midlifeflyer

Because that would not reflect the clearance. Skyvector doesn't recognize Victor airways. That's a limitation in SkyVector. The discrepancy you see is as simple as that. And making the Victor airway into a series of point-to-points, even with bends only, is not always as simple as adding one more fix. Consider my flight last week. One possible route clearance involved following V3 from FLO to SSI. The clearance for that segment would simply be FLO V3 SSI. Check out the same route on Skyvector. Follow that same airway further north and south and you'll find even more bends in both directions You might prefer to copy a clearance that has a 6-fix segment (or 8 or 12) instead of 2 (plus the airway name). But a lot of us wouldn't. Fortunately EFBs such as ForeFlight do understand airways, although the Garmin GNS x30 series does not (the newer GTN does), so you;re still going to have to look at your charts.

No easy answer. The "preferential runway" is based on noise abatement. My guess is that other factors will be far more important.

Yeah, the amendment inserted the word "performance" before the word "requirements."

All 91.205 tells you is some of the equipment that is required. The problem is that a lot of pilots think that's all of the equipment that's required. I've been doing a quiz periodically for years (and it's a standard flight review question for me: IFR or VFR, can you fly your airplane with an inoperative stall warning device? Purely anecdotal but you might be surprised at the percentage of people who get it wrong, with those who learned about burning red fruit far more likely to get it wrong than those who don't. And there are MELs that permit an aircraft to be flown even with 91.205 equipment that is inoperative. It rare but the most common one is allowing the aircraft to be flown with only one operative fuel gauge.

It still varies a lot with the pilot. I know people who stayed clear of "real" IFR for a long time while still filing IFR in order to get more used to the system, while others hop right into the soup (just to compare with flyboy's post, my first IFR flight was a week after I earned the rating and involved a void time clearance in which I entered the clouds at about 2000 AGL on departure and left them about 300' above DA an hour later). A lot of the "when" depends on a lot of factors but IFR training, which by its nature is very approach-intensive, is notoriously deficient in the variations in en route issues that can come up. So it makes sense for people, newbies or old-hands to file IFR on a regular basis, for system proficiency. That's not to say all the time. One of the downsides of getting the rating is, IMO, the loss of some VFR skills (my favorite story is the rental checkout of newly-minted instrument pilot who couldn't seem to find an interstate highway without a cross-radial).

It's not a Part 91 issue. It's an aircraft certification issue regarding installed equipment. If the applicable regs require that installed equipment be "approved" it needs to be TSO'd or PMA'd. So, for example, in an aircraft with a standard airworthiness certificate, our panel-mount GPS need to be TSO'd; our headsets do not. I think this change is primarily applicable to the experimental and LSA markets, although I guess the question of portable ADS-B out like NavWorx is still an open one.

That kind of laxness can happen to anyone. That's up to us and our attitude and planning. Being in the soup doesn't guarantee anything. Not a particularly good statistical sample but all of the IFR separation violations I've been directly involved with were in the soup. OTOH, filing IFR even in severe clear conditions has the benefit of keeping us current on many procedural aspects of IFR flight. The system doesn't care about whether we are in the soup or not and "I have an amended clearance, advise when ready to copy" along with some new fix you never heard of, is as likely in CAVU conditions as in the soup. Balance is a good thing

Yep, as you said there are those where you can reach the controlling ATC authority by radio on the ground. Liberal, KS is another example. And still others that have a dedicated CD facility, like Loveland/Ft Collins in Colorado. There are more things in heaven and earth...Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

I don't have a sopabox on the issue and I always recommend giving up the technical ROW for safety reasons. Just pointing out what the ROW rule is and suggesting a source for the common misconception that somehow IFR traffic has ROW priority under VFR conditions.

Yep. I blame the common fallacy of thinking that 91.205 is the be-all and end-all on the use of the idiotic mnemonic about burning red fruit. But just to clarify, a MEL isn't a list of required equipment. It's a list of equipment that is not required - equipment that can be inop without grounding the airplane. And you are right - it is aircraft- and operator- specific. What I think you are referring to is the list in 91.213(d)(2) for determining equipment requirements when there is not a MEL. I suspect you know this, but it is an incredibly common error, one that I cover in the ground portion of just about every flight review I give.

Reference to 91.205 is never a sufficient answer to a required equipment question.

It's been a few years but every time I flew from KBCT to KLEE (my in-laws lived in the Villages at one time) the routing was exactly the same - the same routing as the Goofy STAR, although the STAR wasn't assigned by name.

