Freezing and Flying

N172HF - C172S - 1.1 hours

When I went up for my BFR, my intention was to fly down to Raleigh (RDU) for another ice hockey game, but the weather didn’t end up looking too great. In order to make sure a plane was available, I had booked the flight well in advance. I felt bad having reserved the newest plane in the fleet for a flight I wouldn't be taking so I ended up just editing the reservation to push it back by about a week. Luckily, my pilot friend Katelyn wanted to join, so I could continue to get more simulated instrument time. We flew together nearly two years ago, on a quick flight down to Luray (LUA).  Even though she had flown more recently than that flight, it had still been a while so she wanted to go back up and get the feel for it again. That said, we worked it out where I would get simulated instrument time and approaches in between Leesburg (JYO) and Winchester (OKV), and she would get some landings in to get the feel for it again.

I was able to escape work a little early to make the long trek out to JYO (it takes forever now that my office is in DC), but Katelyn ended up getting stuck in traffic. Jokingly, I told her that I would sit there and pass the time taking pictures of myself with the plane. Once I finally got to the plane, however, that joke actually sounded like a good idea since I’m pretty sure this blog now has over 200 photos in it (the videos take that number even higher), and I’m pretty sure I’m in maybe 10 of them. In an effort to make said author less faceless, here’s a picture of me and an ironic statement all in one.

If you're not getting the ironic statement, look at the tail versus my apparel

I was able to get the plane all set up prior to her getting there, which ended up working out, as we departed as night time officially started (for logging it, anyway). As soon as we departed, we went directly to CLADD to fly the ILS Runway 32 approach into OKV. On the way, I pointed out some of the features of the G1000 as we both joked continuously about how it really felt like cheating based on the equipment we learned to fly with. Since she’d flown with Garmin equipment, though, she picked it up pretty quickly.

I flew the approach down near the minimums, but with the flight path vector (FPV) and runway showing up on the Synthetic Vision display, it really felt like I was just flying in a low detail version of Flight Simulator (side note, I was recently part of a Washington Post article on that very topic). I made the first landing since I flew the approach down so low.  After the landing, I took back off, and passed the controls over to Katelyn for a few laps of her own.  Three landings later, I took the controls back to fly the LOC Runway 17 approach into JYO (the glideslope has been out for a while, so it’s LOC only for now).

Compared to the approach I flew at the end of my BFR, this one looked really good. Then again, the approach I flew during my BFR wasn’t aided by Synthetic Vision displays, or a cue that factors in wind drift for you. I seriously feel like I’m cheating using something like that. Don’t get me wrong – I think it’s an awesome tool for the practical environment, but I think I’m going to stick to doing it the hard way for my training. It’ll help me appreciate the G1000 with SVT more, and it’ll keep my skills sharp for all of the fleet.

In the end, it was 1.1 total and 0.7 of that with the blinders on. Not bad since the only major obstacle between me and the instrument rating is all of the simulated instrument time.

Hours:
Pilot in Command Cross Country (PIC XC): 0.0 - 88.2 (of 50)
Actual/Simulated Instrument (Act/Sim): 0.7 - 14.7 (of 40)

Quick CHO Trip

N677JA - C172S - 1.7 hours

Flying time: the ever-present Christmas list item for me.

This year was no exception, and it was with that in mind that I was sitting with a friend discussing plans Christmas night.  Originally, we were all going to try to do something after everyone was done visiting family (or working).  In the end, we decided on doing something on the weekend instead.  My suggestion, of course, was flying.

Since her sister was visiting from out of town and she wanted to get back to see her after the flight, I wanted to keep the flight short.  Charlottesville (CHO) is both a short flight and a good destination to get out and have dinner, so that's what we went with.

After we got to the plane, I started going through the preflight, explaining some of what I was doing in the process.  Also during said process, I went back into the plane to get something and ended up smacking my head on the extended flap.  That, of course, drew a few laughs as we waited for the fuel truck to show up.  Once the fuel truck had departed, we were on our way to CHO.

The weather was really clear, and the wind mostly calm.  I pointed out a few landmarks, and explained how to find airports at night.  Nearing CHO, I checked the weather, called into Landmark to check on the crew car, and then called the tower. The dinner spot was the usual: Timberwood Grill, where good food was enjoyed before we trekked back to the airport and headed home.

The flight back was the standard trip back from CHO, and after stashing the plane in its spot we headed home for warmth.

Hours:
Pilot in Command Cross Country (PIC XC): 1.7 - 88.2 (of 50)
Actual/Simulated Instrument (Act/Sim): 0.0 - 14.0 (of 40)

The Hiatus is Over

N172DR - C172R - 1.0 hours

As of today, I’m back in the air and can legally go off on my own, exercising the privileges of a private pilot. I went up this morning with Tim (the instructor who helped me get checked out in the DA40 back in March) to complete my BFR. We were supposed to go up last week, but scheduling got in the way of that flight.

Today’s flight was nice and simple. The wind was calm, and the clouds were pretty high. The only detractors were that I needed to spray the plane down with glycol (de-icing fluid), and add two quarts of oil (ruining my shirt in the process). After all of the ground items were taken care of, we were off.

I’m always surprised by how easily flying comes back to me after long breaks. After clearing the ridge and getting out to the practice area, Tim had me demonstrate slow flight. After that came the rest of the typical PPL maneuvers: power on stalls, power off stalls, steep turns, and engine out procedures. In my never-ending drive to get more instrument time, I also asked if I could throw the blinders on to fly the approach back into Leesburg (JYO). The approach went well, though the glideslope wasn’t providing us an indication. Luckily, the approach is an ILS/LOC approach using cross radials to identify the fixes, so I just put the Frederick VOR (FDK) in the NAV2 spot and identified step down fixes that way. Despite some hunting of the LOC, I ended up on altitude and centerline in the end, which was a nice way to end a flight after a four month absence.

Given the nature of the flight I didn’t end up recording it, or even snapping a picture (got distracted with the glycol and oil before the flight), so this post is atypically light on visuals. The next flight should have more of that. Speaking of the next flight, I need to get my passenger currency back for a flight later this month, so expect another post sooner rather than later.

Hours:
Pilot in Command Cross Country (PIC XC): 0.0 - 86.5 (of 50)
Actual/Simulated Instrument (Act/Sim): 0.3 - 14.0 (of 40)

CloudAhoy to Charge for Debrief

Back in March, I wrote a review of CloudAhoy, giving it a shining review.  As far as apps go, it’s rather simple, and the debrief feature offers a ton of data for analyzing flights after you’re done.  It’s useful for debriefing yourself, or it could also be used as an impartial observer to debrief a student as a CFI.

 

If any of you have an account with CloudAhoy, I’m sure you got their email last night.  For those of you who did not receive it, I’ll recap it here.

 

In order to continue debrief your flights, you will now have to pay a subscription fee.

 

First, I have to be fair and address some things that I know others will not address:

• The fact that they are now charging for the service is reasonable, given the benefits it provides.  This move does not surprise me in the least.
• Servers cost money – either to purchase and maintain yourself, or have someone else host
• Domains cost money – either to host yourself, or have someone else host
• Bandwidth costs money – either through you managing this yourself through an ISP, or indirectly in a fee to whoever hosts your site and data server
• Additional employees cost money
• Being an Apple developer costs money

I say that to admit that charging for the service is not uncalled for.  The best things in life are not free, and to be honest, I was surprised that it was free for this long.  My issue rests with the price of the subscription.

