the visual" when instructed to "contact Tower." The pilot changes frequencies but notices the missing clearance before keying the mic. Even some of the RoundTable members visibly cringed at my answer of what to do.

If you are looking for perfect clarity, it's not there. The 100% guaranteed safest answer? Always ask if you are not comfortable about it. There's a bit of situational awareness to this. For example, in my mind, there is a difference between transiting over the top of a Delta at pattern altitude vs. 1,000' above it. Near pattern altitude and a potential interference with pattern traffic, my spidey sense would act up and I'd be wondering whether Approach forgot to hand me off. "Do you need me to switch to Tower" is so easy to say. I gave the example earlier about Pueblo Colorado where I received my pattern instructions and landing clearance from Approach. I know that's unusual and I know that the pattern is Tower's domain. When I received the "make left downwind" instruction, I read back, "Left downwind runway 26; should we switch to Tower?" Answer was, "stay with me." (Turns out the controller was working all three stations - Approach, Tower, and Ground - that morning. Go find that in the FARs!) Your situation presents a similar issue. You don't know and can't know (LOAs are not public) how that facility separates Tower and TRACON jurisdiction within the Charlie. I can't say what I would do in your situation because I wasn't there, but a simple readback, "follow the freeway, right traffic 25, should I contact Tower now?" would not be a crazy idea. "Required" from a regulatory perspective? I don't think so (and I'm actually less concerned here than in the TRACON to D situation because I've been on downwind VFR at pattern altitude still talking to Approach at a Class B primary and well inside the inner circle as Cs many times; never thought about asking to switch), but that doesn't mean it would not be a good operating practice to check if you think something is strange. Bear in mind that I tend to have what I think is a very practical ... um ... approach .. to these kinds of issues and if there's a compliance risk, it's too small for me to care about.

I hope that doesn't mean you are worried about the handoff to Tower In for anything special? Time for a coffee or something?

I don't necessarily disagree with the technicalities of your regulatory analysis (except that VFR "cleared" is a misnomer with respect to any airspace except Classes A & B). But from a completely practical standpoint, if I have established 2-way communications with TRACON, a Class D transit (or Class C inner circle penetration) is simply something I don't worry about.

Incredibly beautiful. Thanks for sharing that.

Just a side note… Regulatory nuance aside, there is a very practical reason for the change in attitude. In order for ATC to report the pilot deviation (assuming there was one), they have to report their own (which is clear).

There's a little bit of fudge in here, but these are the basics. The communication rules for Class C and D airspace (FAR 91.129 and 91.130) require the establishment and maintenance of communications with "with the ATC facility having jurisdiction over that area" (Class D) / "with the ATC facility having jurisdiction over that area "(Class C). The problem in situations like yours - into the Class C primary - and more generally, TRACON to Tower in either airspace is that you and I really don't know who that is. That for various reasons, most of which are agreements between TRACON and Tower we are not privy to. Two examples (among hundreds). This is a Class B to D example, but it's the same situation. The specific airspace doesn't matter but it helps for this example. Those familiar with the picture at the bottom will recognize it as the Denver Class B centered on the BJC Class D. The Bravo starts at 8,000. Below is the BJC Delta. On this training flight we were not talking to Denver and were planning to cross over BJC. My student called BJC Tower and requested transition at 7,500. Tower told us to call Denver Approach. There's a letter of agreement between BJC and TRACON giving DEN jurisdiction of that segment of BJC's airspace. At one time Pueblo, Colorado's (KPUB) Class D had its own Approach Control. I've been given pattern instructions and landing clearances there from Approach. The regs don't know this, but ATC does. So the ATC manual tells controllers that it is TRACON's responsibility to "Coordinate with the appropriate control tower for transit authorization when you are providing radar traffic advisory service to an aircraft that will enter another facility's airspace." There's a not to that paragraph: "The pilot is not expected to obtain his/her own authorization through each area when in contact with a radar facility." It's also TRACON's responsibility to "Transfer communications to the appropriate facility, if required, prior to operation within a surface area for which the tower has responsibility." That, in short is why what happened is no big deal and why once told it was TRACON's fault, the tone of the conversation changed. The one caution I have is this. I have no problem with remaining mum and happily transiting a Delta while talking to TRACON. But I see landing at the towered airport differently. Less from a regulatory standpoint than from a practical one. It's tower's job to coordinate runway access. A delayed handoff can cause problems for a busy Tower. So I will always prompt TRACON for a handoff if I am landing. Yes, that's a bit fuzzy, but those who have gotten rid of the last remnants of their their ATC-phobias don't worry about it much.

