midlifeflyer

Garmin-Garmin and Foreflight-Stratus are exclusive ADS-B relationships. That's exactly the way it works.

I usually have the few seconds available to put a re-route into my iPad. You'd have to go pretty far to be in the wrong weather display. At times, I've even entered it, or at least the first new waypoint I need to go to, into my iPad before entering it into my IFR box. Tells me what direction to start out from my present position much faster.

Then try ForeFlight. And WingX. And Garmin. Although some of the bells and whistles are different, for most, it's the UI that leads to choosing one or the other. The one thing I can tell you about FlyQ is that it is currently not as robust for IFR use as the others. I did AOPA's FlyQ webinar (check here or here)in June and thought it was missing some essential features compared to the others. (Purely political, but there are also those who don't like FlyQ just because AOPA, supposedly a GA rep, is using it to compete with other developers and supporting one organization (Seattle) over others.)

I flew with Sirius/XM weather plugged into a 396 and now, ADS-B on my iPad. There are a few differences in what they include. For example, lightning strikes on Sirius/XM; not on ADS-B and you can get Sirius/XM on the ground as well as in the air; ground only sometimes with ADS-B. There's a pretty good comparison of the two on this ForeFlight page. I have not seen the few differences to be worth the Sirius/XM subscription costs. The currency of information is substantially identical - 8 to 20 minutes old for NEXRAD. One difference between the two that should be paid attention to (true for all weather sources) is that the presentation of NEXRAD data can be different. Different providers use different dBZ sales. Although the blue-green-yellow-red increase in returns is pretty standard, the threshold that moves, say, from green to yellow, can be different on different displays.

There's a bunch of advice on the internet in helping with iOS 7 battery drain. Google ios 7 battery saving tips I do most of the setting change recommendations. My in-flight-specific ones are: Close all apps that are not being used. Keep wifi or bluetooth on only if you need to actively use one of them. Lower the screen brightness as much as you can while still keeping it readable. Put the iPad to sleep unless you need it for something That last one is a biggie and based on the concept that an EFB is first and foremost, an enhanced electronic chart. If I'm en route, navigating by navaid (including panel GPS), I don't need my chart out all the time, whether it be "paper or plastic." For longer trips where I am really concerned, I also plug it in, or at least have the "cigarette lighter" plug available in my flight bag.

Maybe, but since a 28-day data change is upon us anyway (I'm running my update right now), does it really matter?

That's weird. I'd write to ForeFlight support on that one. I have a database of Colorado mountain passes that I loaded into my 1st Gen iPad. When i bought my 3rd Gen iPad, they came right along with ForeFlight and haven't been lost in the iOS 7 update. Have you tried (1) iPad reboot and (2) uninstalling and re-installing ForeFlight?

Definitely. In complicated theory, it's one of a number of evidence rules that makes things irrelevant, not because they are really irrelevant, but to foster some policy. In simple terms, we don't want to let a bad or unsafe condition continue to exist by giving a disincentive for repairing it. So there's a rule that makes a defendant's later repairs irrelevant for the purpose of assigning fault. From a litigation standpoint it neither proves a case for the plaintiff nor acts as a defense for the defendant. Kind of like the Miranda warnings. If the police violate the rule, the confession can't be used. But that doesn't mean the criminal gets off (even Miranda himself didn't get off; he was convicted).

I'm still fairly new to the area but I think it really depends on what's most convenient for where you want to be. Even RDU itself is pretty GA friendly and, of course, such things a rental cars are generally easier and less expensive at a bigger airport. I'd recommend Sanford (KTTA) but it's closed for runway rebuilding. Chapel Hill has an airport but you'll want to call in advance; it's been closing down for years and its GA friendliness seems to ebb and flow.