 

I’m really trying to approach this from a rational, balanced point of view.  I appreciate that the developer wants to recoup costs, and probably make a little money on the side.  As someone who pays to be an Apple developer, and manages web services for a company, I understand these costs well.  At the same time, I also understand how expensive aviation truly is, and how it’s already difficult enough to justify everything in aviation – particularly to significant others and concerned family members in general.  Most people don’t give me too much trouble when I tell them that the necessary charts for flying are about $75 per year through ForeFlight.  If I said I was spending $70 per year to analyze data that I’m collecting personally, on my personal iPad, using my own personal GPS, I’d get funny looks.  I do understand that CloudAhoy’s servers are doing the number crunching and eventual data storage, but I feel like the business model is all wrong here.

 

I’m sure there are some economies of scale at play, but I don’t believe that it is really driving the price point as much as one might believe.  I understand that the aviation community is a lot smaller than the target audience of other products and services, but it is not a small one in and of itself.  I understand that data storage, data calls, data transfers, data processing, and other tasks can also cost money.  I’m just having a very difficult time accepting that $70 is an acceptable price point to meet the costs of business, or even operate at a modest profit.  As the email states itself, the user base is rapidly growing and spans all continents with the exception of Antarctica.

 

Since I don’t know the costs that they’re operating with, I won’t attempt to make cost arguments based on notional numbers, as they may be misleading.  I really want to stress that this is just my opinion rather than anything else.

 

My arguments are as follows:

• The email states that their data storage is in the cloud.  Cloud storage can get particularly expensive, depending on the provider, and the way in which they price their data storage.  This could drive the cost up significantly if not structured properly for the service provided.
• The profit driver of today’s age is data.  Why is it that Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and the like are all free?  They have to pay for servers and other similar costs, too.  The answer is data.  Your information, interests, and habits are all sold to those wanting the data.  Imagine the amazing amount of information that CloudAhoy servers now contain from all of the tracked flights.  FlightAware provides data to those who request it for many different purposes.  From my understanding of their privacy policy, I do not think that they are taking advantage of this.
• As much as trying to make a living off of something you enjoy would be great, some endeavors require time and clever number crunching to make work.  As the definition of “make a living” can be highly personal, I’ll end my point here.

I’d honestly love to see CloudAhoy succeed, but I don't think that the current model is the best avenue for that success – personally.  I may be completely wrong in that assessment, but I find $70 to be way too expensive for what is provided in return.

 

As a data guy, I know that the data can then be sold to other people.  I’m sure the likes of AOPA, GAMA, manufacturers, and many others would love to see the data.  Based on their answer regarding the privacy policy, I do not believe this is being taken advantage of.  This could significantly increase their revenues, and affect the price point.  All of this would come without directly affecting customer privacy, too.  As an example, CloudAhoy detects airports that you fly to and from.  On an aggregate level, route pairs, airport activity and so on could be sold to people requesting the data, and provided the flights are not referenced to individual users in the data, I would not consider privacy to be compromised.

 

Again, as much as I think they have a great product on their hands, and as much as I like to see success in aviation, I won’t be springing for the service unless something changes.

Here is the full text of the email for those who are interested:

Allow me to interrupt your flight debriefs for a news flash.

 

There is a significant change coming. In December 2013 we will start charging a subscription fee for debriefing flights.  I am very excited about this; let me tell you why.

 

On May 2011, the first version of CloudAhoy landed at Apple’s app store. In the two and a half years since, CloudAhoy became an important tool for a rapidly growing community of pilots.  It spread by word of mouth - first in flight training, then in GA, military and commercial aviation.  It is being used in every continent except Antarctica.

 

CloudAhoy started as a hobby of mine, and the first CloudAhoy server ran from my house.  It soon became my day job (OK, also my night job) as well as that of other people, and our servers are now hosted securely in the cloud.

 

We have grown, and plan to keep growing our team.  Your subscription will let us continue to provide you with the same level of dedicated and fast response to questions, feedback and feature requests, large and small. Our road-map for the next year is full of exciting developments - I think you will be delighted.  Oh, and BTW your subscription will also allow us CloudAhoyians to pay the mortgage, and occasionally indulge in consuming $100 hamburgers.  We do this work both because we are passionately in love with it, and because we want to make a living off it. 

We will transition your account as follows:

• On December 2nd you will get a free and unlimited use of CloudAhoy, expiring 35 days after your next fight (flown after December 2nd).
• 12-month subscription with unlimited use: introductory price of $45 if bought before May 2014, $70 afterwards.
• 3-month subscription: $20, all of which can be used later towards buying an upgrade to 12-months.
• As an existing user you will receive a special appreciation bonus days equal to 10% of the time since you’ve signed up. It will be awarded when you purchase a 3 or 12 months subscription. Thank you!
• If your free use or the subscription expires, you will still have full debrief access to all your flights (plus flights shared with you) prior to the expiration.  You will also be able to log new flights and have them listed in your flight list, but you will need to renew your subscription in order to debrief them.

 

So I Almost Ran Out of Fuel

Granted, I almost ran out of said fuel in a sim – where you can print your own money and fix planes with free mouse clicks – but the lesson I learned was an important one.

It's a situation you really don't ever want to be in.  Well before you're handed the keys to an airplane, an instructor is supposed to have drilled the idea of proper planning for just about anything into your head.  That's all nice information for your average fly-by-day weekend warrior, but it becomes even more important to your instrument flight rules fliers: running out of fuel and not being able to see the ground doesn’t quite give you a fighting chance to set down somewhere forgiving.

I, of course, strapped into a plane, knowing the weather was low even at the departure airport, and set off for an airport buried in mountains.  The only thought in my mind when planning fuel was "the flight takes about 50 minutes, so two hours of fuel looks good."  Why?  That’s the value I generally always use to get there.  I didn’t give any thought to hold fuel, alternate fuel, or contingency fuel, which ended up getting me close to trouble.

Here’s how it all shook out:

One of my favorite routes is Dulles (IAD) to Roanoke (ROA) and back.  It’s short, and when the weather isn’t ideal – read as “less than nice, but not terrible” – you often have to shoot a somewhat challenging LDA approach that brings you down a valley.  Even at the departure airport, though, things weren’t particularly nice.

KIAD 170152Z 00000KT 2SM -DZ BR OVC005 11/10 A3027 RMK AO2 SLP250 P0000 T01060100

For the non-pilots reading this, that's a wonderful combination of low clouds and low visibility, due to drizzle and mist.  This makes approaching and landing at an airport more difficult than normal.

Of course, I paid little attention to the fact that bad weather at IAD often means worse weather down near ROA.  Sadly, that’s something I should know all too well, having spent four years near ROA while at Virginia Tech.  Moreover, one of those years included a trip back to Tech in this same month of November where Interstate 81 got shut down due to an accident caused by poor weather.   I chose the Blue Ridge Parkway as an alternate route, assuming it was something others wouldn’t think of, and would choose Route 11 instead.  Unfortunately, the November weather was all too similar, and I ended up crawling along the Parkway in heavy fog.  My assumption that nobody would be driving on it proved correct, however.

