midlifeflyer

The problem with regulated "standardization" protocols is that they tend to inhibit innovation at least in terms of slowing it down while the government goes through the process of approving modifications or new protocols. I'm not anti-government by any stretch of the imagination, but innovation is not something it does particularly well. Government supports it best by leaving regulatory standards loose enough for it to take place. I'm not sure your "HP, Dell, Acer" analogy is particularly apt (with Apple, you do have pretty much the SD drive that would only work on their machine). The demand and the ability to run applications (another thing Apple chooses to control) pretty much takes care of that issue. OTOH, what if before Apple gave us iOS 8, it had to run it by some bureaucrats or was required to make it talk with Android?

There's more to the discussion than that. I do a roundup of what's out there in my "How much actual" FAQ: http://midlifeflight.com/flying-faq/faq-instrument-procedures-currency/

You're probably right. The problem is there's no way for the FAA to gauge proficiency, so you are stuck with a minimum of legal currency. And there's no way for the FAA to establish a minimum that will satisfy everyone. Think of it this way: are you flying these under the hood or in actual to within a few hundred feet of minimums? Are they at the home area or places you rarely go? I'd bet we can agree that a pilot who flies them in actual to near-minimums 3 times in 6 months to airports he rarely goes to is more proficient than the one who flies 6 under the hood at the home base. But he still needs to meet FAA legal currency. Point is that FAA currency does NOT equate to practical proficiency. It's a minimum and minimal baseline. That's all. If you're doing these flight specifically for currency purpose why not add an extra every other month? Seems it would increase both your proficiency and extend you currency? I just did an approach last weekend that increased my currency by 2 months. I'm current through November right now although I won't make the mistake thinking that if I do nothing between now and then I would be proficient for anything other than pretty light conditions.

Not a hurricane. This was the line of thunderstorms that passed through this past Sunday. We were en route home from the Outrt Banks when we saw it coming (on iPad) and diverted.

I can tell you this M20J was more than happy to be safely tied down on the ground.

Nice Yves. And for anyone interested, here's mine. Similar instructions - save and change the extension to xlsx. Obviously, it's at your own risk and you really need to confirm the numbers including the CG window itself (move the graph aside to see those numbers) MooneyJWt&Bal.txt

There's a reason this site is the darling of Part 91 corporate and non-dispatched Part 135. You mentioned a few of them. For IFR it can't be beat, not even by the "newbie" real-route selection capability of apps like ForeFlight. I do most of my IFR cross country planning using it. The FltPlan Go! app, OTOH, while I have it, it still leaves me a bit cold. And their checklists are something I can definitely do without, but that's just a personal bias against check-as-you-go electronic checklists (as opposed to "paper" checklists in electronic format).

Is this the kind of thing you are looking for? I've made one of these for every make/model I've flown until just about a year ago.

Wow! Out of curiosity I searched my own files for .dbf files. Located one from an old home accounting program with entries from 1987 thru 1992. Opened it right up with no problem.

Open it in Excel, Access, Open Office, LibreOffice, etc, etc, etc. and save it/convert it to pretty much whatever you want com. Just about every spreadsheet and database program can read the DBF files. It was once one of the almost universal standards for DataBase Files. By the same token, I'm not aware of any program or online logbook app that won't take a common spreadsheet file, eve if it's just simple csv. Actually sounds like a simple conversion to me.

Not pure C:\. A Flitesoft folder under C:\. Like maybe C;\fs\. Of course, if you have you installation disk, it's easy.

Is there anyone on this board who has ever asked for a en route weather deviation due to build-ups and been refused? If so, what were the circumstances?

I liked Don's post but disagree about just doing the deviations without notifying ATC. it's tempting to think of the airway being 4 miles wide but that's defined as protected airspace, not as a place for us to meander back and forth. And it assumes our equipment is perfect and so is the equipment of that other airplane also doing unannounced 10 degree deviations just beyond lateral separation minima (I have seen ATC radar feeds during convective activity). Besides, I can't think of a single good reason not to.

Another one for ATC will not deny a request to deviate around weather in the absence of a safety-related reason like loss of separation with other aircraft. My personal example: Leaving KMYR for home as the build-ups were forming, I read back my clearance to CD and added, "we'd also like some initial vectors west of the buildups." "Readback correct. You can expect vectors on departure" was the reply. Shortly before leaving the TRACON airspace, I got the call with a route change - a simple one to clear me to an NDB west of the buildups before proceeding to my next waypoint Upon checking in with Center, I was told I could proceed direct to my next waypoint "when able" and, on request was given the OK do deviate 10° left and right of course as needed. It was an absolutely smooth flight all the way home.

Not necessarily and not always. But you wouldn't need to go to the command prompt these days.

If you accepted the FliteSoft installation defaults, as I recall it was in the root of Drive C.

It was dropped in the extensive Part 61 and 141 revision that went into effect in 1997. This is from the original 1995 FAA Proposed Rule in the Federal Register:

Interesting. I took a quick look at the Canada regs and they don't look that different than the US ones before we dropped the 6 hours: six hours of instrument time and completed six instrument approaches to the minima specified in the Canada Air Pilot in an aircraft, in actual or simulated instrument meteorological conditions And "instrument time" is defined as: (a) instrument ground time, (b ) actual instrument flight time, or (c ) simulated instrument flight time; (temps aux instrument) So, if those 6 hours need to be flight time, it sure sounds like it has to be in actual or simulated conditions. Edit: Ah well, looks like there's no way to disable those stupid emoticons. Well, sort of is

That is correct Yves. 6 approaches plus unspecified holds and a specific requirement to intercept and track courses based on navigation systems (don't ask) within the prior 6 calendar months. No requirement for a specific number of hours.

Fltplan, of course. It's logbook, no. Another free one, yes.

What was the data format of the FliteSoft logbook? I was a FliteSoft user for a while but never used the logbook function. If I recall correctly, the program used a fairly standard data file format, maybe dbf? If that's the case, unless you decided to erase your data, your electronic logbook entries are still available and can be ported to another program.

Sure. The FAA has been less than definitive on this issue so, for better or for worse, we're all left with some subjective interpretation. Personally I follow a "some portion of the published approach in a significant (whatever the heck that means) amount of actual" rule of thumb for logging approaches in actual.

A lot of people use "after the FAF." Not a bad way to do it since the real purpose is some semblance of proficiency rather than just making marks in a logbook. But why not solid clouds while keeping the correct DME distance during an arc? Or no view out the window while doing a procedure turn or HILO with a stiff crosswind (on an NDB approach no less)? Why do you feel the straight shot from FAF to MAP or DA is more deserving of being considered an "approach in actual" than some of the low altitude maneuvers involved once on a published segment?

Yes, you absolutely have to have actual or simulated instrument conditions to log an approach for currency. The currency reg specifically says so. Not even a matter of having to interpret that part. The "how much actual" is needed to log an instrument approach is a different question than what actual is. I pretty much agree with your "any portion" analysis but regulatory geeks may want to take a look at my FAQ which goes into some of the background and history of the question: http://midlifeflight.com/flying-faq/faq-instrument-procedures-currency/

OTOH since I've been using an electronic logbook since DOS (along with paper until last year), it's no big deal at all. I don't find electronic record-keeping any better or worse that paper, just different, although it does tend to be much easier to find things.