Charts: Are They Required?

One of the things that really drives me nuts is misinformation.  I know that in a lot of the cases, some people just don't know any better, and I also fall victim to that from time to time, but people should be more aware of how they can affect others, intellectually.

Before I go any further, I'll ask you the same question I hear all the time:

If you walk out to your aircraft and get ramp checked, can you be faulted for not having charts, or for not having current charts?

Many pilots I know would answer simply "yes," but the answer is a little more complex than that.

The Letter of the Law
For a good number of people, the answer would actually be no.  Surprise!
The only times charts are required are for Part 135 (Commuter/On-Demand), Part 121 (Air Carrier) and Part 91.503 (large/turbojet) flights.  Since many of my friends are flying around in your average light general aviation (GA) aircraft, none of those requirements apply.  Furthermore, there is also no language pertaining to those flights that says your charts must be current.

Beyond that issue, I've also heard people tell others that an iPad application with charts on it doesn't count as a chart.  Even recently, there was a blog post where the author mentioned his designated examiner (DE) friend would discontinue checkrides if someone showed up with an iPad without backup charts.  Now, contrary to the above mention that your everyday Part 91 flight has no chart requirements, checkrides do actually have a chart requirement, inferred by the practical test standards (PTS).  The PTS does not, however, specify the chart medium - printed or otherwise.

I know, a lot of you must be thinking, well you're just implying things, and the FAA would probably still fault you for it, but I'm not.  Here's what the FAA has to say:

What is the FAA policy for carrying current charts?

The term "charts" is not found in the FAA's Part 91 regulations (other than for large and turbine-powered multiengine airplanes in 91.503[a]). The specific FAA regulation, FAR 91.103 "Preflight Actions," states that each pilot in command shall, before beginning a flight, become familiar with all available information concerning that flight. What is not specifically addressed in the regulation is a requirement for charts. You should always carry a current chart for safety's sake. An expired chart will not show new frequencies or newly constructed obstructions, some of which could be tall enough to be a hazard along your route of flight.

The only FAA/FAR requirements that pertain to charts are:
• Title 14 CFR section 91.503[a] (Large and Turbojet powered aircraft)
• Title 14 CFR section 135.83 (Air Carriers-Little Airplane)
• Title 14 CFR section 121.549 (Air Carrier-Big Airplanes)

The FAA has rendered interpretations that have stated the foregoing. The subject of current charts was thoroughly covered in an article in the FAA's July/August 1997 issue of FAA Aviation News. That article was cleared through the FAA's Chief Counsel's office. In that article the FAA stated the following:
1. "You can carry old charts in your aircraft." "It is not FAA policy to violate anyone for having outdated charts in the aircraft."
2. "Not all pilots are required to carry a chart." "91.503..requires the pilot in command of large and multiengine airplanes to have charts." "Other operating sections of the FAR such as Part 121 and Part 135 operations have similar requirements."
3. ..."since some pilots thought they could be violated for having outdated or no charts on board during a flight, we need to clarify an important issue. As we have said, it is NOT FAA policy to initiate enforcement action against a pilot for having an old chart on board or no chart on board." That's because there is no regulation on the issue.
4. ..."the issue of current chart data bases in handheld GPS receivers is a non-issue because the units are neither approved by the FAA or required for flight, nor do panel-mounted VFR-only GPS receivers have to have a current data base because, like handheld GPS receivers, the pilot is responsible for pilotage under VFR.
5. "If a pilot is involved in an enforcement investigation and there is evidence that the use of an out-of-date chart, no chart, or an out-of-date database contributed to the condition that brought on the enforcement investigation, then that information could be used in any enforcement action that might be taken."

If you, as an FAA Safety Inspector, Designated Pilot Examiner, Flight Instructor, or other aviation professional are telling pilots something other than the foregoing then you are incorrect.

Source

That last sentence is pretty clear.

Note, however, that they do mention that they strongly encourage carrying charts, and that they will throw the book at you if something happens and your out-of-date or lack of charts was a factor (point five, above).