That lesson was apparently forgotten.  Had I bothered to check the weather, I would’ve seen this:
KROA 170254Z 14003KT 1/2SM FG VV002 11/11 A3025 RMK AO2 SLP244 60001 T01110111 56004 $

Again, for the non-pilots, that’s worse visibility than at IAD, because of fog.  Beyond that, I would’ve also checked a few alternates around ROA to be sure I could land there if the weather at ROA was too bad.  Alas, I did not.


Everything was normal until I got closer to ROA and finally decided to check the weather.  Even then I didn’t really put the weather together with the minimums on the charted approaches (the weather was below the minimums for all of the approaches at ROA).  As I got closer to the airspace controlled by ROA Approach, the controller restated the weather and asked my intentions.  My response was what most pilots say while still in denial: “we’ll give it a shot and head to an alternate if we can’t make it in.”

At that point, I reduced my thrust to slow the aircraft down in hopes that arriving later would mean the weather would clear up some.  This move ended up costing me extra fuel though that I really didn't have, as I didn’t add any contingency fuel.  Of course, had I actually looked at the forecast I would’ve seen that the move was futile, as weather wasn’t supposed to improve until the following morning.

Getting closer to ROA, I started looking at the weather at other fields:

KBCB 170255Z AUTO 00000KT 1 3/4SM BR OVC016 11/11 A3025 RMK AO2
KPSK 170255Z AUTO 00000KT 10SM OVC013 11/11 A3024 RMK AO2


Since Blacksburg (BCB) was a little closer, I chose to try an approach there, despite the lower visibility.  I flew the LOC/DME Runway 12 approach, which is an approach I’ve flown before outside of the sim, one snowy February day in a Cessna 207.  I flew it down to the minimums twice before deciding to try somewhere else, making nervous glances at my fuel on the second approach.  Having looked at Pulaski (PSK) before, I decided to try an approach there.

The ILS Z Runway 6 approach into PSK was nice and easy.  With the glideslope and increased visibility, I was able to spot the approach lights while still pretty far out with no issue.

By the time I’d landed, I had about 45 minutes of fuel left, so I ended up landing with a reasonable amount.  The issue, however, is that it all came down to chance.  I got lucky that the weather at PSK was as good as it was.  Had it not been that good, 45 minutes of fuel may not have been enough to get to another destination, make an approach, and land.  Had I properly planned, I would have planned better for the weather by adding fuel to accommodate any issues it might have caused.

While the sim doesn’t have the same dire consequences as the real world, the stress I was feeling in the situation will hopefully stick with me.  I’m hoping it’s memorable enough to push me to plan all my flights such that I won’t find myself in a similar real world situation.

Actual/Simulated Instrument (Act/Sim): 0.0 - 13.7 (of 40)
Despite all of this happening in a sim, it wasn't in a sim approved by the FAA for logging time.

The Hiatus Continues

While the hiatus continues, I've been anything but relaxing.  For those of you who don't know me personally (and even some who do), I've actually been staying pretty close to aviation during my break.  A few weeks before my last flight, I got an invitation to be a beta tester for a company called Precision Manuals Development Group.  The company specializes in creating realistic, study-level simulations of various aircraft for use in Microsoft's Flight Simulator.  In my case, I helped test their latest offering: the 777-200LR/F.  While I clearly have no time in the type, I was brought on as someone to stab around for bugs.  I also ended up taking a few writing tasks.  Testing will continue for the next few months, too, as they add the 777-300ER and -200ER to the product line.

I also ended up creating a few YouTube videos, showcasing the aircraft and explaining how to operate it.  Interestingly enough, my YouTube channel, which had about 1,000 views up until that point, is now standing at 43,500 views.  That's about 30,000 more than this blog at the moment.  Given my success there, I'm thinking of branching the content into two different categories: flying (as exhibited here), and simulated flying.  The sim side of things has always been a passion of mine mostly because it helps me survive the times when I'm not out flying in a real aircraft.  There it is.  I admitted to it.

The secret is out, people: I'm a giant nerd, too.

Then again, to some of you reading this, that's not at all surprising...

So, for those of you who are still not sure, I will now prove it to you:

As I mentioned, the simulator is my way of surviving the times I'm not out flying in a real aircraft.  Given the right tools, too, it can be an incredibly strong asset to real flights as well.  Granted, the sim I'm using is not certified by the FAA for logging time, but the concepts learned in the sim have saved, and will continue to save me valuable (read "expensive") time in training.

As you all know, The Doctor (N172DR) is one of the aircraft I fly most often.  It's a simple plane, it's relatively cheap to rent (especially now that N96178 is gone), and for some reason, it tends to be available when I want to go flying.  In the sim realm, another company known for high-quality simulations of aircraft is A2A Simulations, who just released a C172R.  Of course, since I have so many hours in one, I figured it would be a good way to survive this hiatus and keep relatively sharp.  I couldn't just go burning holes in the sky in just any aircraft, though.  I fired up Photoshop and "painted" it up like The Doctor to the best of my ability.

It's not perfect, but I think I did a decent job at capturing most of its grandeur.

Judge away, but this is helping me stave off the flying cravings until I'm allowing myself off of this hiatus.  I'm imagining I'll evaluate my various options for the long IR cross country flight using it, as well.  I have a few other ideas, too, but I'll go into more detail in another post.

There's a ton to catch up on in the world of aviation and related technology, so expect me to get back on writing more often in the near future.  Of note: some unfortunate news about Contour, updates in ForeFlight and CloudAhoy, and some new ideas for my online presence - both here on the blog and over on YouTube.

A Last Flight Before the Hiatus

N571DS - DA40 - 1.3 hours

After my last flight, I wasn't sure if I'd fit one more flight in before I needed to go up for another biennial flight review (BFR).  As I've alluded to recently, I'm letting my privileges lapse at the end of the month and not going up for a BFR for a little while.  I have some big plans for flying in the future, but those plans are somewhat contingent on making sure my financial situation is rock solid.  I won't go into details about it, but many of you have heard me speak about the plans on a personal level.  I set a goal for myself, and I'm going to hit it.  The only downside is this hiatus from flying, albeit temporary.

I actually have to admit not being able to control an urge to fly for this flight.  A friend of mine posted something on Facebook asking what people do to find an inner calm, and I half-seriously offered a flight out of town if it would help.  Of course, that got me thinking, and I booked a plane anyway.  The weather was perfect, and I've always wanted to take some more artistic shots of the planes I fly without being around a ton of other planes, or people wondering what the heck I'm doing.

I tried charging my cameras in the car, but that didn't work as well as I'd expected.  Luckily, only the ContourGPS complained when I loaded it into the plane.  As such, I just gave up on the forward-facing camera view, left the ContourROAM2 on the wing view, and moved the ContourROAM to a panel-facing view, taking advantage of the lack of a passenger.  And why not?  I figured if it was going to be my last flight for a while, some solo time to bond with the plane would be appropriate.

I chose Luray (LUA) because there aren't many aircraft based there, and there are some great mountains as a backdrop.  It's a nice short flight, too.  The flight down was fittingly smooth, and I watched a few people take advantage of the nice weather on Skyline Drive down below.  The landing in Luray was nice and easy.  Landing uphill on Runway 4 makes it easy to roll down the runway with little braking to the transient parking.

