N172DR - C172R - 0.8 hours
Earlier this morning I'd gotten a message about a local flight school needing an aircraft moved from Warrenton (HWY) to Leesburg (JYO). I immediately jumped on the opportunity, but soon thereafter I got some unfortunate news about a family member's health. In an effort to keep my earlier commitment while also being able to stop by and visit with said family member, I rented the trusty N172DR so that I could fly to Winchester (OKV) and spend time with family that would have otherwise been spent driving nearly two hours round trip. Granted, the flights together took up nearly 50 minutes, but that extra time made all the difference. Additionally not having to worry about the stresses of traffic, and the traffic lights on Route 7 was a lot better for my own sanity.
While it's good to remember to run the IMSAFE checklist to ensure you're fit to fly before any flight, it was even more important to do so today given the reason for the flight. A flight such as this one could put several pressures on a pilot, while the potential to be upset by the state of a family member could also serve as a major distraction. In my case, I kept in mind that I could always drive. JYO is conveniently on the way out to OKV for me, so continuing the drive if I felt out of sorts was not out of the question. The flight was not a matter of seeing family or not. It was simply a way of spending more time out there. Additionally, despite the unfortunate news, other than wanting to be with family as soon as I could be, there was no immediately time-sensitive concern as there would be if there had been a car accident or similar.
The flight itself was pretty standard. It was a little hazy and there were a few low clouds for the flight out, but nothing major. Now, off to take a C172M down to HWY.
Hours:
Pilot in Command Cross Country (PIC XC): 0.0 - 107.0 (of 50)
Actual/Simulated Instrument (Act/Sim): 0.0 - 22.9 (of 40)
Showing posts with label ForeFlight. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ForeFlight. Show all posts
17 July 2015
02 July 2015
More Instrument Time - Less Weather
N172DR - C172R - 3.0 hours
My friend James and I have been talking about flying off and on for years. I actually met him when I lived out in Phoenix, which was partially the reason this blog came into existence (trip reports for my family/friends, as I'd intended to get my additional ratings out there back in 2008), and even though we worked at the same flight school, we had never flown together until today. Since we had been talking about flying and my last flight didn't go as planned, I figured we would try it again.
We flew up to Reedsville (RVL) through the use of VORs only. I'd planned on this, but we found that the GPS ended up being INOP when we got to the plane. As I was under the blinders for the flight, I was guided around a few cells all the way up to RVL, shot the LOC Runway 6 approach, flew the missed with one lap around the hold, and then flew the approach again for more practice. To get the cross country time, I touched the wheels down on the runway and then set off towards home.
Adding to this non-GPS challenge was some sort of issue (my guess is vacuum-related) that made my artificial horizon gauge unreliable. It's always an interesting situation when you've developed a good trust in your instruments, and then they start wandering on you. As I was flying the first LOC approach, I noticed that when the gauge shows wings level, I felt like we were turning, and the turn coordinator and directional gyro confirmed this. I never thought I'd get actual partial panel experience, but it was actually neat to see it in a controlled environment.
The route back was by VOR again, and finished with the ILS Runway 17 approach back into Leesburg (JYO). Another 2.7 hours of simulated instrument in the book, so I'll call that a success.
Hours:
Pilot in Command Cross Country (PIC XC): 3.0 - 107.0 (of 50)
Actual/Simulated Instrument (Act/Sim): 2.7 - 22.9 (of 40)
My friend James and I have been talking about flying off and on for years. I actually met him when I lived out in Phoenix, which was partially the reason this blog came into existence (trip reports for my family/friends, as I'd intended to get my additional ratings out there back in 2008), and even though we worked at the same flight school, we had never flown together until today. Since we had been talking about flying and my last flight didn't go as planned, I figured we would try it again.
We flew up to Reedsville (RVL) through the use of VORs only. I'd planned on this, but we found that the GPS ended up being INOP when we got to the plane. As I was under the blinders for the flight, I was guided around a few cells all the way up to RVL, shot the LOC Runway 6 approach, flew the missed with one lap around the hold, and then flew the approach again for more practice. To get the cross country time, I touched the wheels down on the runway and then set off towards home.
Adding to this non-GPS challenge was some sort of issue (my guess is vacuum-related) that made my artificial horizon gauge unreliable. It's always an interesting situation when you've developed a good trust in your instruments, and then they start wandering on you. As I was flying the first LOC approach, I noticed that when the gauge shows wings level, I felt like we were turning, and the turn coordinator and directional gyro confirmed this. I never thought I'd get actual partial panel experience, but it was actually neat to see it in a controlled environment.
The route back was by VOR again, and finished with the ILS Runway 17 approach back into Leesburg (JYO). Another 2.7 hours of simulated instrument in the book, so I'll call that a success.
Hours:
Pilot in Command Cross Country (PIC XC): 3.0 - 107.0 (of 50)
Actual/Simulated Instrument (Act/Sim): 2.7 - 22.9 (of 40)
21 June 2015
Fighting Weather
N329ME - C172S - 2.6 hours
As I've been in an endless struggle to accumulate more simulated instrument hours, I plotted out a couple flights that would help me to that end. Given the weather we've been having lately - lower clouds with rain - I figured a route to the south and a route to the north would give me the best chances. The mountains to the west could get dicey if the clouds got too low, the airspace to the east is relatively foreboding, and the north/south option gives me an option to use the opposite direction if we departed and found the weather to be less than desirable in the initial direction (it's summer, and storms are regular).
Of course, that plan of having a backup worked in our favor, as a storm began to develop over Warrenton (HWY), which is where we were headed. Phil pointed this fact out to me since I couldn't see it under the blinders, so I turned back to the north to pick up the Martinsburg VOR (MRB) and continue in that direction to Reedsville (RVL). Unfortunately, weather developed in that direction, too, and cut us off from the airport as we began the instrument approach to the field.
After turning back around to head home, I decided to pick up an ILS approach into Hagerstown (HGR) to get a break and use the facilities, and then head back to fly the ILS into Leesburg (JYO).
Despite not accomplishing the goal of flying the approach into RVL, I still picked up 2.4 hours of simulated instrument, so I'm now over half way there.
Hours:
Pilot in Command Cross Country (PIC XC): 2.6 - 104.0 (of 50)
Actual/Simulated Instrument (Act/Sim): 2.4 - 20.2 (of 40)
As I've been in an endless struggle to accumulate more simulated instrument hours, I plotted out a couple flights that would help me to that end. Given the weather we've been having lately - lower clouds with rain - I figured a route to the south and a route to the north would give me the best chances. The mountains to the west could get dicey if the clouds got too low, the airspace to the east is relatively foreboding, and the north/south option gives me an option to use the opposite direction if we departed and found the weather to be less than desirable in the initial direction (it's summer, and storms are regular).
Of course, that plan of having a backup worked in our favor, as a storm began to develop over Warrenton (HWY), which is where we were headed. Phil pointed this fact out to me since I couldn't see it under the blinders, so I turned back to the north to pick up the Martinsburg VOR (MRB) and continue in that direction to Reedsville (RVL). Unfortunately, weather developed in that direction, too, and cut us off from the airport as we began the instrument approach to the field.
 |
| Nope... |
Despite not accomplishing the goal of flying the approach into RVL, I still picked up 2.4 hours of simulated instrument, so I'm now over half way there.
Hours:
Pilot in Command Cross Country (PIC XC): 2.6 - 104.0 (of 50)
Actual/Simulated Instrument (Act/Sim): 2.4 - 20.2 (of 40)
14 June 2015
Anyone Available for a Ferry Flight? Yep.
N950ME - C172M - 1.4 hours
There are some times during the weekend where you simply find yourself with nothing left to do. Granted, this doesn't happen often for me between my day job forcing a lot of my activities to the weekend, my PMDG job contributing to that, PMDG Flight Ops activities (flying around in a DC-3, obviously, usually takes priority over just about anything else), and various other activities like visiting family and keeping the fridge stocked. To be clear, I have nothing against any of those things (besides maybe my day job), but it does mean that I'm rarely simply sitting there trying to come up with something to do.