The Letter of Sense

I always hesitate raising this issue because people look at me like I'm trying to encourage recklessness.  My intent isn't to raise the issue to say that you should now go blazing around the skies without charts, hoping that you won't hit a mountain, bust airspace, or manage to get tangled up in some guy wires.  My intent is to raise the issue so that people can exercise a little of their own aeronautical decision making.  I would say that there's a sizable group out there who will still look at me like I'm an idiot, because any intelligent person would always have charts in their plane.  They'd likely say that it doesn't matter who does or doesn't require them to be with you.  I'd agree with them, but only to a certain degree.

My father always taught me his own version of dead right, and I'm reminded of it all the time:
You may be right, but you'd also likely be dead.

As an example, say you're riding on a motorcycle, and you roll up to a light that has just changed green.  Do you check to make sure traffic isn't going to blow through the red light, or do you just look ahead and hope? I'm hoping you'd opt for the former.  In the fight between cars and motorcycles, the car usually wins.  In the later fight between your body and the road, the road almost always wins.  The rule said that person should've stopped, and that you had right of way.  They're in the wrong, but you're now either dead or pretty roughed up.

The rule saying one thing or another doesn't mean your safety is going to be guaranteed.  Regardless of what the regulation says, you need to be in charge of your own safety.  To me, though, it's better that the rule doesn't necessarily specify that charts are required at all times.  I'd argue that knowing this then makes it a conscious choice for you to carry charts from here on out.  With that, you're making a conscious decision to be safe, and those who are consciously involved in a process - in this case, safety - are likely to take it more seriously.

Taking it Further
When coaching people to make improvements in their lives, life coaches often suggest an approach that focuses on adjusting one specific thing at a time.  The analogy given to me by someone teaching me adult learning theory was this:

"If you try to start a fire by moving a magnifying glass around to multiple areas, you will fail, but if you leave it in one spot long enough it will catch fire and spread."

If you're looking to become a safer pilot, concentrate on trying to be safe in one aspect at a time.  The nice thing about the chart issue is that you've likely always been doing it, but you've never done it consciously.  Now that you know it's not a requirement and you don't have to fear being faulted in a ramp check, you have to make the decision for yourself to bring those charts with you.  Your conscious decision to bring those charts is likely one you'll make in the interest of safety.  From there, you'll be amazed at how many other things you might do in order to conduct your flights more safely.

One Last Note: The Electronics Issue
Earlier, I mentioned a DE who would discontinue students if they showed up without backup charts.  I followed that up by saying that the PTS does not specify that the charts must be printed.  The linked post does go further to say that the DE's own backup is another electronic device.  While electronics have gotten a lot more reliable over the years, they still manage to fail at the worst possible times, so backups are still worth having.  The stats on paper charts spontaneously combusting, flying out of the window, or otherwise "failing" on the other hand are very low.

Digging up an old picture from my pilot bag review, you'll note there are still paper charts in there, despite the iPad prominently displayed in front.

Just to cover my own rear, here's a generic disclaimer:
The content provided here is informational only, and is not in any way, shape, or form legal guidance.  If any doubts exist, please contact your local FSDO, the administration, or an aviation lawyer.

Always Have an Out

No matter how simple the flight, there's often a learning experience that you can reflect upon to improve your future flights.  Each time I fly, I venture to fix something from the last flight, find something to learn from, or share something as a learning experience for others.

One of the things on my last flight that came up is always have an out.

In the middle of putting the plane on the ground, I had a moment where I actually thought to myself:

"Make a call now, or end up as the next YouTube pilot failure."

This is a screen capture during that situation.  I had just bounced.  If you were in my situation, looking down the runway, what would you have done?  While I know my exact location on the runway at this moment (thanks to the GPS in my ContourGPS - though this particular frame is from the GoPro), I'm not going to tell you because the only information I had for my decision is what you see right now.  As you can see, there's still a reasonable amount of runway left, and I didn't bounce too high.

What's the call?

I pressed on.  Why?  I know my ground roll is normally about 500-600' and I clearly had that and more left, despite being slightly off the ground.  I delayed my call, and that's when the line above popped up.  It was only when the plane didn't settle in the following few seconds that I decided to go around.

00:27 - [Bounce] Split second decision: land, there's still room
00:28 - [Bounce, bounce]
00:30 - Make a call now, or end up as the next YouTube pilot failure...go around.