[Video got lost when Contour closed down for a while.]
Kenny (the airport attendant) asked if I needed anything while I was on the downwind, and for once I didn't take him up on a ride into town.  I just replied that I'd be taking pictures and he left it at that.  Sparing the normal narrative, I figure I'll just get to the pictures.

See what I mean about those mountains?  Awesome.  It's nice to have a mostly empty ramp around you, too.  A photogenic subject makes it pretty easy, too.




I'm still intrigued by the wing of the DA40.  It definitely shows the company's roots in making motor gliders.  Also pictured, the Blue Ridge living up to its name.

I posterized the heck out of this one.  Why?  Because I could.  I figured it would give it an interesting effect.






This one is my absolute favorite of the whole group.  The angle, the color, the sunburst, and the lens flare it caused are just awesome.

After standing around, taking pictures, and just getting away from the craziness of life for a while, I decided I should head back home.  Part of me wanted to stick around to get some pictures of the sunset in the background, but that would've required waiting a couple more hours. I brought the plane back to the end of Runway 4 and set off towards home.  In order to keep the temperature down in the cabin, I kept both windows open until the end of the runway.  I ended up forgetting the passenger side window, which you can hear in the departure video.
[Video got lost when Contour closed down for a while.]
Despite wanting to savor the trip home, I actually kept the speed up.  I guess if I have the speed I'll use it.  There was a certain amount of internal pressure that I placed on myself to make my last landing a good one, but I actually pulled off a landing I was rather proud of.  The new camera angle (for the DA40, anyway - I used the same angle in the FDK 500 video, which was a C172R) is shown here.

[Video got lost when Contour closed down for a while.]
One thing the DA40 pilots can probably relate to is the fact that trying to put the plane back in its spot without a tow bar is quite the task.  Without a second person, and uphill, it becomes nearly impossible.  Up to this point, I've always flown with someone who could at least give a hand.  I'm pretty sure anyone watching probably had a laugh at my expense, but as you'll see in the picture, I pulled it off in the end.

I plan on posting while I'm away from flying.  What the posts will be about, time will tell, but I'm betting that it'll be related to keeping up with the technology and happenings in the NAS.  If anyone has suggestions on what to write about, you can always drop a line either on Facebook, or Twitter.

Hours:
Pilot in Command Cross Country (PIC XC): 1.3 - 86.5 (of 50)
Actual/Simulated Instrument (Act/Sim): 0.0 - 13.7 (of 40)

Habits Versus Instructions

N571DS - DA40 - 1.1 hours

Similar to the last flight, this one was somewhat of a last-minute flight, where I was asked at 1500 if I wanted to fly at 1700.  Since my planned flight to Roanoke (ROA) got cancelled this past weekend because of wind, I was in need of a flight and jumped at the chance.  Since the flight school likes us to keep current in the aircraft by flying the type of aircraft every 60 days, I needed to fly the DA40 before 6 June.  Nick suggested Charlottesville (CHO), just to keep things simple, and I suggested the DA40 to keep me current.  Unfortunately, as my flight bag was still prepped for my ROA flight, it lacked the blinders.  That meant I didn't log any of the simulated instrument that I really should be getting.  I'll have to make that priority one after my hiatus.

Apart from an intimidating towering cumulus cloud in the direction of Manassas (HEF), and some associated wind, the lead up to the flight was normal.  I set up all three cameras - one looking out on each wing, and the third looking forward - the audio setup, and the aircraft in general.  The fuel truck also passed by, asking if we'd like fuel.  Given my luck with getting fuel recently, I accepted the offer.  The departure was normal, though I'm still getting used to using rudder alone to keep myself on the centerline.

[Video got lost when Contour closed down for a while.]
Once out of the SFRA, and climbing under the Class B airspace, I passed the controls to Nick so he could get a feel for the Diamond.  When he wasn't at the controls, he got some time picking the G1000 apart to find the various functions, which will definitely help in case he gets checked out at the flight school for either.  I called the tower about 15 miles out and was instructed to proceed straight in for Runway 21.  After landing, I brought the plane over to Landmark so that we could grab something quick from the vending machines and head back out.

[Video got lost when Contour closed down for a while.]

After jumping back in the plane to head home, I called the tower and the instructions were the usual: "Runway 21, taxi via Alpha."  Getting closer to the runway, Nick switched the frequencies for me, and I let the tower know I was ready for departure.  This time, however, the instruction was not the normal "Runway 21, cleared for takeoff, climb on course," or even the "Runway 21, cleared for takeoff, left downwind departure approved."

Here's what I heard:
"Diamond 571DS, [wind], Runway 21, cleared for takeoff - break - northbound departure approved."
You can even hear me questioning the word choice of 'break' for the transmission in the recording.  'Break' is a non-standard term used to quickly convey messages to multiple aircraft: "Diamond 571DS, Runway 21, cleared for takeoff - break - Cessna 172DR, make straight in, Runway 21."  Given the way in which the message was conveyed, its use would not have made sense at all, but I somehow assumed he used 'break.'

My readback was "Runway 21, cleared for takeoff, north departure approved" (note the lack of direction - left or right - in my readback).  Here's where, as the part I missed turned out to be important, the controller could have ensured I heard the transmission properly by repeating or clarifying the last instruction.  Understand, however, that I am not trying to shirk my own responsibility for listening to and following ATC direction.  I'm simply stating that both pilot and controller are charged with ensuring messages are received and understood (AIM 4-2-1 (b) and 7110.65 2-4-3 (b), respectively).  From what I heard, the assumed use of the term 'break' seemed out of place, but the transmission as a whole seemed adequate and normal.  When I didn't read back exact what was stated, the controller could have helped to avoid the situation by repeating the missed instruction.

Of course, since I didn't ask for clarification, the tower controller didn't confirm the one part of the readback (and Nick was probably wondering where my comments about the use of the term 'break' came from), I ended up turning the wrong direction after departure.

What was actually said was:
"Diamond 571DS, [wind], Runway 21, cleared for takeoff, right northbound departure approved."

While the instruction I had assumed - "Runway 21, cleared for takeoff - break - northbound departure approved" - would have given me the discretion for a turn, the actual instruction required a right turn.  Since the traffic pattern at CHO uses standard left turns, and I have never turned right off of Runway 21, I made a turn to the left.  Nick actually heard the transmission properly and asked "you know it was supposed to be a turn to the right, right?"  By that time, the tower controller noticed I made the turn in the wrong direction, and instead of providing corrective action, advised me of my error and asked me to state my intentions.

Again, I'll take the hit for not clarifying, and for not following what was asked of me, but that last transmission irked me.  My intentions were known (northbound departure), and it was also clear that I turned the wrong direction (even if not known to me at the time).  Advising me of my error and asking me what I'd like to do wasn't going to solve anything.  Without the vantage point from the tower and radar, I didn't know the traffic picture, despite having a general idea that two planes were inbound.  My only response could be "let me know what you need me to do."  Because of that, what could have been precious seconds were lost.  In the end, I was provided a turn eastbound (though he initially stated westbound), and I managed to call the traffic in sight after Nick pointed it out.