Luckily, today was one of those days, and I saw an email go out from the school I got checked out with back in April. They needed a pilot to help chase an aircraft from Manassas (HEF) to Stafford (RMN), in order to bring him back from his ferry flight. I immediately called the school to offer to help out and was told to head down to the field and coordinate with the other pilot.
Once there, we waited out some isolated, typical summer storms and set off to RMN. The weather on the way over was still pretty hazy, and there were still isolated rain showers in spots, which was an interesting experience, and offered some pretty cool sights.
Hours:
Pilot in Command Cross Country (PIC XC): 0.0 - 101.4 (of 50)
Actual/Simulated Instrument (Act/Sim): 0.7 - 17.8 (of 40)
There are some times during the weekend where you simply find yourself with nothing left to do. Granted, this doesn't happen often for me between my day job forcing a lot of my activities to the weekend, my PMDG job contributing to that, PMDG Flight Ops activities (flying around in a DC-3, obviously, usually takes priority over just about anything else), and various other activities like visiting family and keeping the fridge stocked. To be clear, I have nothing against any of those things (besides maybe my day job), but it does mean that I'm rarely simply sitting there trying to come up with something to do.Luckily, today was one of those days, and I saw an email go out from the school I got checked out with back in April. They needed a pilot to help chase an aircraft from Manassas (HEF) to Stafford (RMN), in order to bring him back from his ferry flight. I immediately called the school to offer to help out and was told to head down to the field and coordinate with the other pilot.
Once there, we waited out some isolated, typical summer storms and set off to RMN. The weather on the way over was still pretty hazy, and there were still isolated rain showers in spots, which was an interesting experience, and offered some pretty cool sights.
On the way back, the other pilot offered to let me log hood time, both to help me get the time, and to help him log time and not just sit there. We were nearly all the way back to HEF when we decided to see if the controller could give us a practice approach to the field, which actually took us all the way back over RMN. It was extra time, though, and time that I needed, so neither of us complained.
After bringing the plane back in and getting it tied down, we added our entries to the logbooks and then headed home. I, of course, stopped by to say good night to the 3 on the way out.
Hours:
Pilot in Command Cross Country (PIC XC): 0.0 - 101.4 (of 50)
Actual/Simulated Instrument (Act/Sim): 0.7 - 17.8 (of 40)
21 May 2015
OC Day Trip
N571DS - DA40 - 3.9 hours
Today's trip was a change from the original plan of flying to Lynchburg (LYH) on somewhat of a mission, to a trip to the beach. Since there aren't any pictures and nothing truly interesting happened, I'll keep it brief:
Hours:
Pilot in Command Cross Country (PIC XC): 2.9 - 101.4 (of 50)
Actual/Simulated Instrument (Act/Sim): 0.0 - 17.1 (of 40)
Today's trip was a change from the original plan of flying to Lynchburg (LYH) on somewhat of a mission, to a trip to the beach. Since there aren't any pictures and nothing truly interesting happened, I'll keep it brief:
- The wind in the morning was ridiculous: 31015G21KT at Hagerstown (HGR), and similar at Leesburg (JYO) and Ocean City (OXB)
- The route of flight was JYO-HGR-OXB-HGR-JYO
- I finally met the guy I've been renting cars from each time I've flown over to OXB after hours
- Potomac TRACON's (PCT) radio coverage between BWI and Salisbury (SBY) - a new sector for them, taken from Washington Center (ZDC) - is weak to the point where I had to relay radio messages from a military helicopter conducting low altitude operations to PCT. Hopefully that brings good pilot karma for later.
- I also learned that P-40 has a cap of 5000 feet as long as it isn't "supersized."
- The Shark on the Harbor is as good as I'd remembered it.
Oddly enough, this flight was longer than some of my other flights recently, and it's probably one of the shorter posts. Still, the in-depth play-by-play gets old to write, and it's probably tiring to read, so I had to shake it up a bit and just hit the highlights. I'll save detail for the more interesting and technical flying.
Pilot in Command Cross Country (PIC XC): 2.9 - 101.4 (of 50)
Actual/Simulated Instrument (Act/Sim): 0.0 - 17.1 (of 40)
14 April 2015
Renting from Redshirts
N950ME - C172M - 1.3 hours
For Christmas, two of my friends got me a gift card for flying time at a flight school one of them uses. While it is a competitor to the flight school I've used for nearly 12 years now, said other school has a location at Manassas (HEF), while my long time flight school does not. The convenience here is that the DC-3 got moved to HEF, and there have been days when we've returned from a trip and I stop and think "you know, I really want to go flying on my own now." Until recently, that would have meant driving all the way up to Leesburg (JYO), but these thoughts usually came at a time too late to request that the keys to one of the aircraft get left in the lock box. With a checkout at HEF, it would mean walking across the ramp and right into a plane.
With that in mind, I scheduled a checkout with one of the instructors at the school to get checked out in their C172M. The checkout itself was the standard flight school checkout of taking the plane out, doing some slow flight, stalls, landings, and then bringing it back in. The addition of the flap 40 setting in the older M model was now, along with the flap toggle instead of the flap lever. Other than that, the main challenge was the wind of 21015G22 at Culpeper (CJR). Bringing it back in to HEF was a little more challenging as the wind of 19014G22 meant a 30 degree crosswind. I forgot to hold the crosswind correction in on the rollout, so the wind came up a bit, but the reminder from nature was enough to get me to do it from then on.
Nice and simple, and now I'm set and ready to use their aircraft to build time and enjoy some flying of my own after the DC-3 trips.
Hours:
Pilot in Command Cross Country (PIC XC): 0.0 - 98.5 (of 50)
Actual/Simulated Instrument (Act/Sim): 0.0 - 16.6 (of 40)
With that in mind, I scheduled a checkout with one of the instructors at the school to get checked out in their C172M. The checkout itself was the standard flight school checkout of taking the plane out, doing some slow flight, stalls, landings, and then bringing it back in. The addition of the flap 40 setting in the older M model was now, along with the flap toggle instead of the flap lever. Other than that, the main challenge was the wind of 21015G22 at Culpeper (CJR). Bringing it back in to HEF was a little more challenging as the wind of 19014G22 meant a 30 degree crosswind. I forgot to hold the crosswind correction in on the rollout, so the wind came up a bit, but the reminder from nature was enough to get me to do it from then on.
Nice and simple, and now I'm set and ready to use their aircraft to build time and enjoy some flying of my own after the DC-3 trips.
Hours:
Pilot in Command Cross Country (PIC XC): 0.0 - 98.5 (of 50)
Actual/Simulated Instrument (Act/Sim): 0.0 - 16.6 (of 40)
11 April 2015
A Night Trip to the Beach
N677JA - C172S - 2.9 hours
Today was planned to be a quick flight out to Ocean City (OXB) with friends for dinner, a trip to the boardwalk, and then back home. It was also planned to be in the DA40, but it was being fussy and wouldn't start, draining the battery in the process. Luckily, other aircraft were available, so I was able to swap into one of the 172s.
The trip out brought us up toward Frederick (FDK), above some of the Dulles (IAD) arrivals, but below some of the departures. That was definitely a cool experience, as we had an Icelandair 757 fly under us, and an Air France A380 pass over us. Passing Baltimore, the Orioles game was clearly visible, though not in any detail since the stadium is pretty far from BWI, and the fact that games merit a temporary flight restriction (TFR).
After landing at OXB we snagged the rental car I'd arranged, drove to a restaurant on the bay called The Shark on the Harbor and stuffed ourselves full of good seafood. After consuming everything from oysters to shark, we made our way for a quick trip to the boardwalk. Since it's April, though, just about everything was closed, and it was eerily quiet.