[Video was here until Contour closed down for a bit, and it got lost.]
If you watch the video, you can see the plane actually settles right as I applied full power.  If you pause it right at that point, you can see a strip of asphalt off to the right of the runway.  That strip of asphalt is about 720' from the end of the runway, so I could've still stopped by my own and the official Cessna ground roll numbers had I not decided to go around.  Would that have been smart, though?  My argument would be no.  If I really had to get on the ground, sure, but why cut it so close when I could always go around?

Always remember your other options.  In my case there was no emergency, so there was no harm in going around provided I made that call with enough room to get back up off the ground.



I wasn't out of the woods after that call, though.  Literally.

After I lift off, you can see some rather imposing trees approaching quickly.  From having flown in before, I knew there was an opening to the right.  As I got closer, through both a call by Phil and my own constant search for an out, I turned right to give myself more room between myself and the trees.  I would assert that I would've cleared them without the turn, but the turn would have only given me more clearance in my direct flight path, so I took it.

We've been taught to look for outs at all times, but a lot of the time our margins of error are rather high in normal operations.  As I joked with another pilot after finally putting the plane on the ground, landing is a lot different on a 5500' runway compared to 2000'.  I can float for ages on a 5500' runway like and still land safely, but most instructors tell you early on that if you don't like the landing picture, go around, no matter how long the runway.  We're also taught as pilots to always keep an eye out for landing fields, especially when flying single engine and lower to the ground.  When you get into instrument flight, you start dealing with alternate airports, and with longer flights you may also get into intermediate, or en route, alternates.  You're always taught to have an out, but do you always have one in mind?

Looking for an out is something pilots are taught from the very beginning, but I don't think it's ever placed in generic terms.  We're taught to have specific outs in mind - alternate airports, go arounds, open fields, and so on - but it's not often that you hear an instructor explain the merits of always having a backup plan in general.  For some pilots, it's just a natural part of aeronautical decision making, but for others it's not necessarily so.  Some pilots need things spelled out, simply as a part of the way they learn.

The next time you fly, or even the next time you're driving, think ahead of your situation.  If [something] happens, you will [react in some way].  It sounds somewhat obvious, but think of the last time someone stomped on the brakes in front of you, and you had little time to react.  For a split second there, you almost thought you were going into the back of that person's car.  If there was a shoulder to your right, could you have used that?  Probably, and that would be a nice resource.  Without thinking of that ahead of time, though, the only reaction in your mind was stopping behind the car in front of you.  That thinking ahead gives your mind the opportunity to calculate everything ahead of time so that you're able to make quick decisions.

Always have an out.  Always remember that you have an out.  Always take that out when you doubt that your current course can continue safely.

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)

Review: Barnstormer Recording Cable

For the longest time I've wanted to have the cockpit and air traffic dialogue captured, if only for the funny moments back and forth.  I've had to try to explain a few of them, and they just don't have the same effect in writing as they would if you heard them.  My failure to switch from Potomac to Winchester (OKV) CTAF back in April would've been hilarious to have on tape.  Unfortunately, you can only barely hear my laughing in the background of the recording from the ContourGPS.  Luckily, my friend Phil found a solution.

Phil bought himself a voice recorder and an audio cable that converts the different jack sizes and allows a pass-through for your headset.  The cable is manufactured by Barnstormer Audio, and the story of it arriving to me was quite the saga.

As I was on vacation at the beginning of September, I was looking at various aviation tools (and probably munching on a Fractured Prune donut from right down the road).  One of the tools I looked at, and eventually purchased, was the audio cable.  Phil gave me a link and warned me that they took a little prodding to get the order off to you, but I pressed on anyway and bought it for $34.95.  The checkout page noted there was a backorder on the cables, and to expect things to take slightly longer.  Looking back at my email and PayPal accounts, my transaction went through at 16:44 on September 2, 2012.  After it all went through, I made mental notes of concession for the backorder and the holiday weekend.

One week?  Nothing.  Okay, expected.
Two weeks?  Nothing.  Partly expected, but an update would've been nice, even just to say "still waiting."
Three weeks?  Nothing.  At this point, an update should really be happening.
I sent an email requesting the status on September 23.  No response.
Four weeks?  Nothing, and no response to my email, so I sent another on October 1.  No response.
A couple days later?  Nothing, and still no response to my email.
I sent another email on October 3.  No response.  This email, like all of the others, indicated that all I was looking for was an update.  Unlike the others, however, I included that I would have to take action with PayPal if I didn't hear back by Friday of that week.  PayPal's official policy is that you have up to 45 days to submit a dispute, but I didn't want to press up against that deadline.