To be honest, I'm very surprised that I made it out of that without getting the dreaded phone number (for the non-aviation readers, "the dreaded phone number" refers to ATC giving you a phone number to call to discuss the incident, and possibly corrective action).  I was really glad when I finally heard "frequency change approved" as it meant he had no further instructions for me, to include said dreaded phone number.

After switching frequencies, I went to set up the radios for the flight home, but they had already been set by Nick.  At that point, I didn't have anything left to do and just passed the controls to him so he could get more time.  Closer to JYO, I took the controls back and landed on Runway 17.  So far, that was one of the best landings I've had in the DA40.

[Video got lost when Contour closed down for a while.]
Despite the unfortunate departure out of CHO, it was nice to be able to go up for a quick flight.

Hours:
Pilot in Command Cross Country (PIC XC): 1.1 - 85.2 (of 50)
Actual/Simulated Instrument (Act/Sim): 0.0 - 13.7 (of 40)

Some Old Photos of N96178

I found a box of old photographs this weekend and went through all of them last night to see what all was in there.  When I started my training, I would take a picture of the plane I flew after each lesson for some reason, so I have a bunch of glossies of the aircraft I've flown over the years.  Since the last post was about N96178, I figured I'd share some of those pictures first.  I'm sure some of the others will show up in future posts.



Just in case you didn't see this on the Twitter feed, there's this gem, too:

Being the first plane I soloed in, you can see there was a little bit of an attachment to it.  I'm pretty sure my instructor took another picture where I was actually smiling, but I'm pretty sure I either still had braces then, or hadn't yet learned how to smile at that point.  Gotta love old pictures of yourself, especially when they're from high school.

Goodbye to an Old Friend

First, I have to say that everyone is okay - "Old Friend" is referring to a plane I've flown for years.

Second, I have to say that I was not involved with this in any way.

Third, I have to say that the NTSB looks into all accidents and none of the information has even made it into their database (at least publicly).  Since they haven't released any statements of probable cause, you're not going to find any commentary on what happened other than what I know for a fact: a plane I've been flying for just short of a decade was involved in a non-fatal crash at the Windwood Fly-In Resort (WV62) on 26 April 2013.  Oddly enough, I was actually flying that day, and to a field less than 14 miles away no less.  Even crazier is that I'd flown the plane less than a week before.

N96178 certainly wasn't the prettiest plane in the fleet.  In fact, I'm pretty sure it was the oldest in the Leesburg (JYO) fleet by the time it was taken out, but it was a trusty workhorse over the years.  I soloed in it back in 2003 and have flown it off and on for 14 flight hours since.  Since I started this blog after finishing my private pilot license some of those adventures are missing, but I caught some of them.

Here's the aftermath of the crash the other week:

For me, I'll just remember this picture of the plane from my flight out to Garrett County (2G4) last year:

I'll miss that plane.

More Instrument Time

N172DR - C172R - 2.1 hours

As somewhat of a last minute thing, a coworker of mine asked if I wanted to go flying so he could get his night currency back.  I almost declined, having just gone last weekend, but since Eric is a CFI and I need to continue chipping away at the instrument requirements, I figured it was a good opportunity.

Since I didn't get my Grant County (W99) flight in last weekend, I figured I would fly the approach there, stop through Winchester (OKV), and then head back to Leesburg (JYO).  That would give him three takeoffs and landings, and it would get me a decent amount of simulated instrument time.

Departing to the west, I put the blinders on and picked up the Linden (LDN) VOR, which is the initial approach fix for the LDA/DME-B approach to W99.  Since LDN is pretty far away from W99, it gave Eric plenty of time to ask general flying questions before we concentrated on the actual approach.  Unfortunately, in order to keep the localizer in the NAV1 spot, I had to put LDN in the NAV2 spot which was unlit.  You can see the oscillations in the track as I wasn't as on top of it as I should've been (first going southwest towards LDN, and then I turned too early to the west, away from LDN).  In any case, I made it onto the localizer in the end, which put me right on top of the field.

As you can see on the chart, the airport is surrounded by terrain, so much so that a straight-in approach cannot be made with the necessary safety margins required by the FAA.  For this reason, the LOC is offset 25 degrees from the actual runway heading.  Moreover, this is also why it is a localizer-type directional aid (LDA) approach instead of being a localizer (LOC) approach.

For those who aren't pilots, localizers are normally placed at the far end of a runway and provide lateral guidance to it.  In this case, the localizer has been placed to the left of the runway, on the near side, because of terrain.  Being on the near side means that it is more sensitive, and therefore slightly more difficult to track, when compared to a normal LOC approach at similar distances from the field.  Additionally, because of the offset and the terrain, the minimum altitude you can descend to on the approach is 1540 feet above the elevation of the airport.  Because you're so high, so close in, it is designed as a circling approach, where you wouldn't normally immediately line up with the runway to land (note that the chart only lists "circling" at the bottom, with no "S" - or "straight-in" - minimums); rather, you would spot the airport closer in, circle around the airport to lose altitude, and then to land.  You can see this in the CloudAhoy track below (the knot at the far left of the blue line).  While the concepts of the various approaches are similar, approaches like this offer somewhat of a challenge, when compared to those offering straight-in procedures (which is what you experience on 99% of commercial flights if the weather is poor).

I ended up overflying the field, and passing the controls to Eric so that he could make his landing.  After a quick full stop landing with a taxi back, we departed to the north to avoid terrain.  If you look back at the approach chart, you'll see that there is a valley north of the field to follow until you clear the mountains.  Once above the terrain, I took the controls again with the blinders on to log more instrument time towards OKV.  After Eric had OKV in sight, I passed the controls back to him for a lap around the pattern and a full stop landing.  Since the weather was nicer, a few others were taking advantage of it for night currency as well, so I called traffic with the blinders off while we were in the pattern.

One of the pilots who landed before us decided to stop right next to the taxiway for some reason, but we managed to get by.  After the departure, I put the blinders back on and took us back to JYO.  Once again, Eric called the field in sight, I passed him the controls for the landing, and that was that.  By the way, if anyone wants to see the perfect example of a full stall landing, see this guy.

From all of the questions throughout the flight, it seems I need to dig back through the books to brush up on some of the items I've forgotten over the years.  It was a great flight, though.  He has his night currency back, and I have 1.6 more hours of the instrument requirement (not to mention 1.6 more instrument dual).

Hours:
Pilot in Command Cross Country (PIC XC): 2.1 - 84.1 (of 50)
Actual/Simulated Instrument (Act/Sim): 1.6 - 13.7 (of 40)

Chipping Away at the Instrument Requirement

N96178 - C172P - 2.3 hours

Initially, there was some talk that I would be flying someone around this weekend, but I never heard back about it.  By the time Saturday came and I saw how nice it was outside, the thought that I should have been flying resurfaced.  Not being able to suppress the thought, I called Phil to see if he would want to be a safety pilot for a few hours.