Hours:
Pilot in Command Cross Country (PIC XC): 2.9 - 98.5 (of 50)
Actual/Simulated Instrument (Act/Sim): 0.0 - 16.6 (of 40)
Today was planned to be a quick flight out to Ocean City (OXB) with friends for dinner, a trip to the boardwalk, and then back home. It was also planned to be in the DA40, but it was being fussy and wouldn't start, draining the battery in the process. Luckily, other aircraft were available, so I was able to swap into one of the 172s.
 |
| Taken before the change in plans... |
After landing at OXB we snagged the rental car I'd arranged, drove to a restaurant on the bay called The Shark on the Harbor and stuffed ourselves full of good seafood. After consuming everything from oysters to shark, we made our way for a quick trip to the boardwalk. Since it's April, though, just about everything was closed, and it was eerily quiet.
The flight home was similarly quiet, as we were all pretty tired. The controller gave us a slightly quicker route through the airspace over Baltimore, which saved us some time and allowed us to get back home sooner in pursuit of sleep. Great flight, and if you're ever out by the airport in Ocean City - admittedly not quite near the rest of the touristy stuff - check out The Shark on the Harbor.
Hours:
Pilot in Command Cross Country (PIC XC): 2.9 - 98.5 (of 50)
Actual/Simulated Instrument (Act/Sim): 0.0 - 16.6 (of 40)
26 April 2013
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)
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.
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)
28 March 2013
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.
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.
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
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
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.
17 November 2012
Short Runway - Strong Crosswind
N172DR - C172R - 1.8 hours
Phil and I have had plans to go flying for a while now. Originally, it was a flight back in May, but that got cancelled so I flew out west on my own. I'm pretty sure there were a few plans in between, but more recently we were thinking of helping a friend get home to Upstate New York. Those plans also got cancelled as well, so like the flight back in May, we thought we'd head up to State College, PA. Yesterday, we decided that flight would be a little longer than we would've liked, so we cancelled those plans as well and opted for a challenge instead.
To be honest, that last paragraph reminds me a little of this:
Back in February of 2010, I went for a flight out of Harford County Airport (0W3), right after one of the Snowpocalypse storms. If the 2000' x 40' runway wasn't enough of a challenge, some of the snow plowed off of the runway was piled at the ends. It wouldn't be enough to force pilots to hit a 2000' x 40' target, though. Why not add in a 24' telephone line 500' from the runway, and some giant trees just beyond that? This is also not mentioning that I hadn't flown since August of 2008 prior to that. Despite it being a challenge, I really enjoyed it. I think that was the reason I enjoyed it, actually. It's a challenge.
We started the day early in weather that could only be described as "severe clear." Clear weather, however, makes no mention of temperature or wind. While it wasn't too incredibly cold, it was cold enough to put frost on the wings. The wind only added to the chill at a steady 6 knots. Phil preflighted the plane while I de-iced the wings of our plane, and several other aircraft on the way to put the de-ice bottle back inside. Back outside, I got the interior all set up with Phil. In the last flight narrative, I made fun of myself for the amount of technology I bring with me, but we essentially doubled it this time. Phil had his GoPro, iPad, Dual XGPS150, and the audio setup. I had my Contour, iPad, Garmin GLO, and audio setup as well. Why not?
After starting and heading down to the end of Runway 35, I called Potomac to get my SFRA flight plan activated. Apparently they didn't get it, though, so instead of bothering with Flight Service, Phil and I gave up the plan of a shortcut through the SFRA and just departed north, up and around it. On climb out, my iPad was not agreeing with the Garmin GLO for whatever reason. Phil ended up getting it sorted through cycling the power on both. Once that was all sorted, I threw the blinders on so that we could both log time (and I could continue to chip away at the 40 hour instrument time requirement).
Because we didn't get an SFRA clearance, we flew a route that would hug the outside: DINUW LINSE TAFFI 0W3. In order to log another approach, I flew the RNAV (GPS)-B off of TAFFI.
One of the issues with flying GPS approaches is that you never know whether or not the GPS database in the aircraft is up to date when it comes to renting from flight schools. It all depends on the school, really, but the one I rent from tends to be pretty good about keeping the aircraft up to date. The ever-so-trusty N172DR has a KLN-89B, and looking at the unit, it seems pretty simplistic. If you're a flyer of an aircraft with a simpler-looking GPS, don't discount it too much as a lot of them have some pretty neat features buried in them. Unfortunately, most of the CFIs don't know a lot of the features and normally only show you how to use the Direct-To feature. That's nothing against them, really, as some fleets have different equipment in just about every plane, but it's tough to utilize the tools in front of you if you've never been shown how. If you're not going to be shown the neat features, you might as well go learn them on your own. The KLN-89B actually has a free simulator that's out there on the internet. Unfortunately, I can't find a link from the manufacturer, but I did find a link through Software Informer. If you fly with a different unit, there's probably a free simulator out there somewhere as well. To be honest, the only reason I knew the KLN-89B had a moving map and an approach database was through the simulator in the link.
So, all that to say I was able to load the GPS approach after TAFFI through a little homework. Since the GPS was only going to give me lateral navigation, I flew the approach with step downs. Looking at the track in CloudAhoy, I didn't do too poorly. At the far left, you can see a very subtle bend in the track, which is my turn over TAFFI. After that, the more obvious turn in the middle is SNAZI, where you can see I turned a little more than necessary, and had to adjust closer to the field in order to land on Runway 10. I'll review CloudAhoy in another post, but check out the screen capture in Debrief Mode.
When I began the approach, I checked BWI's ATIS as noted on the approach plate, as there's no weather station on the field. It noted the wind was 040 at 9, meaning a nice crosswind for the approach, but nothing too unmanageable. After the little sidestep at the end of the approach, I brought the plane in for what I thought would be a nice showing of my landing skills. Unfortunately, the weather had other plans. The 9 knot wind wasn't so much of a 9 knot wind as much as it was a gusty 9 knot wind. It wasn't until I landed and checked the weather that I found out how gusty exactly.
In any case, here's the video of me fighting the crosswind down to the runway. Closer in, you can hear Phil say "nosewheel," anticipating me hitting nose first as I bring it in typically flat. I think I managed to hit the mains first, but wound up airborne again. I couldn't get it to settle and the end was coming up quickly, so I went around. Note the telephone line and giant trees at the end that I mentioned earlier, too.
[Video was here until Contour closed down for a bit, and all was lost.]
After going around, I wrapped the pattern back around to try the approach to Runway 28. In the video, you can see that the wind sock shows the wind somewhat favored Runway 10, but the last time I flew here I used Runway 28, so I figured I'd try that.
The second approach wasn't any better than the first, so I went around. The third attempt, however, was good enough to set down. I won't say it looked pretty because it really didn't, but I at least made it down to the ground, despite a gust picking the right wing up slightly, causing me to drag the right wheel while trying to brake. Thankfully, I had Phil to dump the lift by raising the flaps when I called it.
The video picks up on final, and you can definitely see how close you come to the trees and the telephone lines this time around. Contour changed the style of the videos as well. I'm not so much of a fan of the new overlay, but it is what it is. Just make sure not to pay attention to the speed display. It's not very accurate, which you can see as it still displays 70 mph when I'm pulling off the runway.
[Video was here until Contour closed down for a bit, and all was lost.]
As I exit, you can barely hear me coordinating with the aircraft holding short of the runway, who I later joked with about the luxuries of longer runways. Because I don't have any specific audio editing software, or audio hosting for that matter, I made it into a short YouTube clip:
After that departure, we headed back to JYO and I put the hood back on. Closer to Frederick (FDK), I remembered that they now have a tower and that I would need to avoid their airspace, or call them up. I opted for the former by climbing above it. The controller seemed to have his hands full with a couple pilots still adjusting to the relatively new tower, and I didn't feel like adding to his workload. After turning south, I handed the controls over to Phil so he could get in a landing. Compared to my landings, his was nice and smooth.