I believe it was one or two days after that I received a response through PayPal's resolution center asking me to remove the hold so that the item could be shipped, and that the backorder issue was noted when I purchased the product.  As I noted above, this is very true.  The issue, however, was the complete communication blackout.  Selling products to pilots, I would have thought that would have been an understandable expectation.





As far as the performance of the cable goes, it seemed to have done really well on my last flight.  The video in my last post is proof that it works, and works well.  The video does have audio from both sources - the ContourGPS and the voice recorder through the cable - mixed together, so if you're thinking it picked up a lot of background noise, it's probably the audio from the ContourGPS.

To me, I feel like they have a good product.  It works, and it's really simple.  It just feels like a great idea with poor execution.  Don't get me wrong, though.  I'm not dismissing them.  In the end, I'm hoping the emails I sent, along with dealing with the PayPal dispute, left somewhat of a mark that will push them to fix the communication issue.

It really does actually pain me slightly to say that the product itself is well worth the money spent on it, but that you might be waiting a while to get it.  My verdict is that if time isn't an issue, it's well worth it, but make sure to set yourself a reminder to start the dispute process if you haven't received it within the 45 day time frame.

For what it's worth, at the time I'm writing this, one of the distributors (Aircraft Spruce) is reporting a backorder through March 2013.

www.barnstormeraudio.com

Fall Colors

N172DR - C172R - 1.9 hours

I'd have to say that autumn is my favorite season of all of them.  It's not too hot, it's not too cold, and although it's a little rainy around where I live, the leaves changing colors is pretty cool.  When I woke up this morning, I didn't think I'd go flying, but I did note how awesome one of the trees in my neighborhood looked.  When someone I met at work mentioned going flying, I knew exactly where we would be going.

No, not Charlottesville.

One of the better places to go around here, if you're looking to check out the fall colors, is Skyline Drive.  To the west of the ridge line that Skyline Drive follows is the Luray Valley, which is part of the Shenandoah Valley.  If you've ever been on Skyline Drive and thought it looked cool, you should see it by air.

Because Marcy and I wanted to actually see the colors, we were presented with a little time issue.  Meeting up at Leesburg (JYO) would've meant losing daylight after work, so I agreed to fly down to Manassas (HEF) to pick her up, and then continue to Luray (LUA).  This, of course, presented me with a little airspace issue.

The direct path would really get me in hot water with Dulles Tower, as you can see in the picture on the left.  Another option was to head out of the SFRA (the blue hatched arc with a white background in the picture) to the west and remain outside almost all the way until HEF.  That option would take more time, but it gave me more room to work with.  The final option is somewhat less obvious, unless you're really looking, and you're really comfortable with ATC and airspace.  The four blue lines near the center of the picture are the runways at Dulles (IAD).  The thick blue circle surrounding it is the airspace that starts at the ground and continues up to 10,000'.  The next ring out is airspace that starts at 1,500', which you can see over JYO.  As long as I stay under that 1,500' shelf of airspace, west of the floor airspace, and talk to Potomac Approach for clearance into the SFRA, I'm golden.

If you look closely, I even have a good landmark to keep me out of the floor airspace (aviation term for airspace that starts at the ground): Route 15.  What you can't really see are the Bull Run Mountains, which I've talked about before in past posts because they're tall enough that you can't fly over them with legal clearance, yet remain below the Class B airspace.  So, if I stay at 1,300', west of Route 15, and east of the Bull Run Mountains, I'm set.  It really isn't the most ideal route - I don't really like being kept that low to the ground, and being close to airspace always makes me a little nervous - but it shaves enough time to make it worth it.  I definitely wouldn't try it at night.





I took my time with the preflight, since I was slightly ahead of schedule, but still managed to get out ahead of a couple inbound aircraft.  Once airborne, I coordinated my departure path with one of those inbound aircraft as flying the standard pattern would have meant cutting him off.  I've noticed I've gotten a lot better at spotting traffic, for reasons I'm sure you already know if you've been following the blog for any amount of time.  After I was clear of the traffic, I called Potomac up and got cleared into the SFRA.  From there, I turned southbound to follow Route 15 down to Haymarket.

