midlifeflyer

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.

On the poll itself. A year a go I "officially" moved from paper to plastic. I still use my paper logbook, but only for entries that need to be signed by someone else - dual received and endorsements.

I've been happily using MyFlightBook for over a year and love it. The developer is easy to reach and responsive; updates are pretty regular and bugs fixed very quickly. Currency calculations are accurate. If you don't want to try to input you prior 20 years of hours, you can start with your paper totals and go forward from there. It has a web interface, apps for iOS and Android, and, most important IMO, a downloadable and updatable Excel spreadsheet so you can save your data locally. For a voluntary payment (which I do), the data is uploaded to my Dropbox daily. It's those last two that are the final selling point for me. The biggest issue with any cloud-based provider is, what happens if they go away. If MyFlightBook goes away, due to the downloadable Excel spreadsheet and the Dropbox integration, I have all my data.

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 .