I used to fly out of KAPA, a very busy Class D under the Denver Class B. After a umber of VFR handoffs very close to and after entering the Delta, I became convinced at one point that Approach was purposely holding back a hand-off to mess with the Tower. One day we were one of several airplanes returning to APA from a GA fly-in into DEN. (I'd do a picture but the APA Class D was revised this past year). Anyway, as we got closer to the Delta, I asked for the handoff. Approach gave me a disappointed sigh and approved the frequency change. I found out later that a number of the airplanes behind me took my lead and did the same. A depressing day for TRACON .

FF users: "Forelight is better" GP users: "Pilot is better."

This is very old information. Hopefully you’ll hear something more current. We flew into BOI 14 years ago. Overnight enroute to Coeur D’Alene from Denver. Two FBOs one closest to each of the parallel runways. Nothing prearranged: BOI was a planned enroute alternate. We landed on 28L, so we went to Western. Walked in wearing my AOPA cap. First words out of their mouth, “we give a discount to AOPA members.” They arranged a hotel over night, recommended restaurants for dinner and breakfast the next day, brought us there, and picked us up. One of the best FBO experiences we’ve ever had.

Yes, mistakes are what kill people. Instead of twisting your heading bug to 100 you accidentally twist it to 010 and look at your iPad and it potentially becomes a bad day. Actually, forget that newfangled heading bug. You heard the instruction wrong and hand flew it to the wrong heading. There are hundreds of things we can do with our equipment (and I don't only mean automation) to give us a bad day (or worst, our last day). "Airmanship" includes proper equipment use.

If you’ve set it up that way, it’s the way to go. An EFB is more than any one feature and I’m not sure any one feature is a good reason to make a change. I run both for instructional purposes (and because I’m a geek when it comes to avionics and EFBs) and often come across things i think one or the other does better. But the ultimate choice of one or the other is about the whole package. Since you have the choice, see which one you actually go to more often.

Having used both, these are two different products, not attempted clones of each other. At their most basic level, Dynamic Procedures is a Map informational overlay; SmartCharts are terminal areas charts (IAPs, SIDs and STARs). Intended use is different. SmartCharts are a potential chart replacement. As Garmin says in some of it's videos on the product, SmartCharts satisfy FAA requirements (at least in the Part 91 world). Once the offering is complete, you could conceivably fly with only SmartCharts without either FAA or Jepp terminal charts. Foreflight's Dynamic Procedures, OTOH, are not. They may start from the same data source, but as FF specifically says on the Sidebar, you are expected to This is not a huge surprise. FF is part of the same company as Jepp. If FF said you could replace Jepp Charts with these, that would be the surprise. One of the more practical differences is the depiction of weather and traffic. As a Map overlay, with Dynamic Procedures, it's there. SmartCharts, as somehting separate from the Map, do not (currently?) display those. But, unlike Foreflight, Pilot does split screen and, from playing with that, the SmarCharts are so decluttered that I think they work well side by side with the Map (so long as you leave the vertical profile off). These are two different approaches, but with every turned on that can be at any one time, you can get an small idea of the basic differences between the two. It will definitely be interesting to see a full side-by-side comparison, but I'm not sure if Aviation Consumer is the place. I did a few comparison articles in IFR and it was always difficult even when trying to show only a single feature (I did one on custom holds). A bunch of words don't do it justice compared to a video, and in this case, you'd probably need 30 pages to cover something that could be shown better in a video flying even one procedure with both