I have a feeling the likelihood of the "proposed" or "expected" route being the actual clearance is geography-specific, with busier airspace being more likely to have traffic issues crop up that make changes more likely. On my recent trip to Florida, I received expected route notifications for all 5 flights. There were changes in two There was a significant one when leaving KFXE for KZPH, probably due more to Tampa traffic than Lauderdale/Miami (based on where the difference was). And a minor one leaving KZPH probably for the same reason. OTOH, the only change I have received in two years flying around the Carolinas was one that changed from a routing that skirted around restricted airspace to a direct routing through the restricted airspace. Can't complain about that one!

Is the quote I posted earlier from the FAA Order regarding air traffic control relevant to you? ============================== It is solely the pilot's prerogative to cancel an IFR flight plan. However, a pilot's retention of an IFR flight plan does not afford priority over VFR aircraft. For example, this does not preclude the requirement for the pilot of an arriving IFR aircraft to adjust his/her flight path, as necessary, to enter a traffic pattern in sequence with arriving VFR aircraft. ============================== No, there is no distinguishing between the two. Do you recall anything to that effect in your primary training? That's where "you have the obligation to give way to IFR aircraft in VFR conditions" would be taught. Do you see an IFR priority in 91.113 or anywhere else in =any= FAA publication, "regulatory" or not? My best bet is the "right of way for IFR aircraft in VFR conditions" is something (some) instrument pilots made up, most likely to justify their disdain of "lesser" pilots.

I does come down to acceptable pattern entries and right of way rules — but those rules don't simply involve who is first. I know that about the US rules but I doubt the rules of any other ICAO country are substantially different. Your other statement definitely reflects reality

Can you point us to the FAA rule or policy guidance that says this? I've been on both sides of the situation as well and I'm not aware of any that gives an airplane flying an instrument approach in VFR conditions any priority whatsoever. Nor have I ever seen it referred to in any sport or private pilot syllabus. The only rule of IFR priority I know of is over SVFR aircraft. Other than that, the only FAA guidance I know of is the one that says: ============================== It is solely the pilot's prerogative to cancel an IFR flight plan. However, a pilot's retention of an IFR flight plan does not afford priority over VFR aircraft. For example, this does not preclude the requirement for the pilot of an arriving IFR aircraft to adjust his/her flight path, as necessary, to enter a traffic pattern in sequence with arriving VFR aircraft. FAA Order 7110.65V - Air Traffic Control ==============================

That information is also becoming available from other sources. Flightaware and ForeFlight are among those providing them now. In addition, IFR flight plans filed with FliPlan and ForeFlight (and perhaps others) as well as those filed with LockMart directly, will generate a notification that gives you advance notification of your expected IFR clearance. Emphasis on "expected" although I've seen them come through that way most of the time in my flights.

I don't think the Feds will cancel Flight Watch for some time. Even today, not everyone flies with an EFB and of those that do, ot everyone is shelling out an extra $600-$1200 for datalink weather.

If you are needing a reading all the way down to nu usable fuel, maybe. I made one from a wood dowel for a Comanche some years ago. Before every fill-up I put the stick in the tank, marked the reading, and recorded how much I added. Within 6 or so flights I had something good enough for my purposes.

Indeed, it's his. I thought it applicable.

"The report of my death was an exaggeration." I've seen stuff on this for a while with comments from nationally-recognized aviation educators on both sides. Best I've been able to glean (without editorial comment) is that the goal is to involve far more aviation risk management and decision-making into the testing process on the theory that these are at least as responsible for GA safety issues as stick and rudder skills. Since it's the 21st century, this of course includes a new grading format more conducive to metrics analysis.

The FAA announces in this coming Tuesday's Federal Register that the current PBoR page (https://www.faa.gov/pilots/rights/) and the associated AirmenDataRequest@faa.gov. email address for ordering air traffic data are going away due to email abuse — the email address was designed for airmen under investigation to obtain data, but is being used by others (I guess even the FAA gets spammed). Instead of the central email, airmen who receive investigatory inquiries should ask the investigating FSDO Inspector to obtain the data. I recommend those requests be in writing.

Maybe. But I wouldn't use a mnemonic for it

What makes you think it's a "new argument"? It's an old and stupid one. Really. I once told a story about landing an M20C in serious windshear - I ended up carrying full power all the way to touchdown - and was told in no uncertain terms I was no longer alive because I described my use of power "incorrectly." Imagine all that fuss about a beginning teaching technique.

What program is it, Piloto? As others said, there are so many online choices but if you want a PC-based application it would help to know what yours is.