My initial thought was a quick trip out to Grant County (W99), because it has an interesting approach, and would be an easy flight out and back.  Phil brought up the idea of State College (UNV) again, from the times we've debated doing it in the past, adding that it would be a good spot for dinner.  Unfortunately, the dinner idea didn't work out as well as we had expected, as the restaurant we wanted to go to would have been closed by the time we got there.  Adding to that issue was that the wind at airports to the north and east weren't exactly the best.  While we both noted that I had previously put a plane down on a tiny runway with a gusty crosswind (note that the link refers to plans to go to UNV, as well), I really didn't want to deal with it.  We also looked at a few other airports, but as you've heard several times before, I knew there would be a car and a restaurant in Charlottesville (CHO), and the airport had an instrument approach along with favorable wind.

Phil and I preflighted and set up the equipment while waiting for fuel and oil.  For some reason, it seems that the new FBO, ProJet Aviation, is a little slow with fuel requests.  They were also the reason for our late departure on my last flight down to Raleigh (RDU).  Given that they're new, I'll give them time to adjust, but it's still somewhat irksome when seemingly nothing else is going on.

[Video got lost when Contour closed down for a while.]
Taxiing down to the runway, the bald spot the tire that we noted on the preflight was causing quite a rumble (you can see the camera shake in the takeoff video above). It wasn't bad enough to have to take the plane back, but it was definitely obvious.  After departing, we headed west to get out of the SFRA, and then south towards CHO.  In that process, I was able to throw the blinders on and log some time.  Getting closer to CHO, I called Potomac Approach for flight following and a practice ILS approach to Runway 3.  After being vectored around a bit for spacing from other traffic, I was turned inbound for the approach.

For some reason, I managed to park in front of the wrong hangar, despite having flown there too many times to make that mistake.  After moving the plane, we found the crew car gone (the people using it had kept it over the two hour limit), and the attendant unable to let us borrow the van "just in case he needed it."  The curiosity, however, was that he was also unable to drop us off because he needed to remain at the airport.  So, what exactly would you need to keep the van for when you're unable to leave the airport?  Even more of a curiosity was the fact that he dropped us off at the terminal to get a cab, which is arguably just about the same amount of time as driving us to Timberwood Grill.

The cabbie we got from the terminal partially ignored us and was on his phone most of the time during the ride, to the point where I had to interrupt him a few times to point him in the right direction.  A 1.5 mile journey for his minimum fee of $25.  Luckily the food was good and the cab ride back was much better.  It was cheaper and the cabbie was hilarious.

Heading back, there was a little bit of an issue with the comms that we somehow sorted out by the hold short point for Runway 3.  Shortly after departing the tower closed (as a normal, nightly thing - not because of the impending tower closures) and I picked up flight following back to Leesburg (JYO).  After a handoff to another controller, I isolated my comms (cutting Phil off from hearing me and ATC) and asked if I could get a touch and go at Dulles (IAD).  The controller initially declined the request, saying "they don't do that anymore," but later came back with "expect an operation at Dulles - proceed direct to Dulles."  I was given Runway 1L, which for anyone else flying into IAD is a punishment (because of the absurdly long taxi to the terminal), but was welcomed by myself as it meant I wasn't getting in anyone's way.  Checking in with the tower controller, I was met with "say request," which caught me by surprise, as it should have already been communicated that I would be doing a touch and go.  I responded that I would be doing a touch and go on Runway 1L, which was met with a slightly perturbed "and then what?"  After letting her know I'd be going to JYO, we landed, took off, and headed off in that direction.

[Video got lost when Contour closed down for a while.]
Phil got the landing at JYO.  For not having landed a plane since we last flew together back in January, it wasn't too bad.  In the end, I got 1.6 hours of simulated instrument time towards the 40 that I need for the rating.  Looks like I need to cut down on the joyrides and force myself to work harder at it, but at the same time, all of the joyrides are contributing to the total hours that I'll need later for the commercial rating and beyond.

As long as the weather behaves, the next flight should be at the end of next month down to Roanoke.

Hours:
Pilot in Command Cross Country (PIC XC): 2.3 - 82.0 (of 50)
Actual/Simulated Instrument (Act/Sim): 1.6 - 12.1 (of 40)

South: For Warmth and Hockey

N571DS - DA40 - 3.5 hours

This flight has been in the works for a while.  I posted something up on Facebook back in December about wanting to go on a flight, which my friend Melissa responded to with "when???"  For various reasons, we never got around to it for the next few months, until I asked one day if she was serious about going.  Once she found out that Raleigh (RDU) was a possibility, we started to plan a trip to see a Carolina Hurricanes game.

Just like most of my other flights, there were a couple different ideas of what would happen, but in the end we settled on April 6th.  Luckily, by the time she was looking into buying tickets, the extended forecasts were shaping up to give me an idea that the weather would be okay.  At about that time I was also nudged into giving myself an upgrade with a DA40.  Closer to the flight the forecast just kept getting better, and you could definitely tell we were both getting pretty excited about it.  In order to pass the time, I ended up creating an electronic weight and balance form, and studying the DA40 POH and G1000 reference guide.  The result of the latter, and not being used to flying low-wing aircraft, was a quick reference sheet I wrote up the night before the flight.  Note the several semi-threatening reminders to switch the tanks.

The day finally came and I showed up at the airport, typically early and ready to go.  I checked the weather, took a look at the wind at various altitudes, and otherwise killed time until the plane got back.  Melissa showed up with some time to spare, and I'm pretty sure I all but pounced on the person who was bringing the plane back.  Out at the plane, I got everything set and began preflighting.  While everything was in order, the oil was low and I wanted the tanks topped off, which took a lot longer than it normally does for some reason.  As I was waiting for that, I set up two of my cameras.  I brought all three, but I couldn't find a good spot for the third camera without it being right in one of our faces.

Despite the delay, we were off soon enough and on our way south for warmer weather and hockey.  The engine started right up and looked good in the pre-departure checks, so we were off in no time.  After departing, I turned west and then south as soon as I cleared the SFRA.  Staying under the Class B airspace kept us down in some light turbulence, but as soon as I was able to step up it started to lighten up.

After passing the Casanova VOR (CSN), I called Potomac to get flight following all the way down.  I pointed out the few landmarks that we passed, along with most of the airports we flew over.  Melissa got some time at the controls as well, though I think my assistance in keeping the controls where they should be put a damper on the experience (the plane was pulling to the left because I was heavier, and was burning fuel off of the right wing).  Her not being able to see over the glareshield made the whole event pretty difficult, though I was able to point out what the artificial horizon is meant for.

Closer to RDU, I was given a descent and a vector west of the field for a downwind to Runway 5R.  I'm not sure where the controller was from, but if you could imagine Boston combined with North Carolina that's what I would liken it to.  After swinging around the airport, I set it down on Runway 5R.  It wasn't one of my best landings, but I was told that it was better than some commercial landings.  Tower had me roll to A6, which is close to Landmark, and contact ground for instructions to get to the ramp.

[Video got lost when Contour closed down for a while.]

After being marshalled in and shutting down, we were immediately confronted with two questions:
1 - Who was going to win the game.
2 - Whether or not we thought there would be more NY Ranger Jerseys than Carolina jerseys.

Naturally, we both answered in favor of Carolina in both cases while I made sure all of the equipment was okay to sit for the next few hours.