IFR really means "I Follow Roads" right?
(Route 15 runs right up the middle of the image)

Closer to HEF, Potomac passed me over to tower, who set me up on a left downwind for Runway 34R.  If the pilot or ATC-side of you thought that last sentence was odd, mine did too.  In the world of ATC, however, never forget two words: operational advantage.  While putting me on the left downwind for runway 34R made me cross the final of 34L, it kept me away from two helicopters using 34R.

After landing over a construction team still working on extending the runway, I taxied off to the main terminal.  Unfortunately, the main terminal doesn't have any parking spots painted on the ramp, so I asked the ground controller if she knew anything about the parking situation.  She said she didn't, but offered a frequency for one of the FBOs next to me.  The person who answered the call at APP Jetcenter was the GM, as I found out later.  He gave me instructions on where to park, and even came out to marshal me into a spot as all of the other rampers were busy with other aircraft.  I was pretty impressed, especially having been a ramp agent and supervisor myself.



I decided to try something new with the videos.  I've always wanted to be able to add the voice communication to the recordings I take, but everything gets drowned out by the sound of the engine.  I actually bought a cable to work with my voice recorder a while ago, but just got it (story and review of that will come at some point).  With it, I'm now able to record the audio and then overlay it using the same program I use to create the time-lapse videos.  This is the result:


It gives it an interesting new feel, and now I don't have to try to explain the things I find funny on frequency.

The rest of the flight was pretty simple.  After taking off, tower kept me on runway heading for departure traffic on Runway 34L.  Once that traffic turned southbound, I got my turn on course and frequency change to Potomac.  Despite listening in to the frequency for a few seconds and calling when it was clear, the controller snapped back with "all VFR traffic standby!"  As I've mentioned before, controllers often work combined frequencies, so you can't always hear the other traffic on the frequency.  While the tone did seem a little unnecessary, I shrugged it off.  In any case, I continued on my way to LUA, climbing under the Class B airspace.  After crossing the mountain ridge, I descended into the valley to get a closer look at the colors and continued inbound to the airport.

After landing on Runway 4, I parked the plane on the North Ramp and got a ride into town from Kenny for dinner at Uncle Buck's.  If you haven't flown in during the week, you probably haven't run into Kenny, but he's a great guy, just like John.  They have a good crew down there.

The flight home was pretty quiet, and the landing at JYO was uninterrupted as there aren't many people who fly later in the day on weekdays.  After landing on Runway 17 and parking the plane back in its spot, it took a while to get all of my technology out.  It hadn't occurred to me until just now how much I have in there: the Contour, the iPad, the Garmin GLO, and a voice recorder.  That's all on top of the other normal items.

No idea where the next trip will take me, but I'm not going unless I can get some simulated instrument time.  Yes, that's an invitation to my other pilot friends.

Hours:
Pilot in Command Cross Country (PIC XC): 1.9 - 72.4 (of 50)
Actual/Simulated Instrument (Act/Sim): 0.0 - 8.3 (of 40)

Garmin GLO vs. Dual XGPS150

If any of you reading this took a look at my review of the iPad, ForeFlight and the Garmin GLO, you'll remember I briefly mentioned the Dual XGPS150, but I didn't go into much detail.  Reviews are all well and good, but they get better if you have something to compare different products.  Luckily, my friend Phil has the Dual XGPS150 and let me borrow it for one of those little comparative reviews.

Before I jump into the actual review, I want to point out what I checked on each of them:

Ease of use (power on/power off, really - there's not much else to them), ease of Bluetooth connectivity, time to connect via Bluetooth, time to acquire satellites for position, time to acquire satellites for altitude, and general user interaction.  As far as acquiring goes, I used hot boots, meaning I let each one boot up fully and acquire, shut them off and booted again within a minute.  I've also thrown in some manufacturer statistics like battery life (sorry, I'm not sitting there with a stopwatch to time that for you), and size.

The Dual XGPS150

Not much needs to be said for the XGPS150.  Even if you've casually glanced at the product on Amazon, or anything of that sort, you'll see the raving reviews.  It's really simple, compact, and easy to use.  Out of the box, you get the unit, a non-slip pad, a strap (for wearing, or securing more permanently in a car/aircraft), a USB charging cable, and an adapter to charge it in a car or properly equipped aircraft, all for $99.99 (as of writing).

