midlifeflyer

I think there are two potential problems. One, it’s not just Alaska where there are remote areas where radar contact and ATC communications can be spotty for VFR flight. We used to teach filing VFR flight plans and periodically updating position in the Rockies. Second, in-flight filing of IFR flight plans. ATC has been helpful in the past with cold-call popups. It’s always been workload permitted but unless one is staying local, plenty of stories about ATC requiring filing with FSS. This second one might not be an issue long term, but not everyone has inflight internet yet.

When it comes to crosswinds, we have to be. The winds change and we have to fly the reality, not a calculation. My "correction" wasn't saying you were wrong, just that it's the most common way the rule of thumb is stated.

Mostly because it’s the most common way the rule of thumb is stated Some justification for that since it’s on the high side so more conservative and is probably an easier mental calculation than 2/3.

You would actually pull out an E6B to get a crosswind component number? Sure, a number of the airplanes I fly have the wind components right on the PFD, but, personally, I don't think I've used anything other than this to get a good estimate of what to expect. (one small change) It seems strange to say, but considering we are talking about crosswinds and gust factors, both of which change pretty much all the way down from pattern to runway, even an E6B seems like measuring a football field with a micrometer. Come to think of it, in the bumps common on a windy day, the rule of thumb is probably more accurate than the E6B

No. My CFI instructor would never permit that. I have done that in a Ercoupe, though.

I'd be deeply concerned with a 35-40 KT crosswind regardless of flap setting Not a Mooney. Cessna 152. Not much heavier than an light sport and with a Vref of about 60 KIAS ±5, very little momentum. Demonstrated crosswind component of 12 KTS. I was working on my CFI. We had planned a ground session for that day because the winds were howling directly across the runway. I don't recall the specifics, but well above the 12. My instructor asked, "if we went up today, how would you land?" "I would never use flaps on a day like this," was my reply, something I learned as a student pilot. "Let's go up and do some full-flap landings," was the response. We did. That was the day I mentioned earlier - when I stopped reducing flaps for a crosswind.

The problem is that ATC throws curveballs all the time. I fly out of a nontowered airport where most practice approaches without ATC. When we do a training flight under IFR, almost invariably something happens the pilot has not seen or heard before. My favorite is the time a controller gave an instruction that made no sense for IFR.. Turned out the controller thought we were VFR. A suggestion. I think a major part of staying ahead is a combination of big picture situational awareness and a constant, “what’s next” mantra. It can take work to develop the former, but the latter is “simply” a matter of asking, “what’s next laterally and vertically,” as soon as stabilized after the last instruction, leg, whatever. And ensuring that you and the equipment are set up for it. With a little imagination, we can even watch IFR YouTube videos with that mindset I don’t do training for the rating, but I sometimes do a tweaking flight or two as part of the 3 hour checkride prep. This is #1 on my list. The applicant, who has understandably felt fire hosed and rushed, reports of everything suddenly slowed down. One actually said, “when are we finally going to get there?” out loud during a leg of an approach.

Not so sure about the “say intentions” phrasing, but it your situational awareness tells you a vector is taking you away from where you are going, and there is not explanation as to why, definitely question it.

That used to be my mantra, but after several tailwheel lessons I reversed it. align with rudder manage all drifting with aileron crosswind landing joy Better, @Andy95W?

True, but that actually leads to an error I repeatedly see. The pilot figures they have to keep the upwind wing low and land on the upwind main. They do so even if the crosswind disappears or worse, shifts the other way. So I try to move people away from that - away from theory to responding to actual conditions. We need to understand the theory in order to anticipate what may be necessary but need to fly the conditions that exist, which can change quite a bit on a gusty crosswind day, even along final.

LOL! I was doing a night currency flight in a Cessna 152. Winds were howling from the west for runway 17. As I turned base to final I saw there was no way I was going to be able to land that time around. ATC: Cleared to land runway 17. Me: I don't think so.

True, but I was referring to the very common error of a pilot neutralizing the crosswind correction on touchdown instead of going to full crosswind correction. It makes a difference even with a light crosswind. I can't count the number of times I've seen a pilot having trouble while rolling down the runway after landing, trouble which disappears as soon as I remind hem to turn those ailerons into the wind.

This is an important point that wasn’t mentioned enough. I’ve seen too many pilot set up based on theory and then fly with what I call blinders, flying the theory rather than the conditions. I’ve watched pilot land in one main when the crosswind disappeared, as though landing in the upwind main first were the goal rather than the result of good technique. Once moving to the slip, whether on long final or the last moment (two ends of a continuum), it’s centerline square to the chest* with whatever rudder and aileron input is necessary to keep it there. For every landing. (Crab is the same - center of the chest, although not square.) *square to the chest - people use different visuals. Between the legs, between the eyes, square to the yoke. They all do the same thing.

Good point out for those who don't automatically look for these things. Having seen this as early as the Garmin GNS series, it's something we should expect to find in most avionics.

My needs are portable so I bought a pack of a half dozen suction hooks at Dollar Tree. I attach them in the side window and hang the control box there.

As mentioned, techniques vary.I don’t add speed for direct crosswinds with no headwind gust factor. And I gave up the reduced flaps 26 years ago in favor of a slower touchdown. Beyond that it depends on how strong a crosswind. With most, a simple crab down to the runway, transitioning to a slip in the earliest part of the round out. Stronger winds might have me test out the slip higher as a reality check. And don’t forget the most important part - movement to full taxi crosswind correction in touchdown. That’s where most crosswind landing accidents happen. The pilot neutralizes the controls and gets pushed off the runway,

Well, I was when I started. But “middotageflyer” doesn’t sound too good.

I wonder how much of that is just changes that only get adopted in later units that are either delayed or don't get pushed at all into older ones. Similar - FLC in (older?) GFC 700 autopilots; IAS in later GFC500-600 units. Same thing; different labeling.

Not at all. I'm old too

They were. But there’s a reason the atlas is no longer being produced. Same reason those great little brown books of airport diagrams are gone.

Must be fun looking for T-Routes in it.

I’m running both Foreflight and Garmin Pilot. The comparisons are interesting. Yes, pretty much parity, but there are discreet functions that one tends to do better than the other. i used to have iFly. Great app. In my case I dropped it because most every airplane I fly or teach in has Garmin Connect capability or a Garmin/FF compatible portable so I don’t have to pull out my portable GPS/ADS-B unit. Those are incompatible with iFly.

There’s a difference from what some are discussing. Unless it’s unusual, your WiFi only Android tablet has internal GPS capability. If your Stratux craps out you still have GPS. A WiFi only iPad does not have internal GPS. Other than that, like you, I have been using my phone’s hotspot capability for my tablet since the days you needed a third-party app to access it.

I don’t recall that. When I bought my first iPad (Gen 1, 14 years ago), I recall the cost of the cellular upgrade and an external GPS puck to be roughly equivalent. (I decided on the puck rather than the cellular.)

Well, it solves some of that. But when I do a complex transition for a VFR only pilot, we work on flying by the numbers. Obviously less of them, but they are still there.