Here's the evidence:
[Video was here until Contour closed down for a bit, and all was lost.]
After I got home and checked the weather, it turns out that BWI's weather information updated right after I flew the approach. This report matches more of what I felt:
KBWI 171454Z 04012G21KT 10SM CLR 08/M03 A3059 RMK AO2 SLP359 T00831028 51019
For the non-pilots among us, this is saying that the weather at BWI (KBWI) today, at 1454 UTC (171454Z), had wind from the northeast at 12 knots gusting to 21 knots (04012G21). The rest is sky conditions, temperature and pressure.
Definitely an airport I would return to - wind or not. I loved the challenge.
Hours:
Pilot in Command Cross Country (PIC XC): 1.8 - 74.2 (of 50)
Actual/Simulated Instrument (Act/Sim): 1.3 - 9.6 (of 40)
To be honest, that last paragraph reminds me a little of this:
Back in February of 2010, I went for a flight out of Harford County Airport (0W3), right after one of the Snowpocalypse storms. If the 2000' x 40' runway wasn't enough of a challenge, some of the snow plowed off of the runway was piled at the ends. It wouldn't be enough to force pilots to hit a 2000' x 40' target, though. Why not add in a 24' telephone line 500' from the runway, and some giant trees just beyond that? This is also not mentioning that I hadn't flown since August of 2008 prior to that. Despite it being a challenge, I really enjoyed it. I think that was the reason I enjoyed it, actually. It's a challenge.
We started the day early in weather that could only be described as "severe clear." Clear weather, however, makes no mention of temperature or wind. While it wasn't too incredibly cold, it was cold enough to put frost on the wings. The wind only added to the chill at a steady 6 knots. Phil preflighted the plane while I de-iced the wings of our plane, and several other aircraft on the way to put the de-ice bottle back inside. Back outside, I got the interior all set up with Phil. In the last flight narrative, I made fun of myself for the amount of technology I bring with me, but we essentially doubled it this time. Phil had his GoPro, iPad, Dual XGPS150, and the audio setup. I had my Contour, iPad, Garmin GLO, and audio setup as well. Why not?
After starting and heading down to the end of Runway 35, I called Potomac to get my SFRA flight plan activated. Apparently they didn't get it, though, so instead of bothering with Flight Service, Phil and I gave up the plan of a shortcut through the SFRA and just departed north, up and around it. On climb out, my iPad was not agreeing with the Garmin GLO for whatever reason. Phil ended up getting it sorted through cycling the power on both. Once that was all sorted, I threw the blinders on so that we could both log time (and I could continue to chip away at the 40 hour instrument time requirement).
One of the issues with flying GPS approaches is that you never know whether or not the GPS database in the aircraft is up to date when it comes to renting from flight schools. It all depends on the school, really, but the one I rent from tends to be pretty good about keeping the aircraft up to date. The ever-so-trusty N172DR has a KLN-89B, and looking at the unit, it seems pretty simplistic. If you're a flyer of an aircraft with a simpler-looking GPS, don't discount it too much as a lot of them have some pretty neat features buried in them. Unfortunately, most of the CFIs don't know a lot of the features and normally only show you how to use the Direct-To feature. That's nothing against them, really, as some fleets have different equipment in just about every plane, but it's tough to utilize the tools in front of you if you've never been shown how. If you're not going to be shown the neat features, you might as well go learn them on your own. The KLN-89B actually has a free simulator that's out there on the internet. Unfortunately, I can't find a link from the manufacturer, but I did find a link through Software Informer. If you fly with a different unit, there's probably a free simulator out there somewhere as well. To be honest, the only reason I knew the KLN-89B had a moving map and an approach database was through the simulator in the link.
So, all that to say I was able to load the GPS approach after TAFFI through a little homework. Since the GPS was only going to give me lateral navigation, I flew the approach with step downs. Looking at the track in CloudAhoy, I didn't do too poorly. At the far left, you can see a very subtle bend in the track, which is my turn over TAFFI. After that, the more obvious turn in the middle is SNAZI, where you can see I turned a little more than necessary, and had to adjust closer to the field in order to land on Runway 10. I'll review CloudAhoy in another post, but check out the screen capture in Debrief Mode.
When I began the approach, I checked BWI's ATIS as noted on the approach plate, as there's no weather station on the field. It noted the wind was 040 at 9, meaning a nice crosswind for the approach, but nothing too unmanageable. After the little sidestep at the end of the approach, I brought the plane in for what I thought would be a nice showing of my landing skills. Unfortunately, the weather had other plans. The 9 knot wind wasn't so much of a 9 knot wind as much as it was a gusty 9 knot wind. It wasn't until I landed and checked the weather that I found out how gusty exactly.
In any case, here's the video of me fighting the crosswind down to the runway. Closer in, you can hear Phil say "nosewheel," anticipating me hitting nose first as I bring it in typically flat. I think I managed to hit the mains first, but wound up airborne again. I couldn't get it to settle and the end was coming up quickly, so I went around. Note the telephone line and giant trees at the end that I mentioned earlier, too.
After going around, I wrapped the pattern back around to try the approach to Runway 28. In the video, you can see that the wind sock shows the wind somewhat favored Runway 10, but the last time I flew here I used Runway 28, so I figured I'd try that.
The second approach wasn't any better than the first, so I went around. The third attempt, however, was good enough to set down. I won't say it looked pretty because it really didn't, but I at least made it down to the ground, despite a gust picking the right wing up slightly, causing me to drag the right wheel while trying to brake. Thankfully, I had Phil to dump the lift by raising the flaps when I called it.
The video picks up on final, and you can definitely see how close you come to the trees and the telephone lines this time around. Contour changed the style of the videos as well. I'm not so much of a fan of the new overlay, but it is what it is. Just make sure not to pay attention to the speed display. It's not very accurate, which you can see as it still displays 70 mph when I'm pulling off the runway.
As I exit, you can barely hear me coordinating with the aircraft holding short of the runway, who I later joked with about the luxuries of longer runways. Because I don't have any specific audio editing software, or audio hosting for that matter, I made it into a short YouTube clip:
Here's the evidence:
After I got home and checked the weather, it turns out that BWI's weather information updated right after I flew the approach. This report matches more of what I felt:
KBWI 171454Z 04012G21KT 10SM CLR 08/M03 A3059 RMK AO2 SLP359 T00831028 51019
For the non-pilots among us, this is saying that the weather at BWI (KBWI) today, at 1454 UTC (171454Z), had wind from the northeast at 12 knots gusting to 21 knots (04012G21). The rest is sky conditions, temperature and pressure.
Definitely an airport I would return to - wind or not. I loved the challenge.
Hours:
Pilot in Command Cross Country (PIC XC): 1.8 - 74.2 (of 50)
Actual/Simulated Instrument (Act/Sim): 1.3 - 9.6 (of 40)
28 September 2012
Dodging Traffic
N64181 - C172P - 3.7 hours
Right after graduating from Virginia Tech, I took a job at Dulles Airport (IAD) working the ramp for the summer. While I was there, I met a few other pilots working the ramp along with me. One of them was a guy named Woody, and through the wonderful invention called Facebook, we've managed to stay in touch over the years. Since we're both trying to build time, we've mentioned flying a few times, but never actually followed through. This time, though, it worked out.
The plan was to sit right seat and log PIC time while Woody got some simulated instrument time on a cross country flight around central Virginia. The original plan was to fly from Potomac Airfield (VKX) to Louisa County (LKU), Lake Anna (7W4), Chesterfield (FCI), Williamsburg (JGG), and then back to VKX. The last renters left the plane at Maryland Airport (2W5) the night before, though, so the departure point had to change. Luckily, that airport is outside the Flight Restricted Zone (FRZ), so we didn't have to deal with that nonsense. Once we got to the airport, Woody changed the plan to 2W5, Gordonsville (GVE), LKU, 7W4, Newport News (PHF), and then back to 2W5. I had no objections, so I jumped in, set the ContourGPS in the mount, the Garmin GLO up on the glareshield, and the iPad in my lap.
