One of the facts of life when it comes to flying is currency. Since I've been flying regularly since I had my biennial flight review (BFR), it hasn't been much of an issue. I haven't been flying much lately in order to save for a trip to Italy in two weeks. I needed to fly before the trip, though, in order to keep my currency with the flight school. If I didn't, my currency would've expired in the middle of the trip, requiring me to fly with a flight instructor the next time I went flying, to meet the flight school's requirements.
As I mentioned in my last post, I used this excuse to schedule a short flight out to Winchester (OKV), except this time the wind cooperated.
The preflight was one of the coldest excursions I've been on lately, but it was somewhat negated by new gloves I got for Christmas. As I got everything set up inside, I tried to set up the ContourROAM on the headband for my head lamp, but the band wasn't strong enough and it got in the way of my headset. I left it there and got some video from it, but nothing interesting came from it. I'm thinking of hooking it to my headset somehow for future flights. A daylight flight wouldn't hurt, either.
The departure was pretty standard, apart from me forgetting to check the carburetor heat initially. As I cleared the Class B airspace to the west, I noticed my groundspeed was about 80 knots, which was about 30 knots less than my indicated speed, meaning I had a significant headwind. If the wind is fast enough, you can drop your speed, put the flaps down and fly backwards. For those of you who can't comprehend that, the plane is still moving forward, but the Cessna 172 can still remain airborne down to about 40 knots. If the wind is faster than 40 knots opposite the direction you're travelling, you're actually moving backwards over the ground. Unfortunately the wind wasn't strong enough, so I only got the plane down to about 18 knots across the ground, but it looked like I was sitting still at 5000'.
I ended my experiment when I realized I was at 5000' only 15 miles away from OKV. Closer in, I lined up with the runway and brought it in. You can actually see a glow around the approach lights because they're reflecting off of some snow that had melted and frozen earlier in the day. Later on, as I was in the middle of my flare, I apparently had a subconscious thought to get the nosewheel up, which you can see in the video. That caused me to float, which I luckily salvaged by adding a little throttle. I have to say, I'm actually kinda proud that I got the nose up.
[Video was here until Contour closed down for a bit, and they went missing.]
After fully stopping - the FAA requires three full stop landings at night, after all - I went around for another landing. The second landing wasn't nearly as good as the first. If you watch the video, make sure to have the sound on so that you can hear a sound an airplane shouldn't make. As I cross the threshold, some wind kicked the plane around a little. I didn't think much of it after that because it hadn't been gusty, but as I was in my flare and settled on the runway, another gust pushed me to the right some, sideloading the right tire. It wasn't a pleasant noise.
[Video was here until Contour closed down for a bit, and they went missing.]
The flight back home was amazingly quick, mostly due to the wind that was now at my back. I hooked in from the northwest to land on Runway 35 and call it a night. This one was much better than the second landing. I touched down on the aiming points, and vacated at the first available exit. I'm not sure why I chose to jump off so quickly, but I did.
[Video was here until Contour closed down for a bit, and they went missing.]
Luckily the planes on the row behind the spot for N96178 weren't there, so I was able to just pull the plane through. In the end, the flight was only 0.9 hours, which surprised me. The Hobbs meter's last hours digits were 64 when I left, and when I landed it was still 64. I thought the Hobbs didn't even record the hours until I realized that I'd gotten back within an hour, having left at 64.0 and gotten back at 64.9.
So, now I have my my night currency, flight school currency, and sanity back. We'll see what 2013 brings.
Hours: Pilot in Command Cross Country (PIC XC): 0.0 - 74.2 (of 50) Actual/Simulated Instrument (Act/Sim): 0.0 - 9.6 (of 40)
Anyone who knows me knows that flying is my escape. With rare exception, no matter what's going on in my life, I can jump in a plane and clear my head as soon as the plane's door is closed. In need of a little escape, and having an excuse of needing to keep up my currency with the flight school and the FAA, I booked a plane for last night.
As I got everything situated, I made sure to charge the cameras so I could try out a new idea I came up with for some of the flight videos. My intentions were to fly from Leesburg (JYO) to Winchester (OKV), land a couple times, and then head back to JYO. It's a short flight, but it's all I need. I have a big trip coming up soon that I've been saving for, so as you may have noticed, I've trimmed a lot from the flight budget to accomplish that.
...and everyone says you can save a ton of money if you quit smoking.
In any case, I was pretty excited even to get a shorter flight in and have my night currency for passenger carriage back. After parking at the airport and shutting the car down, I could hear the wind howling as I glanced up at the flags in front of the terminal. I pulled up the latest weather on my phone as I was sitting there.