The small size - a 2.25" square - makes it easy to store without taking up too much space, and it has a weighted feel to it that just feels sturdy.  The red circle in the middle is a large button to turn it on, with the pressure point being slightly below center.  Said button takes a firm prodding with your thumb to turn it on, but if it's being stored in a pilot bag, or similar, you don't want the button to be too easy to press.  Pressing and holding once again will turn it off.  On the side of it, you'll find a door that hides the USB charging port and a button that switches the data format from Apple to everything else.

Holding down the button for a few seconds will bring it to life with all of the lights confirming you have, in fact, brought it out of its slumber.  At that point, the appropriately blue Bluetooth light begins flashing to let you know that it's in discoverable mode, while the green GPS light flashes until it picks up the required amount of satellites.  Going into your iPad's Bluetooth panel, you'll find XGPS150-[serial number].  Click to connect.  Begin using it.

If you're interested, you can also download an app from the app store that allows you to see what's going on behind the scenes with the device.  I'd explain further, but pictures are better:

The Garmin GLO for Aviation

Somewhat later to the game is the Garmin GLO.  Reviews are just about as good for the GLO as the Dual on Amazon, and I'd expect similar from other stores.  It's equally simple, easy to use, and just about the same size.  Out of the box, you get the unit, a non-slip pad, a USB charging cable, and an adapter to charge it in a car or properly equipped aircraft, for $129.99 (as of writing).  The regular Garmin GLO comes with the unit and the USB cable only, for $99.99.

Though it's a slightly different shape and appears larger, it's 0.0465 square inches smaller, based on the manufacturers' measurements.  The size difference being negligible, it's just as portable and doesn't take much room in any bag you'd carry it in.  The only button is clearly visible and functions as the power button.  One press turns it on, and a press and hold will turn it off.  The USB port is on the side of the unit by the power switch, in the open.  Additionally, there are no special switches to switch between devices.

A press of the power button will bring it to life, and just like the XGPS150, the blue Bluetooth light will flash until it's connected to another device, and the green GPS light will flash until it has acquired enough satellites for an accurate position.  In the iPad settings panel, you'll find Garmin GLO #[serial number].  Click to connect.  Enjoy.

No apps for the GLO, unfortunately.

Side by Side

Looking at the above summaries, they seem like they're just about the same, and they really are.  Even through my simple testing, they came up about the same by the numbers.

Here are the side by side manufacturer specs:

	Garmin GLO	Dual XGPS150
Weight	2.12 oz	1.8 oz
Size (L/W/H)	3.04/1.65/0.70"	2.25/2.25/0.75"
Battery Life	12 Hrs	8.5 Hrs
GPS	GPS/GLONASS	GPS
WAAS	Yes	Yes
Refresh	10 Hz	>1 Hz

Just in case you forgot your old physics knowledge, 1 Hz is once per second. In the case of refresh rates, more Hz is better. Dual's website only says "at least once per second," so I just indicated that as greater than 1 Hz, or >1 Hz.

Before I provide the data from my tests, I want to be very honest in that these tests were done literally in my back yard and not in some field.  Both devices proved very capable of picking up signals both outside and even inside.  In any case, both devices were tested in the same spot, so despite not being in the middle of an open field, the same disadvantages were present for both devices.  Additionally, when testing the vertical accuracy, I gave it a +/- 10 foot buffer and stopped the clock when it reached that.  I included the first altitude indication time as well.

Here are the test specs:

	Garmin GLO	Dual XGPS150
Bluetooth Connection Time	14 sec	5 sec
Position (2D) Time	22 sec	18 sec
Position (3D) Time	30 sec	30 sec
Accurate (3D) Time	49 sec	100 sec

Conclusions and Other Notes
The Dual had a clear advantage in its Bluetooth time, while the Garmin seemed to fully latch on to the satellites slightly faster.  The Dual satellite times may be slightly longer as my iPad seemed to be arguing with it at first.  This was shown in the fact that I had to close ForeFlight and reopen it before I could see a position the first few attempts.  I believe I got it sorted out for some more accurate times, but I want to put that out there.  The fact that they both provided vertical data at about the same time leads me to give the Dual the benefit of the doubt on the accurate 3D time.

