AOPA ENCOURAGES INSTRUCTORS TO CHECK THEIR RENEWAL DATE

FAA working to correct recent experience end date errors

The FAA has agreed to change how it processes certificated flight instructor renewals after numerous CFIs contacted AOPA, confused about the regulator’s recently introduced policy of no longer printing expiration dates on new CFI certificates.

In December 2024, the FAA stopped printing expiration dates on newly issued flight instructor certificates. Previously, certificates expired every two years, with the expiration date printed on the reverse side of the certificate. The FAA said at the time that removing the expiration date from the certificate would “increase efficiency, cut costs, and align instructor certificates with other airman certificates such as private and commercial, which do not expire.”

While the intent was to streamline the process and make it simpler for instructors to renew their qualifications, it has led to confusion. Several CFIs who had taken AOPA’s electronic flight instructor refresher course (eFIRC) found the FAA had posted incorrect recent experience end dates in the airmen registry database. AOPA reached out to the FAA, which confirmed the errors and has since corrected them in these specific cases because the affected CFIs were within the renewal or reinstatement period.

According to FAA policy, instructors now have a seven-month window in which to renew their certificate by completing a FIRC. Many of these, including AOPA’s eFIRC, can be completed online.

Flight instructors can renew their privileges beginning three months prior to their recent experience end date. Instructors who do not renew their privileges before the last calendar day of the month in which those privileges expire enter a reinstatement period during which they lose their instruction privileges.

During that time, CFIs have three months during which they can reinstate instruction privileges by completing a FIRC. CFIs who do not complete a FIRC during this three-month grace period are then required to take an instructor checkride to reinstate those instruction privileges.

AOPA recommends CFIs review their FAA Airman Registry record to ensure the recent experience end date listed there is correct. AOPA can assist members or CFIs who have used AOPA’s eFIRC to renew their certificate if their recent experience end date listed in the electronic registry is incorrect.

AOPA is working with the FAA to resolve the issue leading to incorrect registry information permanently. To help avoid future errors, AOPA now includes the correct recent experience end date when submitting IACRA applications for CFIs who use AOPA’s eFIRC.

The AOPA Air Safety Institute prepared detailed guidance for CFIs navigating the new process, including answers to many of the questions that CFIs frequently ask.

Over the last several years in General Aviation we’ve learned to use new tools to

keep us out of trouble. Before we fly, the IMSAFE (Illness, Medication, Stress,

Alcohol, Fatigue, and Eating/Emotion) checklist helps us determine if we are fit

to fly (physically, medically, mentally, etc.). Before and during flight the PAVE

mnemonic (Pilot, Aircraft, enVironment, and External pressures) helps us identify

the risks of the pilot, aircraft, environment and external pressures. The DECIDE

model (Detecting a change, Estimating the situation, Choose a course of action,

Identify the necessary steps, Do (implementing) the chosen action, and Evaluate

the outcome) tells us how to make aeronautical decisions in six steps. With all

these tools, why do pilots still get themselves too deep in a bad situation?

Here are the five biggest mistakes student pilots make and how to fix them:

Trying to steer the airplane like you would a car: With the exception of the Ercoupe, there isn't an airplane that this works on. Trying to steer with the yoke on the ground is like trying to flush a toilet by flipping a light switch. Isn't going to work.

The way to fix it: Many CFIs teach their students to taxi by demonstrating how steering on the ground is done with rudder only. It involves the CFI setting the power to taxi speed—a brisk walk—and having their hand over the throttle just in case they need to cut the power as they steer only with their feet on the rudder pedals. The CFI tells the learner to look at the pedals as the CFI taxis so they see the deflection as the CFI serpentines—if it is safe to do so, remarking, "We're going left...now right...now left."

• READ MORE: IFR Training: More Than Just a Requirement

Learners that play a musical instrument that requires footwork, like piano, organ, or drums, or a sport like soccer, will be ahead of the game because they already have a mental connection between their head and feet. 

