midlifeflyer

The real point is that they don't have to be that decent and experienced. Pre-solo students do it just fine.

I picked up the technique from the guy who takes a view he disagrees with, exaggerates it to something it's not and then attacks his own construct, accusing the other side of using straw men.

Flying pitch and power and using visual cues doesn't take special talent. It's Student Pilot 101. Do we really forget how to fly when we move to more complex aircraft? No one has said not to fly the numbers. But some of us apparently insist on fixating on one instrument only.

No body is arguing that the numbers should not be flown. The disagreement is how to get there. "Fly the numbers" is a nice mantra but I think folks will take that as and excuse to fixate on one or another rather than fly the airplane. I recall the first time it was done to me. Make/Model I never flew before. Also one where it is unforgiving if you don't fly the right numbers on approach. Two landings and then the CFI took out a newspaper and covered the panel. I thought it was nuts until short final just before the flare and he pulled away the newspaper. For God's sale. Fly the airplane.

But I think we are making two completely different assumptions about "ignore the numbers." Yours is that it was a recommendation to always fly that way and never consider expected performance. My assumption is that it was a training exercise designed to help with landing issues by teaching how to land with eyes outside the cockpit. I've used "cover the instruments" for years with everything from landing issues to student pilots having problems flying ground reference maneuvers. Most of the time those issues seem to be based on chasing one numerical parameter or another, Covering the "offending" instrument does not fail to produce a better maneuver so that, when the pilot returns to having all the instruments available he doesn't . If you doubt it works, it just means you haven't done it.

Who said I'm not looking at the numbers? I'm just using visual cues as my primary approach information. With glances to determine whether what I see out the window is accurate. Would it be fair for me to say you are fixating on the numbers and never looking outside? Sure sounds like it based on your comments. Question: have you covered the instrument panel and done landings as a training exercise? That's what it sounds to me like the CFI in question is doing. Of course, if one doesn't like the idea, one will always make up ways to mischaracterize it to attack it.

I have to chuckle. You sound like the guy I once had a pitch/power argument with. He insisted I was already dead because I couldn't possible have landed successfully when wind shear dropped the bottom out on short final and I had to carry full power to touchdown. You'd probably agree with him because I flew attitude that time also.

I don't think so. If you read what I wrote, you see I said It's not about making up some visual picture out of a vacuum and guessing an airspeed. It's about learning the pitch attitude that produces the proper airspeed for that aircraft. Most of us know that pitch attitude even if we don;t realize it (which is why every time I've done it with someone new, they've done it successfully on the very first try). And if not, how much of a glance out the window does it take after stabilizing on final to say to look out the window and say, "so that's what it should look like: and then forget the attitude indicator. I really haven't noticed that much difference between the ptch attitude that produces 70 K IAS at sea level and the pitch attitude that produces 70 KIAS at Leadville on a descent in the same make/model (there definitely is one for climb). I've obviously seen differences among the 30 or so make/models I've flown, but even there they are not all that different. A glance is pretty much all it takes. As far as I can tell, there are much greater problems on landing with pilots flying ASIs (and often either fixating on or chasing it) than with pilots flying attitude. BTW, like you, I'm very much a fly by the numbers guy, so we definitely agree on that part of it.

I used that method (ignore the ASI the way I described it) in Denver. No stall horns with anyone I've done it with

In terms of the original what is a good distance question, I know a lot of folks use 1.5 the book value to account for differences in pilot technique.

I think the key is what a number have said about leaving a lot of leeway at the beginning as you are learning the airplane and learn what it does. Also keep in mind that the "book" numbers for Vref, whether from the manufacturer checklists or calculated 1.3 Vso are based on the airplane being at max gross weight and, like other load-based V-speeds, adjusts downward for less weight. I like gsxrpilot's comment about forgetting the ASI and looking out the window. That works great if one learns the visual sight picture that produces the approach speed you are targeting. It shouldn't take more than a couple of turns around the pattern maintaining the proper target speeds to learn that one. Ever since it was done to me during a checkout in a new-to-me make/model, my primary students don't solo without landing with no ASI and I usually include it in flight reviews, checkouts and transitions. For most pilots, it's the easiest thing they'll ever do that they thought would be difficult. It's also a great exercise for anyone who is having landing difficulties.

I do. Here's what I think is the deal. The expected clearance is provided by ATC computers, whatever app or online source you use. The expected clearance from ForeFlight will be the same and the expected clearance from Pilot will be the same as... Whether the expected clearance is what you filed depends of whether there are preferential routes (published or unpublished) that need to be applied and the airspace in which you traveling. Whether the expected clearance is the same as what you get depends on traffic considerations at the time. So a lot of what you are seeing is because you are in Delaware, right in the middle of the busy NE corridor where TRACON rules. To contrast, here in the Raleigh area, away from all that, I almost always get an expected clearance that is pretty much what I filed (I do use the "recent ATC routes" available in a lot of places) and am almost always cleared via my expected route. Doesn't mean I don't get changes or route amendments but they are the exception rather than the rule and they tend to be minor.