To be honest, you're not going to go wrong with either device.  They're just about even all around, both in performance and ease of use.  The Dual does have an app for the iPad so that you can check up on the device.  At the very least, it's nice to know what the battery life is looking like, which is possible in the app.  The lack of an app for the Garmin doesn't set it back too far, but there's some mystery in how much battery life is left if you haven't just charged it.  This is also somewhat offset by the fact that the Garmin's non-slip pad has a cutout where the charger can fit, which allows you to plug it in while using it in its non-slip pad.  The Dual's pad hides the charge port entirely, and even then it's hidden behind a door.  You could easily remedy that issue with scissors by cutting the pad where you'd like to have access for the charger.

Both devices will have issues with heated windscreens, but most have reported good results after moving the device into the cabin.  The range of Bluetooth being about 30 feet allows you to move it just about anywhere in any aircraft where you'd want an external GPS.

There really isn't a clear winner, and as a result, I'm not going to say you should go get one or the other.  In the end, it'll probably come down to a price issue.  In order to get the same features (minus the strap) for the Garmin, you have to spend an extra $30, so despite all else being just about equal, there's that.  Hopefully I've provided enough information for you to make a more informed decision.

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

Good luck in your decision making.

Dual XGPS150 - Garmin GLO for Aviation

Currency and Checkouts

Recently, I've talked to a few pilots who had a few questions about currency and checkout requirements.  Currency and checkouts come in a few different forms, and where each has its roots is often confusing.  Hopefully, this post will help to clear some of it up.

Currency

Currency is often required by a couple different entities.  The FAA, of course, is the most important one to satisfy, and the requirements are pretty basic.  First, you need a review every two years, which we all know and love as the biannual flight review, or BFR.  The secondary requirements are currency for passenger carriage and instrument flight.  Broken down by numbers, the FAA side looks like this:

Flying, in general: BFR within 24 months
Passenger carriage (day): 3 takeoffs and landings within 90 days
Passenger carriage (night): 3 TO/LND, full stop, at night, within 90 days
Instrument flight: 6 approaches within 6 months, to include tracking and holding
(or an Instrument Proficiency Check if not within 12 months)

Other requirements for currency come from other entities like flight schools, flight clubs, and insurance companies.  As an example, the flight school I rent from requires 3 takeoffs and landings within 60 days to remain current in their aircraft.  A lot of the pilots I know actually get confused by that.  This particular requirement was set by the flight school (and likely their insurer), not the FAA.  As far as the FAA is concerned, if you're flying VFR without passengers, you could go 729 days without flying and still legally fly for one more day.


Checkouts

In the realm of flying different aircraft, again, there is a difference between the requirements of different operators and the FAA.  As in the case of currency requirements, the FAA offers more room.  First, you have to be rated for the aircraft type.  Second, you have to be rated for the number of engines.  Third, you have to be endorsed for anything other than standard.  Broken down, the FAA side looks like this:

Type:  Airplane, seaplane, rotorcraft, and so on
Engines:  Single, or multi
Endorsements:  Tailwheel, high performance, complex, and so on

Other requirements come from other entities like flight schools, flight clubs and insurance companies.  As an example, the flight school I rent from requires a specific checkout by aircraft type.  In order to fly one of their aircraft, you need to fly with one of their CFIs.  After that point, you can fly any of that aircraft type provided you maintain the aforementioned 60 day currency.  Since I had my BFR in a C172, I can fly any of their C172s (though I did need to get checked out on the G1000 - again, flight school requirement, not FAA).  In order to fly any of the other aircraft, I'd have to fly with one of their CFIs.  As far as the FAA is concerned, however, as long as it's a single engine aircraft with tricycle landing gear and 200 horsepower or less, it's fair game.  Even though I've never flown one, if my friend had a Diamond 20 and was going to let me borrow it, I could do so without having anyone fly with me beforehand and still meet FAA requirements.

The only "checkouts" you need from the FAA are called endorsements, and I'm sure the puzzle pieces are falling into place now.

That's the long and short of it.  Hopefully that clears up some of the confusion.


Just to cover my own rear, here's a generic disclaimer:
The content provided here is informational only, and is not in any way, shape, or form legal guidance.  If any doubts exist, please contact your local FSDO, the administration, or an aviation lawyer.