The urge to “drive” the airplane with the yoke only continues into the air. This is called the law of primacy, as you want to do what you first learned. To break this habit, the CFI trims the aircraft for straight and level flight then demonstrates rudder coordination—the old ball in the bracket or stick in the doghouse—by keeping the nose of the aircraft on an object on the horizon and rolling around the axis with the aileron while using the rudder to keep the ball in the center.

• READ MORE: How to Prepare for a Flight Review

Then, the CFI has the learner fold their arms on their chest while the instructor controls the aileron and the student the rudder. The learner has to keep the aircraft coordinated. Another demonstrates a coordinated rudder turn (very shallow bank) doing a 180- or 360-degree turn. It teaches the learner to control pressures. Not stomping on the rudder is all that is needed to maintain coordination. Many CFIs demonstrate an uncoordinated turn—a skid—just so the learner understands what they are, what they feel like, and why we avoid them. One of my students compared it to the "airplane trying to give you a wedgie" because it's so uncomfortable.

Thinking that prowess at a flying video game means you are a good pilot:While there are some positive transfers, such as the development of an instrument scan and depending on the sophistication of the game, some procedural skills (I have met gamers who use aircraft appropriate checklists). But even with force feedback, control inputs you use in the aircraft will be significantly different than those in the game. This can get potentially dangerous, like the learner who yanks back on the yoke or stick instead of applying throttle to get the airplane to climb. In the airplane this can lead to a stall spin accident, especially on takeoff when the learner grabs with both hands..

• READ MORE: First Solo: What to Know Before You Go

The way to fix it: Your instructor will insist that you keep one hand on the yoke or stick and the other on the throttle during takeoff and will admonish you not to pull too hard. And the smart CFIs will block yoke or stick travel to keep you from yanking it back.

Overrelying on automation and GPS for navigation: It's easy to punch in "direct to" and when the pink line appears, activate the autopilot. When you start flying the big iron, that's when it's appropriate to do this. In your learning phase this robs you of valuable experience.

• READ MORE: Beware of Aviation ‘Tribal Knowledge’

The way to fix it: Insist on learning how to navigate using pilotage, dead reckoning, VORs, and even ADF if there is one on the airplane and an NDB nearby (this is the aviation version of learning to drive a stick shift). The more navigational tools you have in your knowledge tool kit, the better pilot you will be. There's a time and a place for GPS and autopilot, and it is after you have learned the basics.

Memorizing the check ride, instead of learning the material: This often happens when the CFI administering the training doesn't have much experience as a pilot or as an instructor and was trained by an equally low-time, low experience CFI using the "check-the-box, memorize-the-check-ride" method. This can happen at accelerated schools that have a Designated Pilot Examiner (DPE) on staff or one that is preferred, and as a matter of course uses the same check ride with all the applicants. DPEs are supposed to adapt the check ride to each client, but sometimes the training is "cookie cutter," and there is often a uniformity of learner level of knowledge and performance. While they pass the check ride, the fledgling pilots are ill-equipped outside the training environment. It is like memorizing the answers to the final exam without learning the material in class.

The way to fix it: In addition to memorizing rules, regulations, learn the skills and procedures for safe flight. This can be done using scenario-based training, the "what would do if this happened?" For example, "There is an uncommanded loss of engine power during cruise fleet in a carburetor-equipped aircraft. What action do you take?"

Giving up when you hit a learning plateau: They can be frustrating and expensive, and you may want to quit. Please understand learning plateaus are part of the process. They are like challenges encountered during puberty. We all went through it, and eventually, we all thought we were the only ones having these challenges.

The way to fix it: Break the training cycle by doing a “fun” flight. For example, if you're struggling with landings, fly to another airport and work on pattern entry followed by landings. A change of scenery and application of the skills you have learned in a slightly different environment can be beneficial to get you off the plateau.

Remember, as when looking back on your life experience, it's often the things we didn’t do—like finishing your pilot certificate—that we regret the most.

