midlifeflyer

Lack of ground references isn't the test. If you look at the letter I quoted above, you'll see the FAA's working definition: "'Actual' instrument flight conditions occur when some outside conditions make it necessary for the pilot to use the aircraft instruments in order to maintain adequate control over the aircraft." IOW, if you need the flight instruments to keep the shiny side up, it can be considered actual. Most of us can keep the airplane right side up while flying above an overcast, which is why it's legal for VFR-only pilots to do. I don't think the brief glances at the flight instruments we all do to confirm what out eyes are telling us, even in severe clear VFR, counts as "actual." I'm not sure about why one would separately log "actual" and "hard actual," especially since there are no currency requirements associated with them other than counting holds and approaches.

It's based on an old FAA Chief Counsel interpretation commonly referred to as the "moonless night" letter. It's from 1984 and too old for the current interpretation database: November 7, 1984 Mr. Joseph P. Carr Dear Mr. Carr: This is in response to your letter asking questions about instrument flight time. First, you ask for an interpretation of Section 61.51©(4) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) regarding the logging of instrument flight time. You ask whether, for instance, a flight over the ocean on a moonless night without a discernible horizon could be logged as actual instrument flight time. [unrelated portion snipped] As you know, Section 61.51©(4) provides rules for the logging of instrument flight time which may be used to meet the requirements of a certificate or rating, or to meet the recent flight experience requirements of Part 61. That section provides in part, that a pilot may log as instrument flight time only that time during which he or she operates the aircraft solely by reference to instruments, under actual (instrument meteorological conditions (imc)) or simulated instrument flight conditions. "Simulated" instrument conditions occur when the pilot's vision outside of the aircraft is intentionally restricted, such as by a hood or goggles. "Actual" instrument flight conditions occur when some outside conditions make it necessary for the pilot to use the aircraft instruments in order to maintain adequate control over the aircraft. Typically, these conditions involve adverse weather conditions. To answer your first question, actual instrument conditions may occur in the case you described a moonless night over the ocean with no discernible horizon, if use of the instruments is necessary to maintain adequate control over the aircraft. The determination as to whether flight by reference to instruments is necessary is somewhat subjective and based in part on the sound judgment of the pilot. Note that, under Section 61.51(d)(3), the pilot must log the conditions of the flight. The log should include the reasons for determining that the flight was under actual instrument conditions in case the pilot later would be called on to prove that the actual instrument flight time logged was legitimate. [unrelated portion snipped] Sincerely, /s/ John H. Cassady Assistant Chief counsel Regulations and Enforcement Division

or.. Hmmm-since it doesn't say it applies to helicopters it doesn't.

Correct. See my post above. The FAA is generally very good at saying what the requirements are and what they apply to.

Excellent point. Related: One of the things one can do when density altitudes are really high, to do a modified soft field takeoff. The idea was to break free of the ground (and its friction) as soon as possible and then accelerate to climb speed in ground effect. It's rarely needed but I regularly taught it during mountain checkouts when we took off from Leadville CO (9934 msl - figure out the density altitude for that one when the temperature is a balmy 70°F).

It's great. Shouldn't get anyone kicked out since it's party neutral - parts are obviously targeting Democrats; other parts are just as obviously targeting Republicans.

Sure it does. From the quote of the reg above: That same language appears in all of the other new ATP requirement regs. For example:§ 61.156 Training requirements: Airplane category--multiengine class rating or airplane type rating concurrently with airline transport pilot certificate says: If you're not looking for an ATP certificate with a multiegine or initial type rating, the special education rule does not apply.

Of course not .

There is also freeware start menu called "Classic Start" http://www.classicstart8.com

Like many other radio signals in aviation, ADS-B In reception is from line-of-sight ground stations. Just like getting the area TRACON from the ground at a non-towered airport, if you are in the line-of-sight range on the ground, you will get weather on your ADS-B unit. If not you won't until you are high enough. The funny variation at my home base is there is a charted GCO to call approach from the ground. I can't get a reliable comm signal for the GCO but I can get FIS-B weather. Go figure.

Excellent.

The regs and the AOPA are fine. Both say that in order for a safety pilot to log PIC, he must also be acting as PIC. Reg: ============================== (1) A sport, recreational, private, commercial, or airline transport pilot may log pilot in command flight time for flights- ... (iii) When the pilot, except for a holder of a sport or recreational pilot certificate, acts as pilot in command of an aircraft for which more than one pilot is required under the type certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is conducted; ============================== and AOPA: ============================== Safety pilot. Pilot-in-command time may be logged if acting as PIC. The two pilots must agree that the safety pilot is the acting PIC. ============================== But your owner's contract with the insurance company says that in order for the company to pay the policy, the acting PIC must be acceptable to the insurance company. So, in the posted situation, the safety pilot may certainly act as PIC and he may log PIC time but if there's a mishap, the insurer is free to deny coverage. That risk may be acceptable to you. It may not be to others. If you choose to misunderstand that final point, that's OK.