I'm really not aware of any FAA rule, order, guidance or interpretation that said that whether something is an instruction or not depends on airspace. If you have a reference, I really would like to see it. Yes I'm saying that whether something is an instruction or just a suggestion depends on the words used. Like everything else in language and communications. In this case it's the use of the word "suggested." Kind of like the word "clearance." VFR aircraft can't be certain they are cleared into Class B unless the word "cleared" is used. Or "practice approach approved" instead of "cleared for the approach" to let VFR aircraft know that they are not on a IFR approach clearance when or practicing instrument approaches under VFR. Operationally, the ATC Handbook gives at least one example of using "suggested heading" as a means if ensuring the pilot understands that what is being said is only a suggestion and not an instruction. I"m pretty sure pilots won't have too much trouble telling the difference between "maintain at or above 3000'" and "suggested altitude at or above 3000'"

Definitely true. But in this case, the "bureaucrat's" interpretation is the one that leads to problems in the real world of FAA enforcement actions. CFI's don't bring enforcement actions. FAA lawyers do. I can pretty much guarantee, "My CFI told me I don't have to comply with an instruction in certain airspace" is not much of a defense. The real world is that 90% of the time, ATC will give a VFR pilot a "suggested" heading. It's the other 10% that can lead to problems for the pilot. It's important to understand the difference between the two. Should be pretty clear based on how it's phrased.

I don't think there's a change in interpretation. If the controller uses the phrase "suggest," that's all it is. "Suggest heading 230 for traffic" is not an instruction. "Turn right heading 230 for traffic" is.

Did you click on the link? The FAA Chief Counsel has already expressed his opinion. But if you prefer a CFI to the head FAA lawyer, I'm one.

You'd prefer a CFI's than the FAA Chief Counsel's formal written perspective on this? Your belief is correct.

I'm pretty sure understand 91.123(a) quite well. But why are you disregarding 91.123(b )? Of course an ATC "instruction" is not a "clearance." That's why there are 2 subsections. One (a) deals with clearances; the other (b ) deal with ATC instructions in controlled airspace. I'm sorry, but if you are saying that a VFR pilot does not have to obey an ATC instruction he or she receives in controlled airspace, you are incorrect. Pilots flying in controlled airspace must comply with all ATC instructions, regardless of whether the pilot is flying VFR or IFR, in accordance with § 91.123(b ). ATC instructions include headings, turns, altitude instructions and general directions. A pilot flying VFR in Class E airspace, which is controlled airspace, is not required to communicate with ATC; however, if a pilot is communicating with ATC and ATC issues an instruction, the pilot must comply with that instruction. You're welcome to disagree but that's how the FAA Chief Counsel feels about it http://goo.gl/omFVad

When I am headed south out of Denver I wont call for Flight following until south of Colorado Springs. Their airspace tops at 10,200. As I fly over at 10,500 or more I listen to CS Approach but do not talk unless called as traffic to another plane. If I ask for flight following north of Co Spgs they send me 20 miles east around their area. Once called as traffic while over their airspace I will for, safety sake, respond "Your unverified traffic is 1079V at 10,500" That way they know what is safe but know they can't vector me around. 91.123 is not as assumed above. Flight following is NOT a clearance. You can choose not to follow any instruction with impunity. You CANNOT be violated for not obeying an advisory. Kinda stupid but legal. Read below: § 91.123 Compliance with ATC clearances and instructions. (a) When an ATC CLEARANCE has been obtained, no pilot in command may deviate from that clearance unless an amended clearance is obtained, an emergency exists, or the deviation is in response to a traffic alert and collision avoidance system resolution advisory. However, except in Class A airspace, a pilot may cancel an IFR flight plan if the operation is being conducted in VFR weather conditions. When a pilot is uncertain of an ATC clearance, that pilot shall immediately request clarification from ATC. ( Except in an emergency, no person may operate an aircraft contrary to an ATC instruction in an area in which air traffic control is exercised. © Each pilot in command who, in an emergency, or in response to a traffic alert and collision avoidance system resolution advisory, deviates from an ATC clearance or instruction shall notify ATC of that deviation as soon as possible. (d) Each pilot in command who (though not deviating from a rule of this subpart) is given priority by ATC in an emergency, shall submit a detailed report of that emergency within 48 hours to the manager of that ATC facility, if requested by ATC. (e) Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, no person operating an aircraft may operate that aircraft according to any clearance or instruction that has been issued to the pilot of another aircraft for radar air traffic control purposes. (Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 2120-0005) An advisory is not an instruction. Text in your post I bolded in green is correct. Text I highlighted bolded in red is not. See the text I bolded in your "read below" snippet. You disobey an ATC instruction in controlled airspace at the risk of a 91.123 violation. "an area in which air traffic control is exercised" is called "controlled airspace." I agree with the start of your post. If you keep out of the Class C and don't communicate with ATC, they can't give you an instruction so there's nothing to violate. But if you did get flight following north of KCOS and they instructed you to keep east at that altitude, you would have to obey the instruction.