UPDATE" 4/22/2025

A group of Florida pilots has organized a petition campaign to have the FAA stop ADS-B data from being used to bill pilots for landing fees. It's the latest wrinkle in a growing movement to stop the controversial practice. The pilots took action after the airport authority at Kissimmee, Florida, signed a deal with Vector Airport Systems to have it send bills to the registered owners of aircraft landing at the field. One of the organizers of the petition, Don Frano, said the third-party billing is foremost a safety issue. "After spending seven days at Sun N Fun campaigning for awareness and support on the petition I was surprised how many pilots were not aware of this growing trend and more shockingly how many's knee jerk response has been to turn off their ADS-B out," Frano told AVweb. "If we see follow through on that the skies will be less safe for all of us."

Like most of the other groups and individuals opposing the billing action, the petitioners pointed out that the costly mandatory equipage came with a pledge from the FAA to never use the technology for anything but traffic separation. "This [third-party billing] exceeds the intended scope of ADS-B and undermines trust in the system." Frano said the petition was intended to piggyback on an AOPA effort to get the FAA to stop ADS-B billing. As of Monday night, the petition had attracted more than 2200 signatures.

-------------------------------------

Pilots are facing ‘frivolous lawsuits,’ airport fees, and agency investigations based on data, according to the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association.

When the FAA announced the requirement for the use of Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) for GA aircraft, pilots were told this technology would increase aviation safety, as it would replace radar as the primary means for ATC to manage traffic separation. 

Instead of having a person watch a radar scope for targets, the GPS on board and ADS-B equipment self-report the aircraft's position and lets the pilot know the whereabouts of traffic around them. And it has been doing that since its implementation in 2020.

Some pilots, however, are complaining that the FAA's use of ADS-B information is a violation of privacy.

On Tuesday Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) president and CEO Darren Pleasance sent a letter to acting FAA Administrator Chris Rocheleau "urging the agency to halt the use of ADS-B data in ways that go beyond its original intent." Pleasance said that AOPA initially supported the FAA’s ADS-B mandate in 2020, “as we were assured ADS-B would only be used to improve air traffic safety and airspace efficiencies."

Since then, however, AOPA has heard from its members who have been subject to what it called "frivolous lawsuits" for trespassing and FAA investigations based on information gleaned from ADS-B data.

"We are now seeing FAA enforcement actions based on ADS-B data to prevent legal water landings or frivolous lawsuits where complainants are suing for nuisance, trespass, and intentional infliction of emotional distress for aircraft flying at 4,000 feet agl in full compliance with FAA requirements," Pleasance said. "Pilots are now being forced to pay expensive legal fees to defend themselves against these questionable enforcement actions and frivolous lawsuits. Moreover, a cottage industry of companies contracting with public-use airports are now using ADS-B data to collect airport fees from general aviation pilots. As you can understand, these actions carry potential safety and individual privacy concerns that must be addressed."

Pleasance acknowledged past efforts on the part of the FAA to address ADS-B privacy, specifically the Limiting Aircraft Data Displayed (LADD) program and the Privacy ICAO Address (PIA) program.

"Congress also recently took a positive step to further limit the uses of ADS-B data for certain enforcement actions in last year’s FAA Reauthorization [Act]," he said.

An FAA spokesperson did not respond to FLYING's inquiries about the use of ADS-B for enforcement purposes but addressed airport fees.

“Airport operators, such as municipalities, commonly develop landing fee schedules,” the spokesperson said. “Landing fees are often a primary source of revenues for airports. There is no FAA restriction on collecting landing fees, but the FAA requires the fees to be reasonable and equitably applied across

Article reprinted from AvWeb

Embry-Riddle graduates can now move directly to FAA facility training through the fast-track program.

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University is the newest institution to join the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA’s) Enhanced Air Traffic – Collegiate Training Initiative program.

The FAA announced the partnership on Wednesday noting that the Daytona Beach, Florida University joins Tulsa Community College and the University of Oklahoma as the first schools to participate in the initiative, which aims to provide a more direct and efficient pathway for the next generation of air traffic controllers.