I tend to agree. I've done it the other way but ultimately came to the conclusion that, while I might look where they are sending me to on my tablet first - just as I woukd do with a paper chart - the first data entry should be in my primary NAV.

Yep. That's what I meant in my first paragraph.

I agree. Assuming there is no published join point, creating an intersection using radial/distance is an option but I think is more trouble than it's worth. Going direct SIE then switching to OBS mode and dialing in the 017 course will work just fine. You can then use the moving map or other aids to identify the join point. If you want to have a waypoint to go to so that you can resume automatic sequencing when you get there, another option is to create the waypoint once you are the course to join. Just slide the moving map to where your OBS mode line joins the airway, tap and create a temporary user waypoint with only 2 taps, then insert it in your flight plan and make it the current Direct To. Turn off OBS mode and automatic sequencing will resume. If it turns out your OBS mode course line heads to or even near a published intersection, easy enough to say, "Will direct ANABL work after SIE to join V1?" More likely than not, unless there is some traffic issue that precludes it, the answer will be yes.

I've done the plain wood dowel. Calibration was over the course of a few flights when I always refueled to the same level.

I've flown with progressives with transition lenses with no problem. OTOH, avoid polarized lenses. They have a tendency to make glass panels and tablet screens disappear. Full YouTube video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78GdcXCM9nk#t=29

Class C works exactly like Class D. No clearance required but you must establish 2-way communications before entering. What togerl said about hearing your tail number is correct - responding with your tail number means you have established 2-way communications. Not hearing your tail number means you have not. For transitioning, again like Class D, all you need to do is tell them your direction of flight. Landing at SNA? Simple. Exactly like Class D. Nothing special except you call further out. "SoCal Approach. Mooney 1234X. 20 north with [ATIS]. Landing John Wayne."

In which case he, just like the examiner in the early part of the thread, would be making up his own rules. There is no FAA requirement for a paper backup or, for that matter, any backup for an EFB, although "It is suggested that a secondary or back up source of aeronautical information necessary for the flight be available to the pilot in the aircraft." Not to say it's wise to not have any backup that a smart examiner would not be well within his rights to test what would happen if the iPad failed in flight. But paper is definitely not required.

Well, I have a feeling the FAA might look askance at aircraft records maintained on tissue paper. I don't know of any aircraft mechanic who would sign one as the standard for his way of doing business. I understand they are a bit difficult to sign. And it would sure be fun to watch the negotiation of an aircraft sale in which the putative buyer asked to see the aircraft logs and (tissue paper aside), the seller informed her he destroyed all records of "maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alteration and ...100-hour, annual, progressive, and other required or approved inspections" that were more than a year old. Yes, in theory, you can write the records on toilet paper and they are valid. It's also true that you can write a check on a piece of toilet paper and it is also valid. Just try to get a bank to cash it!

most FAA paranoia is created by us, not the FAA.

From viewing the samples, the goal is different. The King videos are to get the rating. This is an attempt at a "post-graduate" course. Less about the rules of the system than what actually takes place.

No one would suggest for a moment (I hope) that an iPad is a replacement for installed, certified cockpit avionics.

I think the issue is different for a passenger. For us, we are trying to make sense of everything and getting conflicting information that can be worsened by the bumps. For a passenger, they are just taking it as it comes and don;t particularly care if it feels like we're turning to the right while some dial or picture in front of the pilot says something different. Of course, if the passenger is prone to motion sickness, there's a problem, but I think it's a different dynamic than what is happening to us. BTW, my worst disorientation (other than a hot day with lots of bumps) was in IMC. It was the first time I flew in actual from the right seat. Looking to the left at an angle to scan the instruments, the cloud variations streaming by the left side window made me feel we were in a constant right turn.

Not really. AC 20-173 "addresses installation of EFB components." That means EFBs that are "incorporated into aircraft type design under 14 CFR part 21 or as a proper alteration under 14 CFR 43.3." The FAA guy is going to correctly expect to see that the installation either came from the manufacturer that way or there is an STC in the aircraft logs. Like the rest of the AC 20 series, it primarily provides airworthiness guidance on how tog go about obtaining airworthiness approval for an installed component. What we are doing with our yoke clamps and our "portable" (not "installed") tablets is not covered by the AC, although it does mention them.