Great post that describes two different but complementary things: focus and SOP. Doing a call-out is a form of focusing our attention on a specific task, which makes it more likely the task will be done and our attention won't be diverted. Pilots who do not let go of the gear handle (manual or machine) until confirming the gear is down and locked are using another form of the same principle. SOPs pretty much speak for themselves. SOPs become habits and habits are hard to break and not as subject to distraction. In an IMC emergency, we broke out of the clouds above pattern altitude near an airport and all I really wanted to do was land. Without even consciously realizing it, I had put down the gear at exactly the same point on a visual approach I always do.

As a new Mooney driver, this site has been incredibly helpful. Kicked in my donation this morning.

I have just passed 5100 hours of flying and the only time I have had ATC issue instructions to me while VFR is in class B airspace. All other times it was suggestions. I can't actually remember canceling radar service while VFR because I didn't like what they said. I have done it a few times while on an IFR flight plan and was always immediately released with "IFR cancelation received, radar service terminated" or "IFR cancelation received. Would you like flight following?" They always knew what my intentions were and never had a problem with it. I just don't see your scenario happening. Sorry. I was just responding to what I thought you meant when Larry said: ============================== My understanding is that once you "participate" by asking for vfr flight following, any instructions they give "maintain vfr at 4000" are not merely a suggestion but instructions that must be followed. ============================== ...and you replied ============================== You can cancel flight following at any time an do whatever you want, just like canceling IFR. Even after being given an instruction as above. ============================== If I misunderstood you to say that you don't have to obey an ATC instruction in Class E airspace, I apologize. It's a common enough myth and I thought you were repeating it. BTW, I don't have as much flight time as you but I've been given and have heard other pilots given direct instructions for headings and altitudes by ATC in other than Class B airspace. Pretty common in Class C but also, although definitely more rarely, in Class E when it involves either arrival/departure routes ("vectors for traffic") or something else going on.

I've heard flight following refused a number of times in various parts of the country. The most surprising one was hearing multiple aircraft calling Miami Center for flight following and receiving "unable flight following."

What if instead of "Flight following canceled" they say, "For now, Maintain 3,000; fly heading 230." I'm not asking about what you would do practically speaking. I'm reacting to what seems to be your suggestion that you don't have to accept their instructions if you cancel flight following. If that's what you are saying, I disagree. If you are in communication with ATC and they give you and instruction, 91.123 says you have to comply unless it's an emergency or, I guess, if you are in Class G.

Not just in the northeast. Using standard phraseology is always a good idea and in many cases can make the difference between getting services and not, especially when things are busy. At my old home base on a busy weekend, it could mean the difference between, "34X, make left downwind" and "aircraft calling, remain outside the Class Delta and call us back in 20 minutes."

You mean as in ATC: Maintain 3,000; fly heading 230 You: No. I won't. Cancel Flight Following. Goodbye. ? No. You can't. Well, you can, but then you'd have the fun of facing enforcement action under 91.123(b ).

Some of us are OK with terms the FAA uses; some of us have pet peeves against some of them.

Could somebody point me to FAR's for cockpit use? Is it a 100% replacement? Or is paper still required? Would a second Ipad or Iphone suffice as a legal IFR back-up? As already mentioned, there is no FAR that required charts for plain vanilla Part 91 flights to begin with, just as a side-effect of the 91.103 requirement to have "all available information" for a flight. 91.21 is also important - it's your obligation as PIC to determine that your electronic gadgets don't interfere with your equipment. As to the FAA's position on the use of EFBs, there are two relevant ACs (bold emphasis is mine). AC 120-76B, which deals with the FAA approval process for Part 123, 135 and Part 91 Subparts F and K and specifically mentions that "Aircraft operated under part 91, except for parts 91F and 91K, require no EFB authorization or compliance with this AC, provided the EFB does not replace any equipment or operating information required by the regulations. AC 120-76B (EFB) AC 91-78, which deals with EFB use in plain vanilla Part 91 ops. AC 91-78 - Part 91 EFB The closest to a discussion of backups in this AC is "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. The secondary or backup information may be either traditional paper-based material or displayed electronically." In my case, my Android phone running a second (free) app is my backup to my iPad/ForeFlight combination) Sportys has a pretty decent summary: http://ipadpilotnews.com/2013/09/ipad-legal-briefing-for-pilots/