Embry-Riddle’s Air Traffic Management program, which currently enrolls 242 students, is already preparing future controllers with a solid academic foundation. With this new partnership, graduates are offered a direct path to FAA facility training, contingent on passing the Air Traffic Skills Assessment test and meeting medical and security clearances.

“The FAA is working to strengthen our controller workforce and create a continuous pipeline of talent,” said Tim Arel, Chief Operating Officer of the FAA’s Air Traffic Organization. “The safety of the National Airspace System and the traveling public is always our number one priority. Working with schools like Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University will continue that mission.”

The move comes as the FAA actively works to address the ongoing controller shortage, having already hired 1,800 controllers in 2024. The agency’s goal is to bring an additional 2,000 controllers on board in 2025.

Meg Godlewski

AUTHOR-Flying Magazine

When a pilot gets behind the airplane in the pattern, it is never a good thing. 

Rushing the checklist—or worse, forgetting the checklist items—leads to a late configured or nonconfigured airplane or being too fast or too high on final. All these things result in an unstabilized approach.

Unless there is an emergency on board, the best course of action is usually going around, flying the pattern again, and focusing on staying ahead of the aircraft.

There's a lot that goes into a stable approach to landing.

The aircraft has to be at the correct speed and correctly configured for landing, such as landing gear down (that’s the big one), flaps at the proper setting, proper speed, etc. This includes trimming the aircraft so that it stays on speed and can land on the first third of the runway, preferably on the numbers, and stops within 100 feet of that mark with minimal braking.

Configuration of the aircraft should not be done aggressively. Slamming down the landing gear and dumping in the flaps all the way in at the same time results in unstable pitch moments. This can be demonstrated at a safe altitude in the practice area. The addition of flaps on one fell swoop followed by their rapid retraction is definitely a teachable moment, as the pitch change is often surprising, dramatic and swift, and not something you'd want to experience a few hundred feet over the ground.

Learning to land and the stabilized approach should begin with a ground session.

I have found the use of a whiteboard with a drawing of the runway, anointed with the aircraft configuration, checklist use, appropriate airspeeds, and altitudes for each leg and distance from the runway to be an excellent tool. I ask my flight students to copy the drawing with their own drawing (and not take a photo), and in future lessons are asked to re-create it from scratch to show learning has taken place.

This diagram should also include notations of when the checklist is used.

One of the best techniques to teach pattern procedures is something I call "faux pattern," which is done in the practice area several thousand feet in the air to facilitate recovery at 1,500 feet agl.

The cardinal compass points are the "legs" of the pattern. After clearing turns, the learner configures the airplane to enter a 45-degree angle to downwind and performs as if they are in the pattern. This includes managing airspeed and aircraft configuration.

When the aircraft is on "final," the CFI calls for a go-around, or gives the learner a scenario like "Uh-oh! There's a disabled aircraft on the runway! What do you do?"

After a couple of run-throughs, a learner's pattern work usually improves substantially.

Instructors need to be very careful about what they allow the learner to do, as in mistakes they are allowed to make, because the pattern can be very unforgiving. I have seen a few techniques that gave me pause.

I was doing a stage check for a learner who kept revving the engine on downwind. When I asked why he did that, he said, "because it's fun!" Another pulled the mixture to idle on downwind to "check it," claiming that is what the previous CFI taught him to do. This was incorrect information. The previous CFI informed me that he couldn't break the learner of the habit, so he fired him.

It is not just primary learners who develop strange habits in the pattern.

A "return to flying" commercial pilot and a former CFI announced his technique for landing a Cessna 172 in gusty winds was to come in with no flaps then dump all the flaps in on short final and put the aircraft into an aggressive slip to landing. He revealed this during the preflight briefing as we discussed aircraft performance. I was staring at him, waiting for the punch line—hoping there was one—but before I could reply, the owner of the flight school, who was sitting a few feet away in the lobby, loudly announced, "Not in one of my airplanes, you don't!"

For the unfamiliar: there is a placard in the C-172 that reads "Avoid slips with flaps extended." 

Does your pre-landing checklist include verbalization of the phrase "go around is always an option"?