I tried something slightly new this time since I had both cameras. Yes, both. You haven't been formally introduced to the new one, but if you were paying attention to my post about my new pilot bag, I briefly mentioned it. I used the ContourGPS for the time lapse portions, and the new ContourROAM for videos of takeoff and landing. Thinking back on it, I should've reversed that, but you know what they say about hindsight...
First Leg: 2W5-GVE - 0.8 hours
Say what you want about the random music. I figured something needed to be done for the completely silent cruise portion.
As I was mainly along for the ride as a safety pilot, Woody was at the controls for the departure. I only briefly took the controls so that he could put the blinders on. For not having flown under the hood in what he said was a while, he did a good job, especially with a directional gyro that precessed terribly. For the non-pilots, the directional gyro is like a compass, but without some of the errors present in magnetic compasses. The problem of the gyro is that over time it precesses, which essentially means it drifts away from the real heading, so you have to update it by comparing it to the magnetic compass. It's really not as complicated as it sounds, but it's something we have to pay attention to. As we got closer to GVE, I "vectored" Woody towards the runway. After he took off the blinders, he set the plane down on GVE's short, less-than-level runway. Arriving at the ramp, he shut the plane down and we jumped out to get our Virginia Aviation Passports stamped (the same type of passport used as an excuse for a flight down to Richmond in February). The stamps for smaller fields like GVE are normally kept in a mailbox, but in searching for said mailbox we ran across an airport building halfway through a renovation, and a giant garden spider (the black and yellow ones that make webs with zig-zags in them...you know...those).
After getting the stamp, we jumped back in the plane to head to LKU, which is close to Lake Anna.
Second Leg: GVE-LKU - 0.3 hours
The flight over to LKU was slightly more eventful. As anyone who reads the blog regularly knows, I end up doing at least one short-field takeoff on most flights. Half of it is because I find them to be fun, and the other half is that you never know when you'll need to do one. Well, today we needed one. GVE's runway is only 2300 feet long, it dips in the middle with trees close to the ends, and we were in a P model with two heavier guys in it. I've taken off from shorter, but not with that combination of issues. It wasn't my best short field takeoff, but I'll blame it on having to fly from the right seat, which I've done before, but I don't do it often.
The fun didn't end there, though. After takeoff Woody put the blinders on, took the controls, and put us on course to LKU. As we were climbing, I noticed a Piper opposite direction, about 500 feet above us (01:45 in the video - the wide angle lens on the camera makes it seem farther away than it was). It caught me a little by surprise, so I reached forward and put pressure on the yoke to halt the climb temporarily. As soon as they passed, Woody continued the climb. Closer to LKU, Woody brought us around the pattern and set down. We parked by the main airport building, which had an attached hangar with a Civil Air Patrol glider in it. After walking inside, I spotted the passport stamp sitting on a counter, so I grabbed my stamp, walked back out to the plane, and grabbed a picture.
Next up was 7W4.
Third Leg: LKU-7W4 - 0.3 hours
The departure from LKU was relatively simple compared to GVE. The runway is nearly twice as long and two and a half times as wide, so it was nice and easy. Just like the last leg, though, it was pretty short, time-wise. Still, Woody was able to pick up some time with the blinders. Things got interesting as we got closer to 7W4, however. Because the ramp is at the east end of the runway, pilots like to save time by departing to the west, and arriving to the east. As I switched the radio to the airport frequency, I heard a pilot call and say he was departing Runway 26. So, just like the approach to LKU, we would make our way around the pattern to land west. What I didn't hear, however, was a second plane make a call to indicate he was taking off behind the first plane. It wasn't an issue, but it surprised me when I saw two bright yellow crop dusters rise off the runway and turn north. The landing was uneventful, but it wouldn't be the last time we saw those crop dusters, or the last time they would surprise us.
Woody rolled out to the end of the runway, where we turned around and taxied back to the east end to shut down and search for the stamp. While he made a call ahead to Atlantic Aviation at PHF to reserve a crew car, I found the mailbox and stamped both of our passports.
Fourth Leg: 7W4-PHF - 0.9 hours
As I mentioned earlier, that wouldn't be the last time we'd see, or be surprised by those crop dusters. This time, the surprise made the Piper incident earlier pale in comparison. As Woody was running preflight checks, I monitored the airport frequency. When we were ready, I called to announce the westbound departure, which was what the flow of traffic was: the two crop dusters departed to the west, and we landed to the west. After the call, however, one of the dusters called and said they'd remain clear and circle away from the airport, because they wanted to land to the east (to save time, as mentioned earlier). I took his word for it, though I did check the pattern legs quickly to be sure. While we were rolling down the runway, I spotted one of them crossing our departure path, north to south, rolling to make a knife-edge pass and turn westbound. I called the traffic out to Woody, who turned north to avoid turning towards him. Since I remembered the duster had a buddy who wasn't making radio calls, I searched ahead of our turn and spotted him at the same altitude (both of them had been down on the treeline) to the east of the field. You can just barely make them out in the video. As I mentioned with the Piper, the wide-angle lens makes them appear farther away. If you can't see them, use full screen and 1080p. The annotations help to mark where they appear a few seconds ahead of time.
Once we were clear of that mess, I switched to Potomac Approach to coordinate getting over to PHF. In order to take the most direct route, we would fly through Richmond's Class C airspace, so we were required to be in contact with them. We passed the cruise time by discussing the ATC hiring process, and the overall poor quality of the pilots that Potomac had to deal with. A couple pilots either weren't paying attention or just had a poor grasp of English, which we found entertaining. The controller, not so much.
Closer to PHF, we passed over Busch Gardens on the way to land on Runway 20. Since we couldn't spot the Lear landing on the crossing runway, tower had to ask us to do just about everything possible to delay our arrival, to include entering on a 6 mile final, s-turns, and a tight 360 turn on short final. You'll see all of it in the video. What you can't see, however, are the training aircraft that were on the ramp for ATAC, which is a firm that provides training for military pilots by flying aggressor or foreign aircraft to show the pilots the capability of their potential enemies.
We parked at Atlantic as an AirTran 737-700 prepared to depart. Woody grabbed the car, and we sped off to get burgers at Red Robin. As we were sitting at lunch waiting for our food, we pulled up the weather to see if anything had changed. Of course, more storms were going to be passing through as part of another frontal system, similar to the ones last night. The mutual debate continued when we got back to Atlantic. After a call to a flight briefer, we decided it would be best to at least move in the direction of home, and if necessary, land to avoid an approaching storm. This being the strategy, we identified both West Point (FYJ) and Tappahannock (XSA) as bailout points. If you look at the image to the right, you'll see that the band of storms to the south would have arrived much later, while the storms to the north would pass through much sooner. Had we waited for the northern storms to pass, we would have had to try to beat the southern storms out. By departing earlier and stopping in XSA, we cut the wait time for the northern storms and avoided having to try to beat the southern storms out. I point that out mostly to clarify that there was a definite plan to the idea, and not simply "let's see how far we can get before the storms get here."
Fifth Leg: PHF-XSA - 0.8 hours
Tower sent us out right behind another aircraft that would remain in the pattern. By this point, Woody was getting slightly tired of flying, so he passed the controls over to me after turning crosswind. In an effort to continue to let us both log time, I put the blinders on. Woody called Potomac for route guidance, and limited weather info since the storms were clearly visible to the north. As we flew over FYJ, we heard "Cessna 64181, do you have weather radar on board?" The controller's tone conveyed both concern and surprise that a small plane would be out braving the weather. We took the hint and turned northwest bound to skirt the back end of a storm and land at XSA. I didn't mess with the camera as I was flying, which is why you have a time lapse approach and landing. There are a few cool shots of the weather as we passed by it, though.