You are correct. I said"covered by the open pilot warranty" not "covered by the insurance policy" but can see how it could be misinterpreted..

Ratherb, I guess we'll have to disagree to disagree on the insurance thing also. I'm pretty familiar with the FAA's rules on who the FAA allows to be a safety pilot and who the FAA allows to act as anf log PIC. But I'm also familiar with aircraft insurance policies and what they say about when they have to pay out. Interesting though. You seem to be saying that you can let someone who does not meet the open pilot warranty or is an included pilot and the insurance company can't refuse to pay a claim if there an accident because the FAA says he can fly it.

Although it says it takes a point from what I said, I suggested nothing of the sort and disagree completely. A safety pilot is not an instructor. He's there to watch for traffic, potential airspace violations, and things that might be dangerous. If he's knowledgeable about IFR, he has the advantage of knowing what you are attempting to and be able to see certain problems but a safety pilot not there to teach or to be a sadist or to throw you curve balls. He's there to allow you to practice since you can't do solo with a hood. Yes, but a lot of pilot/owners would be very uncomfortable with someone else being PIC in their airplane. Maybe endorsed, but is he covered by the open pilot warranty or in some other way authorized by your insurance to fly the airplane? If not, consider the scenario where on the 3rd flight in the series (the safety pilot having logged PIC time on the first two), there's a mishap. The airplane is damaged and your insurer rightly denies coverage because the PIC was not insurance-qualified to act as PIC in the aircraft.

Start with the bank, Bob. They should give you a release in the name of BoA fka North Carolina National You'll may also need to be prepared to show the FAA the clear transition from the old bank name to the new one. I was once through a bad one of these for a client. It was bad because the name chain go broken along the way and no one was willing to take ownership. The problem wasn't the bank; it was the FAA's acceptance of the release. Took a while to finally get it resolved. But that was an unusual situation. Most are much simpler. It's really too bad FAA liens don't simply have expiration dates. UCC liens do unless they are actively continued by the lender, and even mortgages ultimately expire.

Yes, but don't get too excited about saving cost. Most people need more than those 15 hours of instruction and spend too much of their safety pilot time practicing how to do things incorrectly. My usual advice is to treat the safety pilot time as the instrument student's equivalent of solo. To work out a plan with the CFII to integrate practice with the lessons.

I'm also a 2-tablet pilot. My "primary" is an iPad using ForeFlight; my backup is a 7" Android. I'm still deciding which app I like best. Since it's to be a backup, UI simplicity is primary (after, of course, stability). A few I like but need to try them on a cross country.

Already happened. http://goo.gl/pgvWNj Busted the Boston Class B. Simple airspace violation. No mercy without current charts: ============================== We agree with the law judge that this was egregious conduct for any pilot. Taking off without necessary familiarization and without proper charts into an obviously congested airspace such as the Boston area, and continuing the flight after failing to obtain a clearance obviously justified a finding of carelessness, at a minimum. Even an assumption that further FAA tapes would show that respondent made multiple attempts to reach ATC would not lessen the seriousness of his actions. ============================== Doesn't even have to be careless and reckless. The 91.103 familiarization requirement takes care of it.

Airport is an easy Class C with both Landmark and TAC Air with easy on/off access to the shorter parallel runway. Since when I fly there I am flying airplanes based there, can't comment personally on the relative merits of the FBOs for transients, but I generally like the folks at the TAC Air FBOs I've frequented.

I'm not sure about hunch, but I stopped using paper charts for preflight planning before the iPad even existed. I'm not sure how the planning is any better or worse on the same chart just because the medium in which it's contained is different, although I personally find not having to flip something over and being able to expend and contract to plan a route a bit easier

True. But if you have an airspace violation that would have been avoided by looking at a current chart, expect no mercy. To answer the underlying question, the FAA is on record: an EFB is just fine. http://tinyurl.com/3pcug22

Why are you asking about a comparison of two ipad apps in a discussion about android apps?

And the way you describe it is pretty standard. And should be. I've seen deals blow up after a sale with a lawsuit to follow. In some cases, there was even a contract. Contracts don't necessarily stop people from suing each other, and a bad contract can even make it worse, but for the most part, the existence of something in writing laying out the expectations of both parties but it changes the landscape and makes a dispute less costly to resolve.

Interesting comment in a discussion of apps and hardware on the leading edge...