A senior instructor I flew with told me he added it because he was trying to reduce the startle factor when he told his learners to go around. He also made it a rule that if the aircraft wasn't perfectly on speed, configured, and on glide path to touch down by the second center stripe on the 3,400-foot runway, the learner would go around.

Occasionally, some students pushed back when it appeared they would land long, as the Cessna and Pipers they flew didn't need the entire 3,400 feet to come to a full stop. The instructor replied, "Someday you won't have that much runway." He was right, of course.

If you are flying at a towered airport and the controller tells you to go-around, it's not up for debate—go around. It is possible that you don't have the bigger picture. There could be something larger, faster, and turbine coming up behind you. Know what to do, and the order in which to do it.

When the go-around goes bad, it is often because the pilot does not use enough right rudder and the aircraft has too much nose-up trim resulting in a stall. Anticipate the need for right rudder and be ready to push the nose down to counteract the left turning tendency and pitch up with the adding of full power.

Another bad habit particular to aircraft with retractable gear is taking the flaps out abruptly while simultaneously bringing the gear up. This creates a lot of drag, and it is not uncommon that the aircraft will settle back on to the runway with the landing gear—or part of it—retracted. This is expensive and embarrassing.

Make the practice of go-arounds something you do on a regular basis as part of your personal proficiency and currency program. You never know when you will need those skills.

There are two components to BasicMed: the physical examination and the online course. The physical examination can be completed by any state-licensed physician—it does not have to be an FAA-designated aviation medical examiner. You will want to bring the FAA form 8700-2 comprehensive medical exam checklist (CMEC) with you to the physical exam. The CMEC has a section for you to fill out as well as the physical exam checklist and doctor’s information for the physician to complete. The CMEC can be downloaded from aopa.org/basicmed. 

The other component of BasicMed is the online course, which can be accessed by going to the same BasicMed link where you found the CMEC. The online course is titled “Medical Self-Assessment, A Pilot’s Guide to Flying Healthy” and is composed of seven chapters and a 20-question quiz at the end. All the quiz questions are based on the material in the course, and a score of 80 percent is required to pass. There is no limit on how many times you can take the quiz. You will be able to print a completion certificate from the online course, and it is recommended that you keep it and the CMEC with your logbook safe at home—you do not need to bring them with you when you fly.

Finally, the online course needs to be retaken every 24 calendar months and the physical exam every four years to the day (48 calendar months for the exam beginning November 12, 2024).

Question: I am a freshly minted CFI. What happens if I make a mistake in my logbook? I hear stories about CFIs who are worried about getting a call from the FAA in the event they accidentally mess up an entry in a logbook. Does the FAA really go after pilots and CFIs for improper logbook entries?

Answer: The short answer is no. But unfortunately there's a lot of "tribal knowledge" surrounding logbooks and what can happen. FLYING contacted the FAA for the correct information.

The CFI should be familiar with Advisory Circular 61-65 (H), which contains the endorsements an instructor is allowed to give. The language is copied verbatim. If you are a learner pilot, the first endorsement you will get is the TSA citizenship verification endorsement in accordance with 49 CFR 1552.3(h).

FAR 61.51 covers pilot logbooks and details how to log "training time and aeronautical experience." It states that each person must document and record the following time in a manner acceptable to the administrator:

(1) Training and  aeronautical experience used to meet the requirements for a certificate, rating, or flight review of this part.

(2) The aeronautical experience required for meeting the recent flight experience requirements of this part.

Part B covers logbook entries, stating that "for the purposes of meeting the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, each person must enter the following information for each flight or lesson logged:

(1) General—

(i) Date.

(ii) Total flight time or lesson time.

(iii) Location where the aircraft departed and arrived, or for lessons in a full flight simulator or flight training device, the location where the lesson occurred.

(iv) Type and identification of aircraft, full flight simulator, flight training device, or aviation training device, as appropriate.”

The savvy CFI logs all instruction given, including ground time and the topics covered. If the learner takes the time to be there, they should get credit for the experience.