KJYO 292255Z AUTO 30015G23KT 10SM OVC035 05/01 A2963 RMK AO2
For the non-fliers reading this, the important part in that METAR (Meteorological Terminal Aviation Routine Weather Report) is the 30015G23KT. That's wind coming from 300 (northwest) at 15 knots, gusting to 23 knots. Wind like that is strong enough to give you a hard time without the gusts, but it being at a 50 degree angle from the runway's direction makes things even more difficult. The TAF (Terminal Aerodrome Forecast) said the wind was supposed to die down as the night went on, so I went inside to get everything situated and get a look at the weather station inside that updates more frequently.
The weather station inside showed a similar story, and the wind at OKV was just as bad. Soon enough, the station showed the wind dying pretty steadily, and when it hit 9 knots I took my stuff and walked outside. By the time I had gotten out to the plane again, however, the wind wasn't just stronger, it was also more erratic. I pulled out my phone again to confirm and saw this:
Again, for the non-fliers, you know what the 32017G25KT means, but the piece right after it - 270V330 - is saying that the wind is out of anywhere from due west to north-northwest. It was at that point that I pulled out a sticky note out of my bag and wrote "didn't take the plane up: wind 17G25." I locked the plane up, stuck the note in the book, dropped the book back in the overnight box, and drove home.
There are a ton of overused sayings in aviation, but a lot of them are overused because we often need to be reminded of them. As I sat in my car convincing myself I made the right call, one of my least hated overused phrases came to mind: "Every takeoff is optional. Every landing is mandatory." I was really sure I could taxi out and take off safely, but a safe landing was questionable. I was able to put a plane on the ground on a small runway with 12G21 direct crosswind a month ago, but that was in the middle of the day. As much as I like night flying, landing at night offers its own challenges.
...especially when someone jacks the lights up to their brightest when you're on short final.
Up until this point, my decision to remain on the ground was always a made between me and another person. Initially, it was a flight instructor and myself. Since then, it's often been between a friend of mine and myself. This time, it was all on me.
If you doubt yourself, don't go. If you're anything like myself, there's a significant amount of pride that's associated with how you fly. Sitting in the car admitting that the wind was too much of a risk for me to handle did seem like I was admitting I wasn't good enough. Similar to a memorable quote from Abe Lincoln, I prefer to look at it like this:
Better to remain on the ground and be thought an amateur than to take off and remove all doubt.
As the holidays draw to a close, I'm sure that there are a good number of potential pilots who will be going up for their first flights in the coming weeks. I definitely looked forward to the gift certificates my family got for me at my flight school around this time of year. For those of you who are, or know someone who is about to start taking lessons soon, one of the most important things to do is make sure to get everything out of each lesson.
When you first begin flying, your flight instructor may seem to be at the pinnacle of aviation knowledge, and I'm sure many of them strive to be, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't ask for clarification when you need it. Part of becoming an instructor is learning the Fundamentals of Instruction (FOI), which is essentially the background theory of learning. One of the points that is made is that many instructors - both in and outside of aviation - stop teaching at the application level. What that means is that many instructors teach you how to do something, but often neglect the reasons behind the action. Some instructors are really great at making sure this is all explained, but nobody is perfect.
Having been an instructor of the information technology sort, I can say that sometimes it's simply an issue of forgetting to mention it. Other times, I got so excited to show someone something, that the details got lost in the process. Going against that grain, I'll now give you the reason why I'm telling you this: your learning is both the responsibility of the instructor and of yourself.
When I began training, my first flight instructor taught me how to fly power on and power off stalls to the point where I could do them flawlessly. While it's good that I could fly them flawlessly, it was quite some time before I made the connection that power on stalls were training for recovering from stalls on departure, and that power off stalls were to recognize full stalls and to perfect your landing flare technique. Had I thought to ask the reasoning behind it all, I would have likely known a lot earlier.
Despite what it may seem, there's often a reason behind all of the maneuvers the FAA asks you to be able to demonstrate on the checkride. You're flying them in training because they're on the checkride, and they're on the checkride because they show you have control of your aircraft in varying conditions.
Power on, or departure stalls: recognizing control mush and stalls on departure.
Power off stalls: recognizing proper recovery for a fully stalled condition, and perfecting your flare.
S-turns, and turns around a point: properly adjusting for wind over a set ground track (think traffic pattern).
Simulated instrument time: limited training to help you out just in case you end up in clouds.
There are likely several more, but always remember that many of the things you'll be asked to do in training have a reason behind them. If you don't understand why you're doing something, always ask! If you're intimidated you ask your instructor, feel free to ask here. If I don't know it, I'll go find the answer.
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:
"You can carry old charts in your aircraft." "It is not FAA policy to violate anyone for having outdated charts in the aircraft."
"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."
..."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.
..."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.
"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.
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.
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.
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:
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)
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.