It took us a minute to find XSA, as there weren't many identifiable landmarks around it, which you can see in the video, but we made it in the end. The red-roofed terminal building made it easy to spot once we got closer. After landing, I brought the plane back to the ramp, parked it, and we both tied it down in preparation for the storms. Inside, one of the airport attendants and a local Virginia State Trooper kept us company while we reviewed the weather and developed a new plan of attack. Luckily, some of the storms had dissipated, and the storm that was supposed to pass over XSA passed well north. Because of that, we were able to leave slightly earlier than we had thought.
I grabbed a drink, and we set off for 2W5 after Woody filed an SFRA flight plan.
Sixth Leg: XSA-2W5 - 0.6 hours
I ended up flying the whole leg to 2W5 from XSA, getting more time under the blinders. Unfortunately, the camera died on the way there, despite my efforts to charge it at PHF and XSA. What you see for the landing video was shot from the ContourROAM up in the mount. I cut the base turn a little early so I ended up high and fast down final. I salvaged it by I bleeding speed over the runway. The landing was flat, but it wasn't too bad in my book. After the taxi back, I parked the plane at the grass tie downs and helped prepare the plane for its overnight stay.
In the end, we both logged about 3.7 hours, each getting a good amount of time under the blinders. I got 0.8 hours of simulated instrument time, which definitely helps towards the instrument rating. This trip also gave new meanings to the term safety pilot, as this was the first time I ever flew safety for someone and actually had to call traffic to avoid a collision. Later on, we both learned the importance of a safety pilot for weather avoidance as well. Despite the traffic issues and the added stress of the weather, I really enjoyed the challenge of the whole trip.
When you're required to have a safety pilot, always make sure you have one, and a helpful one at that. A safety pilot isn't there to be a conversationalist to help pass the time, either. He or she is there to keep you out of trouble. I'm not saying the flight should occur in complete silence unless there's a conflict, but don't bring along your pilot buddy who can't keep their eyes out, or one who shows poor decision making skills.
Beyond that, always remember your tolerances. In ground school, you always hear people say "personal minimums," but I like the term tolerance. How much risk are you willing or capable of tolerating? To some people, the radar image shown above would have kept them on the ground, and I wouldn't blame them. Given the information I had, and the additional safe spots for landing, my risk tolerance was slightly higher because I knew I had options in case the risk became too great.
Every time you put the aircraft in the air, you're accepting risk. How much risk you tolerate is up to you. If you are willing to fly with a higher tolerance, just make sure you cover as many bases as possible to remain safe when that tolerance is reached. Flying VFR doesn't mean you shouldn't have alternates, both in the form of airports, and in the general form of other options.
Hours:
Pilot in Command Cross Country (PIC XC): 3.7 - 70.5 (of 50)
Actual/Simulated Instrument (Act/Sim): 0.8 - 8.3 (of 40)
The plan was to sit right seat and log PIC time while Woody got some simulated instrument time on a cross country flight around central Virginia. The original plan was to fly from Potomac Airfield (VKX) to Louisa County (LKU), Lake Anna (7W4), Chesterfield (FCI), Williamsburg (JGG), and then back to VKX. The last renters left the plane at Maryland Airport (2W5) the night before, though, so the departure point had to change. Luckily, that airport is outside the Flight Restricted Zone (FRZ), so we didn't have to deal with that nonsense. Once we got to the airport, Woody changed the plan to 2W5, Gordonsville (GVE), LKU, 7W4, Newport News (PHF), and then back to 2W5. I had no objections, so I jumped in, set the ContourGPS in the mount, the Garmin GLO up on the glareshield, and the iPad in my lap.
I tried something slightly new this time since I had both cameras. Yes, both. You haven't been formally introduced to the new one, but if you were paying attention to my post about my new pilot bag, I briefly mentioned it. I used the ContourGPS for the time lapse portions, and the new ContourROAM for videos of takeoff and landing. Thinking back on it, I should've reversed that, but you know what they say about hindsight...
First Leg: 2W5-GVE - 0.8 hours
As I was mainly along for the ride as a safety pilot, Woody was at the controls for the departure. I only briefly took the controls so that he could put the blinders on. For not having flown under the hood in what he said was a while, he did a good job, especially with a directional gyro that precessed terribly. For the non-pilots, the directional gyro is like a compass, but without some of the errors present in magnetic compasses. The problem of the gyro is that over time it precesses, which essentially means it drifts away from the real heading, so you have to update it by comparing it to the magnetic compass. It's really not as complicated as it sounds, but it's something we have to pay attention to. As we got closer to GVE, I "vectored" Woody towards the runway. After he took off the blinders, he set the plane down on GVE's short, less-than-level runway. Arriving at the ramp, he shut the plane down and we jumped out to get our Virginia Aviation Passports stamped (the same type of passport used as an excuse for a flight down to Richmond in February). The stamps for smaller fields like GVE are normally kept in a mailbox, but in searching for said mailbox we ran across an airport building halfway through a renovation, and a giant garden spider (the black and yellow ones that make webs with zig-zags in them...you know...those).
After getting the stamp, we jumped back in the plane to head to LKU, which is close to Lake Anna.
Second Leg: GVE-LKU - 0.3 hours
The flight over to LKU was slightly more eventful. As anyone who reads the blog regularly knows, I end up doing at least one short-field takeoff on most flights. Half of it is because I find them to be fun, and the other half is that you never know when you'll need to do one. Well, today we needed one. GVE's runway is only 2300 feet long, it dips in the middle with trees close to the ends, and we were in a P model with two heavier guys in it. I've taken off from shorter, but not with that combination of issues. It wasn't my best short field takeoff, but I'll blame it on having to fly from the right seat, which I've done before, but I don't do it often.
Next up was 7W4.
Third Leg: LKU-7W4 - 0.3 hours
The departure from LKU was relatively simple compared to GVE. The runway is nearly twice as long and two and a half times as wide, so it was nice and easy. Just like the last leg, though, it was pretty short, time-wise. Still, Woody was able to pick up some time with the blinders. Things got interesting as we got closer to 7W4, however. Because the ramp is at the east end of the runway, pilots like to save time by departing to the west, and arriving to the east. As I switched the radio to the airport frequency, I heard a pilot call and say he was departing Runway 26. So, just like the approach to LKU, we would make our way around the pattern to land west. What I didn't hear, however, was a second plane make a call to indicate he was taking off behind the first plane. It wasn't an issue, but it surprised me when I saw two bright yellow crop dusters rise off the runway and turn north. The landing was uneventful, but it wouldn't be the last time we saw those crop dusters, or the last time they would surprise us.
Woody rolled out to the end of the runway, where we turned around and taxied back to the east end to shut down and search for the stamp. While he made a call ahead to Atlantic Aviation at PHF to reserve a crew car, I found the mailbox and stamped both of our passports.
Fourth Leg: 7W4-PHF - 0.9 hours
As I mentioned earlier, that wouldn't be the last time we'd see, or be surprised by those crop dusters. This time, the surprise made the Piper incident earlier pale in comparison. As Woody was running preflight checks, I monitored the airport frequency. When we were ready, I called to announce the westbound departure, which was what the flow of traffic was: the two crop dusters departed to the west, and we landed to the west. After the call, however, one of the dusters called and said they'd remain clear and circle away from the airport, because they wanted to land to the east (to save time, as mentioned earlier). I took his word for it, though I did check the pattern legs quickly to be sure. While we were rolling down the runway, I spotted one of them crossing our departure path, north to south, rolling to make a knife-edge pass and turn westbound. I called the traffic out to Woody, who turned north to avoid turning towards him. Since I remembered the duster had a buddy who wasn't making radio calls, I searched ahead of our turn and spotted him at the same altitude (both of them had been down on the treeline) to the east of the field. You can just barely make them out in the video. As I mentioned with the Piper, the wide-angle lens makes them appear farther away. If you can't see them, use full screen and 1080p. The annotations help to mark where they appear a few seconds ahead of time.