I had called for a cab over the frequency when I was about 15 minutes out, so our ride to the stadium was sitting outside when we walked in.  I'm glad I thought to do that as our fuel and oil delay up at Leesburg (JYO) pushed us pretty close to game time.  When we finally got to the stadium they were in the middle of the National Anthem, so we were a little behind, but not by much.  The seats, though, were pretty awesome.  We were low enough that it felt like we were on the ice, but high enough to see over the players' heads.  The only unfortunate side to the whole deal is that Melissa's favorite player, Alexander Semin, was out for the night, and the team was having an off night in general.  They ended up losing 4 to 1.

After catching a cab back to the airport we were met by the Landmark crew and a fuel receipt with "LET'S GO RANGERS" stapled to it on a sticky note.  Looks like I owe that guy a dollar.  Oh well.

The departure runway was still Runway 5R, so after a relatively long taxi back to the end of the runway, we set back off towards JYO.  Once the departure controller found out where we were headed, he asked us about whether or not the cherry blossoms were in bloom.  He had apparently just visited DC while visiting family and missed the peak bloom.  Just before passing us on to Washington Center, he instructed me to take a few pictures for him.  I think I'll have to surprise him by sending some pictures now.

I pointed out the various airports as we passed over them, to include Lake Anna (7W4) and the story of almost getting hit there last September, which she remembered as I mentioned it to her after that flight when we met up that night.  The route back had more of a tailwind, so our groundspeed was much better, putting us back in the DC area relatively quickly.  Potomac luckily gave me clearance into the Bravo to take more advantage of it.  The crazy thing was that the wind was still showing 30 knots at pattern altitude back at JYO.  It made the approach somewhat awkward, but not too bad in the end.  After landing, I brought the plane back to the spot, shut down, and started packing up.  Once everything was finally back in the flight bag, I had a little difficulty putting the plane back in its spot, but luckily had someone else there to help me out.

It was a long day of flying, and while the game itself was somewhat disappointing, the entire event was worth it.

Hours:
Pilot in Command Cross Country (PIC XC): 3.5 - 79.7 (of 50)
Actual/Simulated Instrument (Act/Sim): 0.0 - 10.5 (of 40)

Make Yourself an "App" Without Learning Code

As somewhat of a side project, I've taught myself some programming for iOS.  I've learned a lot, but your average person isn't going to want to learn all of that just to develop for his or her own purposes.  As such, a lot of us are at an impasse:

-Develop your own app for your own uses; or

-Buy an app

Option one means you'll have to learn some code (mainly Objective C) and have a Mac computer of some sort for Xcode (their development tool).  If you want to sell it in the App Store, you'll also need to pay to be a developer, which is currently $99 as an individual.

Option two often means you're only getting generic values for the aircraft type, and not your specific aircraft. Even if they allow editing of the basic operating weight, several apps require you to pay for each additional aircraft type.  I'll spare you my rant on what I think of that type of practice, however.

Developing your own "app" - the term loosely used in this case - isn't as tough as it needs to be.  If you have a Google account, simple Excel skills, and an iPad, you have all you'll need.  Having a Google account, such as a Gmail account, means that you also have Google Drive and its related Google Docs feature.  This means  that you can create Excel-type spreadsheets that live in the cloud, and can be stored offline on your iPad, using the free Google Drive app.  While it isn't going to be as elegant as a fully-developed application, it's better than not doing your weight and balance because you hate math, don't have a calculator, or don't want to go digging through the POH for the numbers.

Here's how to do it:

Grab your iPad, open up the App Store, search for Google Drive, and let that download.  Once it's ready, sign in using your Google Account.  Unless you've used your Drive before, you probably won't see much in there, which is just fine.  Set the iPad aside and move to a computer.  While you could probably do this next step on your iPad, it wouldn't be fun.

Once you're at your computer, open up an internet browser and go to drive.google.com.  If this is the first time you've been there, you'll have to sign in.  Once you're in, click the Create button near the top left of the screen.  The fourth option down should be one for a spreadsheet.  When the spreadsheet opens up, you can use this to create your own weight and balance form.  Use the values right out of the weight and balance section of your POH, and go from there.  If you've used Excel before, you can use many of the same functions here (SUM, IF, and simple math functions using +, -, *, / ).

After you've finished your file, open the Google Drive app on your iPad, find the file, and click the arrow on the right side.  In the pane that opens, change the Available Offline slider from OFF to ON.  You now have a cached version of the file on your iPad to use offline, which is important if you have a wireless-only iPad, or are away from a data connection in general.

Some hints for you:

• If you have the POH around, use the values in your POH.  If you rent, whoever you rent from will often be able to fax something to you, or email the numbers.
• My images have flagged checks (green Yes boxes that change to a red No when over limits), which are based on the CG envelope and max weights.  Many CG envelopes are non-linear, which means they're more complicated functions.  Don't feel like you have to add them in.
• If you are using gallons of fuel, don't forget to have the function change volume to weight (many quote 100LL at 6.01lb/gal).
• Checking to make sure you're within limits for the whole flight is important.  You can easily do this by setting aside cells for fuel burn per hour, and the trip length in hours.  Subtract the fuel used over the trip from the total weight for your landing weight.

Please do not use the numbers from my images in your spreadsheets, as each aircraft has a different basic empty weight at a minimum.  This value changes for different avionics, engine types, prop types, and various other equipment options.

It is very important that you use the values for the aircraft you will be flying.

Video: Dizzy Yet?

I normally embed my flight videos right into my posts, but that's because I upload the raw video to Contour or YouTube as I'm writing.  Since I edited video from three cameras together into one for the Dizzy Yet? flight, I uploaded it well after publishing the flight narrative.  For now, I'll probably post the flight narrative with a couple videos, and then follow that up with the edited video in another post, as with the case here.

I know some of you probably saw the Facebook or Twitter links to it, but for those of you who haven't seen the finished product, here it is (make sure to switch it up to 720p HD):

I learned a lot making this video, so the videos in the future should be better.

ForeFlight vs. Garmin Pilot

Given the amount of traffic the comparison of the Garmin GLO and the Dual XGPS150 is getting, it seems like comparative reviews are what people are looking for.  Following that example, I'll be putting ForeFlight up against Garmin Pilot in this post, to give people an idea of what each app is capable of.

Before I dive too deeply into either app, the overview is that they're both capable applications with their own strong points and quirks.  Overall, I tested ease of use from a general aviation, single pilot operation perspective.  That's not to say they can't be used for aviation of a more professional order, but when you're flying a smaller aircraft on your own, the easier things are to accomplish, the better.  In order to avoid taking up extra space tagging the pictures from ForeFlight and Garmin Pilot, I'll use the convention of placing ForeFlight images on the left, and Garmin Pilot images on the right.

General Interface Points

My first reaction to the Garmin Pilot interface was that it was slightly less organized and slightly more casual-looking than ForeFlight.  After digging around, though, you get the hang of where they put things and why they put them there.  The "more casual-looking" comment comes from the fact that Garmin Pilot's buttons are huge, but when you're bouncing around in turbulence, or trying to otherwise fly the plane, the last thing you need to worry about is fat-fingering a button.  Each button is clearly labeled, both textually and graphically.  In the end, I can't fault them for that.  They're just different approaches.