Once we were clear of that mess, I switched to Potomac Approach to coordinate getting over to PHF. In order to take the most direct route, we would fly through Richmond's Class C airspace, so we were required to be in contact with them. We passed the cruise time by discussing the ATC hiring process, and the overall poor quality of the pilots that Potomac had to deal with. A couple pilots either weren't paying attention or just had a poor grasp of English, which we found entertaining. The controller, not so much.
Closer to PHF, we passed over Busch Gardens on the way to land on Runway 20. Since we couldn't spot the Lear landing on the crossing runway, tower had to ask us to do just about everything possible to delay our arrival, to include entering on a 6 mile final, s-turns, and a tight 360 turn on short final. You'll see all of it in the video. What you can't see, however, are the training aircraft that were on the ramp for ATAC, which is a firm that provides training for military pilots by flying aggressor or foreign aircraft to show the pilots the capability of their potential enemies.
 |
| Getting ready to head home |
Tower sent us out right behind another aircraft that would remain in the pattern. By this point, Woody was getting slightly tired of flying, so he passed the controls over to me after turning crosswind. In an effort to continue to let us both log time, I put the blinders on. Woody called Potomac for route guidance, and limited weather info since the storms were clearly visible to the north. As we flew over FYJ, we heard "Cessna 64181, do you have weather radar on board?" The controller's tone conveyed both concern and surprise that a small plane would be out braving the weather. We took the hint and turned northwest bound to skirt the back end of a storm and land at XSA. I didn't mess with the camera as I was flying, which is why you have a time lapse approach and landing. There are a few cool shots of the weather as we passed by it, though.
I grabbed a drink, and we set off for 2W5 after Woody filed an SFRA flight plan.
Sixth Leg: XSA-2W5 - 0.6 hours
I ended up flying the whole leg to 2W5 from XSA, getting more time under the blinders. Unfortunately, the camera died on the way there, despite my efforts to charge it at PHF and XSA. What you see for the landing video was shot from the ContourROAM up in the mount. I cut the base turn a little early so I ended up high and fast down final. I salvaged it by I bleeding speed over the runway. The landing was flat, but it wasn't too bad in my book. After the taxi back, I parked the plane at the grass tie downs and helped prepare the plane for its overnight stay.
In the end, we both logged about 3.7 hours, each getting a good amount of time under the blinders. I got 0.8 hours of simulated instrument time, which definitely helps towards the instrument rating. This trip also gave new meanings to the term safety pilot, as this was the first time I ever flew safety for someone and actually had to call traffic to avoid a collision. Later on, we both learned the importance of a safety pilot for weather avoidance as well. Despite the traffic issues and the added stress of the weather, I really enjoyed the challenge of the whole trip.
When you're required to have a safety pilot, always make sure you have one, and a helpful one at that. A safety pilot isn't there to be a conversationalist to help pass the time, either. He or she is there to keep you out of trouble. I'm not saying the flight should occur in complete silence unless there's a conflict, but don't bring along your pilot buddy who can't keep their eyes out, or one who shows poor decision making skills.
Beyond that, always remember your tolerances. In ground school, you always hear people say "personal minimums," but I like the term tolerance. How much risk are you willing or capable of tolerating? To some people, the radar image shown above would have kept them on the ground, and I wouldn't blame them. Given the information I had, and the additional safe spots for landing, my risk tolerance was slightly higher because I knew I had options in case the risk became too great.
Every time you put the aircraft in the air, you're accepting risk. How much risk you tolerate is up to you. If you are willing to fly with a higher tolerance, just make sure you cover as many bases as possible to remain safe when that tolerance is reached. Flying VFR doesn't mean you shouldn't have alternates, both in the form of airports, and in the general form of other options.
Hours:
Pilot in Command Cross Country (PIC XC): 3.7 - 70.5 (of 50)
Actual/Simulated Instrument (Act/Sim): 0.8 - 8.3 (of 40)
23 September 2012
Review: ForeFlight, iPad and GLO
For those who don't want the details, here's a quick summary:
iPad with ForeFlight:
One of the best investments you'll ever make for flying. It's capable, quick, allows you to select which charts and maps to cache so that you don't take up space with ones you don't use, stores aircraft you fly, and will even brief and file for you through CSC DUATS. The only slight downside is that if your iPad is the wireless-only version, you'll need an external GPS receiver like the Garmin GLO for aviation, below.
Criticism: The version 4.7 update seems to have deleted the Starred Airports list (yet you can still star them on the airport pages). It would be nice to have that back. It's not a huge deal, though.
Update: They fixed this in the last update (4.7.2), which I just downloaded 27.Sep.12 at 2015EDT.
Costs:
iPad - $499-699
ForeFlight - $74.95 per year (or $149.99 for geo-referenced approach plates)
Optional: Stratus ADS-B - $799
Garmin GLO for Aviation:
It's basically the normal Garmin GLO with a few extra accessories, which includes a non-slip pad which clings to anything so you don't have to worry about mounting it, or having it slide around during the flight. It boots quickly, locates satellites quickly, and is really easy to connect via Bluetooth. Worth every penny.
Criticism: None from me, but some have reported issues with satellite reception with heated windscreens. Others say it's too easy to bump the power button and turn it on accidentally, but a little care in placing it in your flight bag solves that issue.
Costs:
Garmin GLO for Aviation - $120
As technology gets more and more convenient, powerful, and compact, it starts to branch out into more and more of our lives. If you asked me if I'd ever use a touchscreen half-laptop to view charts back when I started flying, my response would have been "yeah, eventually, but not any time soon."
It wasn't until 2010 that the first generation iPad came out, and even then the idea that you could use it for that purpose was still just a dream. It's crazy to me that the iPad was released just over two years ago, yet it has already come quite a long way. I jumped at the opportunity to get one earlier this year and ended up putting ForeFlight on that night. I'm no Apple fanatic, but I have to admit that at least two of their products have revolutionized my life, and this is one of them (the other being the iPod).
I had originally gotten the iPad for work so that I could read and review documents at client sites when I wasn't allowed network access. Since I'd be primarily using it where 3G data wouldn't be an option either, I opted for the wireless version. When I tried to use ForeFlight in ground tests, I found out very quickly that the wireless version does not come with a GPS receiver like those equipped for 3G connections. The lack of a GPS receiver in the wireless model isn't a secret to the industry, though, so there are a few products out there to feed all iPads with GPS data at somewhat reasonable prices. While that was an unfortunate discovery, it didn't hit as hard as it would've if I'd bought the iPad specifically to be an electronic flight bag (EFB).
Even without the GPS function to show you exactly where you are in map view, the app is really great for not having to bother with the paper charts*. Granted, I believe that you should still have some with you, but you don't have to worry about flipping or folding anything and punching your passenger or pilot buddy in the face while using the iPad. The charts may also be cached at your discretion, in order to avoid wasting memory space that you could be using for in-flight audio. Those caching selections are stored, so ForeFlight will only update those maps you've essentially subscribed to. Furthermore, it will cache anything you view until it expires if it's not part of your normal selections. As an example, I don't fly around Los Angeles so I don't cache the area through my settings. If I browsed LAX's departures and arrivals, however, those charts will be cached until the next chart update. It's not particularly useful for my regular flying, but it's a nifty feature to store single charts here and there when you fly commercially and want to follow along.
Beyond simply displaying various charts, ForeFlight also allows you to create chart binders so that you don't need to mess around with the airport information pages to see the relevant charts. If I were to fly IFR from Leesburg (JYO) to Blacksburg (BCB), I could create a new binder with all of the charts necessary for those two airports, and perhaps an alternate or two. If you fly the same routes often, you can save the binders and switch between them as necessary. As you can see in the picture, I created a binder with the approaches I plan on flying during my long instrument cross country flight. I have three different binders for the flight in the case weather messes with the plan, or if I have to change into an aircraft with different equipment.
In addition to chart binders, it also allows you to store various documents from the ForeFlight library. This also has a binder feature like the charts so that you may group your documents. In my case, I have a binder for A/FD supplementals, various books, and the chart legends. In the binder with various books, I have all of the books they had available, including a copy of the AIM, Instrument Procedures Handbook, and the Pilot/Controller Glossary. So, if you're in the middle of a flight and there's a disagreement on the proper way to enter and exit a traffic pattern, the pilot not flying can pull up the AIM and settle it on the spot. Oddly enough, the FARs aren't in the library.
Weather is, of course, important to keep on top of both before and during your flight, and ForeFlight is just as capable there as any of the weather sources you may frequent. Graphical AIRMETs, SIGMETs, turbulence, icing, Doppler radar loops, outlooks and significant weather outlooks, PIREPs, prog charts, satellite imagery and winds aloft are all at your fingertips. Limited data is also available for Mexico and Canada. If you're looking for weather during your flight, you can always enable the weather overlays in map view with the Stratus ADS-B receiver, which costs a pretty penny, but has some nice capabilities. If you fly in the mid-west, though, make sure to check the coverage map as ADS-B receivers haven't fully covered the country.
Closer to departure, you can brief yourself and file your flight plan using your CSC DUATS account, which you add in on the Settings page of the app. The File & Brief page allows you to view a history of your flight plans as well, so you don't have to create a new one every time. Additionally, you can store the aircraft that you fly to make the filing easier. When you add the aircraft, drop down boxes guide you through the process of selecting equipment codes, default altitudes, and even generating the aircraft color codes. At the bottom right of the page, you can see both brief and file buttons, which will get you on your way.
The Scratchpad is a quick way to jot down information like frequency changes, clearances and so on. I've found that it's best used with a stylus, but your finger will work almost as well. There's a button at the top right that allows you to adjust the size of the text as you draw. The picture shows the finest setting. When it's bumpy, I normally revert to using the plane as my scratchpad (when I have a radio with a standby slot), or pen and paper. There is also an option that allows you to type, if you'd prefer that. Just keep in mind that the iPad's spellcheck isn't up to date with aviation shorthand. It isn't perfect, and I liken it to writing on a whiteboard as you can't rest your hand on the writing area when writing, but it gets the job done. The only other downside I can think of is that in order to erase, you have to clear the whole screen. For the quick notes you'd be writing in the air, though, you don't necessarily need it to be pretty, so it's not a huge deal.
When it comes to plotting your flight plan on the maps, ForeFlight is capable of more than just airports, navaids, and fixes. Airways are also understood so you can save time by entering the plan just as you would in your filed plan. Beyond that, there are a few other features that will help you choose altitudes based on observed winds aloft, and see your estimated fuel burn and time en-route. The NavLog will also break it down leg by leg, if you need the extra detail. When it comes to overlays, you have options for radar, satellite, TFRs, AIRMETs, SIGMETs, flight rule indicators for the airports, airport temperatures, airport temp/dewpoint spreads, visibility, wind, ceiling, sky coverage, PIREPs, lightning, and fuel prices for both Jet-A and avgas. The bottom panel also has four buttons that can display groundspeed, GPS altitude, track, signal accuracy, ETE to next, ETA to next, distance to next, bearing to next, cross track error, ETE to destination, ETA to destination, distance to destination, bearing to destination, current lat/lon, or Zulu time. The amount of information at your fingertips is nearly endless.
Here are a few more screenshots of the ForeFlight interface:
As mentioned earlier, for those of you who don't have your iPad on a 3G data plan, you don't have the built in GPS receiver and will have to get an external receiver. There are a few different units out there, with the more notable ones being the Dual, Bad Elf, and Garmin units. I ended up getting the Garmin GLO for Aviation because it was about the same price as the Dual and came with the accessories that I expected I'd need. The non-slip pad clings to just about anything. You can see I have it on wood in the picture at right, but even on that surface I have to pick it up by the corner, otherwise it stays suctioned in place. The steady blue light means it's connected to the iPad via Bluetooth, and the steady green means it has picked up the required number of GPS satellites. The button where the green light is serves as the power switch, and is the only button on the device. In front of that is a USB port to charge the device. After opening the box, turn it on, enable Bluetooth on your iPad, look for "Garmin GLO" in the list, and select it. Done. It's really that simple.
*A note on charts: it's a common misconception in many pilot circles that charts are required any time you fly. Charts are only required when flying large or turbojet aircraft, or when flying Parts 121 or 135. The official FAA stance may be found here. While I don't condone flying without charts, I wanted to point out that you wouldn't be breaking regs by dispensing with paper charts.
iPad with ForeFlight:
Criticism: The version 4.7 update seems to have deleted the Starred Airports list (yet you can still star them on the airport pages). It would be nice to have that back. It's not a huge deal, though.
Update: They fixed this in the last update (4.7.2), which I just downloaded 27.Sep.12 at 2015EDT.
Costs:
iPad - $499-699
ForeFlight - $74.95 per year (or $149.99 for geo-referenced approach plates)
Optional: Stratus ADS-B - $799
It's basically the normal Garmin GLO with a few extra accessories, which includes a non-slip pad which clings to anything so you don't have to worry about mounting it, or having it slide around during the flight. It boots quickly, locates satellites quickly, and is really easy to connect via Bluetooth. Worth every penny.Criticism: None from me, but some have reported issues with satellite reception with heated windscreens. Others say it's too easy to bump the power button and turn it on accidentally, but a little care in placing it in your flight bag solves that issue.
Costs:
Garmin GLO for Aviation - $120
The Full Review: ForeFlight, iPad and GLO
As technology gets more and more convenient, powerful, and compact, it starts to branch out into more and more of our lives. If you asked me if I'd ever use a touchscreen half-laptop to view charts back when I started flying, my response would have been "yeah, eventually, but not any time soon."
It wasn't until 2010 that the first generation iPad came out, and even then the idea that you could use it for that purpose was still just a dream. It's crazy to me that the iPad was released just over two years ago, yet it has already come quite a long way. I jumped at the opportunity to get one earlier this year and ended up putting ForeFlight on that night. I'm no Apple fanatic, but I have to admit that at least two of their products have revolutionized my life, and this is one of them (the other being the iPod).
|
| Note the "No Fix" |
Weather is, of course, important to keep on top of both before and during your flight, and ForeFlight is just as capable there as any of the weather sources you may frequent. Graphical AIRMETs, SIGMETs, turbulence, icing, Doppler radar loops, outlooks and significant weather outlooks, PIREPs, prog charts, satellite imagery and winds aloft are all at your fingertips. Limited data is also available for Mexico and Canada. If you're looking for weather during your flight, you can always enable the weather overlays in map view with the Stratus ADS-B receiver, which costs a pretty penny, but has some nice capabilities. If you fly in the mid-west, though, make sure to check the coverage map as ADS-B receivers haven't fully covered the country.
Here are a few more screenshots of the ForeFlight interface:
The left screen is the altitude selection page. Note the inclusion of the wind data to help you in your selection. The right screen is the settings page, where you can set default units, among other options. You can even change the position symbol on the map from a high wing, low wing, jet, fighter, or helicopter.
The whole setup really makes working in the cramped space of most smaller planes a breeze. It also helps add in some situational awareness when compared to following along on a paper chart, or even certain moving-map GPS units. If you're looking at the various EFBs available on the market, you should definitely consider it. Some of the other EFBs are aimed more at the corporate setting, which you can see in the way they structure their pricing. I'm not saying that they aren't useful to the GA pilot, rather I'm just attempting to point out that the target market might not be you in all cases. Jepp does have their own version using Jepp charts instead of NACO for a comparable $76, and is aimed at the private and corporate pilot group. Most of them have trial periods as well, so you don't have to worry about risking anything until you try it and like it.
Hopefully this helped you in your decision. If you have questions, the best spot is the blog twitter account @TheLifeOfAPilot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)