The Maps Interface

The maps interface for both apps gets all kinds of information in front of you.  In the display arena, I give Garmin Pilot the edge, as it offers the same information as ForeFlight and slightly more.  You can see ForeFlight's information displayed in the picture, but Garmin Pilot's is not (you can access navigation information under Menu > Show Navigation Info).  Additionally, Garmin Pilot offers widgets, which are larger and give you more data in each widget.  As an example, the Garmin Pilot navigation widget gives you (by default) altitude, bearing, course, cross track error, distance to destination, distance to next, ETA to destination, ETA to next, ETE to destination, ETE to next, ground speed, horizontal accuracy, latitude, and longitude.  While that information is great to have, without filters you'll have to do some glancing around to find the data you want, and it takes up half of your screen area while you're at it.  The widget area can also be converted to somewhat of an avionics suite through Menu > Split Screen > Panel.  While it's a neat tool, it also eats half of your map display.  Such a feature would be a great backup in the case of an emergency, however.

Both apps are equally capable with maps and overlays, but in the functionality arena, I give ForeFlight the edge.  While Garmin Pilot displays a prominent direct-to button, it lacks the route capabilities that ForeFlight has from this screen.  ForeFlight has a route and nav log right from this interface, whereas with the exception of the direct-to button, Garmin Pilot's route planning is textually accomplished on a separate page.  You can, however, graphically plan using Tools > Graphically Edit Route, and just tap on the airports and VORs that you want, though fixes can be tougher, and you don't have the ability to specify airways.

The Flight Planning Interface

The flight planning interface allows you to add your flight plan into the app in order to display it on the map, or file it using the filing features.  Both applications allow you to type in your route, or create your route by tapping on the individual waypoints on the map, however ForeFlight is the only one that allows you to do it on the same page.  Both apps will also parse V and J airways, which helps immensely in entering longer routes.  As ForeFlight allows you to manage this all from the same page, along with providing the user guidance on altitude with wind data, my vote is for ForeFlight here.

The Airports Interface

The airports interface for both apps gets you all the information you'll need for any airport in the database.  As they both generally have the same information, and the same amount of information, I'll call it even data-wise.  You can see in the pictures, though, each app has its own approach to data display.  ForeFlight offers more of a filtered view, while Garmin Pilot gives you all of the data on larger screens.  Despite the very logically-organized and filtered view offered by ForeFlight, I'll give the interface edge to Garmin Pilot.  While you can see all of the frequency information is dumped into one page, it doesn't require me to click around the various frequency types to get the data I need.  It's just a matter of scrolling.  The buttons for this information are also larger, making them easier to hit.

The Charts Interface

The charts interface of both apps allows you to find charts and store them in binders with relative ease and organization.  ForeFlight's search feature seemed easier to use and more organized than Garmin Pilot, as its search feature shows airports you've selected from the airport, maps, and file and brief pages, along with charts from your favorite airports.  The Garmin Pilot search feature simply gives you a search box, though it does have buttons at the top right to filter down by chart type, and a history of what you have searched and viewed before.  In binder view, however, Garmin Pilot automatically adds in temporary binders for your origin and destination airports if you've entered a flight plan.  As they both display the same data, and each have minor strong points, I'll call this one relatively even.

The Imagery Interface

The imagery interface allows you to get access to weather.  Both products have a significant amount of weather data available.  I'd argue ForeFlight did a better job of segmenting the data by country, but that's not to say Garmin Pilot's interface isn't just as capable.  I'll call this one even as well.

The Flight Plan Filing and Briefing Interface

The flight plan filing and briefing interface allows you to brief yourself and file your flight plan through CSC DUATS (and in the case of Garmin Pilot, DTC DUAT as well).  It's tough to compare these two apps in this category, because they both allow you to do the same thing, but they both use the pages slightly differently.  As you can see, ForeFlight is primarily aimed at setting your flight plan up and getting you on your way to a flight brief and file.  Garmin Pilot's interface is slightly more of a review with a flight summary and nav log, with the flight brief and filing option as well.  I will say, though, that the Garmin Pilot interface does have a nifty feature of knowing when to, and when not to offer the SFRA flight plan option, whereas it is always available in ForeFlight.  This page, on both applications, is heavily enhanced through adding your pilot and aircraft information in the settings panels.  While the interfaces are vastly different, I can't say either one is better than the other.

The Scratch Pad

The scratch pad is where you write reminders for yourself.  I used this extensively on my flight a month ago to keep track of how many landings I had done.  There's not much to say other than each one has its own advantages.  With the ForeFlight scratch pad, you can either draw or type.  If you mess up while drawing, however, your only option is to clear the whole sheet.  While you'd otherwise likely writing with pen on paper and just crossing it out anyway, it's worth mentioning.  Garmin Pilot allows you to draw, with no option for typing, though it does have an eraser and a clear option for when you mess up.

The Settings Interface

The settings interface for both applications allows you to set your preferences and store user information about yourself (or other pilots who may be using this application), and the aircraft you fly.  Both are predominantly the same, although the Garmin Pilot app does have a few advantages in showing you pictures of your aircraft icon selection, filter search criteria for map view, and the ability to connect to various Garmin hardware.  While ForeFlight allows you to manage your downloads without having to go to a separate page, Garmin Pilot's download page also shows you the app's memory footprint, as you make you decisions on what to and not to download.  Based on some of the more granular options, and the ability to connect up to all kinds of hardware, I'll hand the win here to Garmin Pilot.

The Larger Differences

One of the main benefits of Garmin Pilot is its ability to tie in nicely with various hardware, to include weather and traffic.  This hardware includes the Garmin GDL 39, which provides both ADS-B traffic and weather, and the Baron Mobile Link, which provides XM satellite weather.  ForeFlight is against the display of traffic in its app, for reasons I can only partially agree with, so no matter what you use it seems weather is the most you'll get.  ForeFlight does, on the other hand, include various publications in its download options, such as the FAR/AIM.  While that's seemingly small, consider the fact that you now have an always-up-to-date version of the FAR/AIM, without having to go buy a new one (about $12) yearly.  If you're ever flying around wondering about cloud clearances or communications requirements, you can easily pull it up to double check.  ForeFlight has also released a new version of the app including terrain data and associated warnings.

Conclusion

Based on the numbers, the Garmin Pilot app takes it based on total categories won, but it's not like you can go wrong with ForeFlight.  I use ForeFlight, and I doubt I'll switch to Garmin Pilot.  Unless I get the equipment to take advantage of some of Garmin Pilot's features, I don't see the advantage for me to give up some of the features I do like about ForeFlight over the Garmin Pilot app.  In the end, your decision may come down to price, as Garmin Pilot is less expensive across the board than ForeFlight, shown below.  Both applications allow you to try the app out for 30 days, so try both of them out and see how you like them.

Here is the breakdown for pricing:

Yearly Subscription
ForeFlight: $74.99 (includes runway proximity advisories, even without purchase of geo-referenced charts)
Garmin Pilot: $49.99 (add $29.99 for SafeTaxi, which adds geo-referenced ground charts)

Geo-referencing:
ForeFlight: +$75.00 (for a total price of $149.99 per year)
Garmin Pilot: +$49.99 (and +$29.99 if you would like SafeTaxi, for a total of $129.97 per year)



If you'd like to see anything else reviewed here, let me know on the Facebook page, or @TheMintGreenLog on Twitter.

Good luck in your decision making.

ForeFlight - Garmin Pilot