As far as "messing up an entry in a logbook," FLYING posed a series of questions gleaned from scenarios encountered in more than 30 years of flight training on both sides of the CFI certificate.

I start with this because when I was working on my CFII certificate, I logged time in my own logbook with blue ink and the CFII who I was training with positively clutched her pearls over that one.

According to the FAA, they do not require a specific ink color for a paper logbook.

The logging of time spent using an advanced aviation training device (AATD) can be controversial as there are some CFIs who refuse to do it, saying it will "ruin" a logbook.

According to the FAA: "Simply logging time (in any capacity) does not ruin a logbook, but the pilot must ensure they are properly categorizing the flight time logged. For example, if a pilot decided to record their time spent using an AATD in their logbook, that is acceptable. However, the AATD time could not be counted toward cross-country time for pilot certification."

As most logbooks have a few blank columns, it's a good idea to designate them to suit your needs. For example, you might have one for ground training received or given, AATD, solo flight, etc. You can have an entire section set aside for ground instruction, dual instruction given, etc.

There are many logbooks with preprinted endorsements, but you may run out of room. The FAA does not require endorsements to be on a specific page or in a specific location in the logbook. 

"Endorsements can be made in a pilot’s logbook or other documents acceptable to the administrator if the learner uses an electronic logbook rather than paper, in order to show they meet the aeronautical experience requirements for the certificate or rating that may be in paper form or electronic," FAA said. "Keep in mind that many endorsements require a CFI’s signature which may not work with an electronic logbook." 

For check rides most learners print out spreadsheets of their experience and have the CFI sign those.

Mistakes do happen. Usually they are math errors.

Filling out a logbook takes a fair amount of concentration, as does totaling up the columns and double checking the math before you sign the page. Take care when you do this, and please be extra careful when it comes to totaling up required experience for a check ride. You do not want a learner to go for a check ride and be turned away because they are missing 0.2 of something, or a takeoff and night landing or two. 

If you make a mistake, correct it. Please note that the FAA does not have specific guidance on correcting logbook errors. According to the source at the FAA, "choosing a particular correction style (white-out, crossing out the error and correcting, crossing out the line and making a new entry, etc.) is up to the pilot."

Credit to Megodeswki- DLying Magazine

“For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.” - H.L. Mencken. 

That’s exactly where I found myself when pondering the question, “Do I need to put a compass in the Titan T-51D Mustang that I’m building?”

After all, putting a mechanical compass in a modern aircraft seems akin to putting a wind-up clock in a Tesla. Searching for guidance, I spoke with fellow builders, flight instructors, and avionics experts. The simple answer I received every time was “Yes.”  Then I made one last call to my good friend and consummate federal aviation regulations expert, Ric Peri at the Aircraft Electronics Association. Peri’s answer: “Well, let’s go through the FARs and figure it out.” And down the rabbit hole we went…

It started simply enough. FAR 91.205 specifies various instruments required for flight under VFR, starting with these three:

1. Airspeed indicator.
2. Altimeter.
3. Magnetic direction indicator.

Most people interpret “magnetic direction indicator” to mean a compass. But does it? And we also need to consider that Part 91 covers general operating and flight rules, not the certification of the aircraft. So, we need to dive into Part 23, which covers airworthiness standards for the airplanes most of us fly.

Part 23.1303 stipulates the minimum required flight and navigational instruments, and it matches up exactly with FAR 91.205. Part 23.1327 covers the accuracy and installation of the magnetic direction indicator, but it doesn’t define what exactly that is. Can it be an electronic instrument, driven by a magnetometer, or does it have to be a mechanical compass? If we look at the amendments to Part 23 and the associated commentary, we can see that the FAA has gone back and forth on the topic over the years.

In 1993, Amendment 43 to Part 23 addressed the issue directly, and the commentary on the revision explained that a magnetic direction indicator has to be a non-stabilized magnetic compass based on the following explanation: “The non-stabilized magnetic direction indicator, which does not require power from the airplane's electrical systems, provides directional information to the pilot when all other directional navigation systems have failed due to loss of power.” The FAR language was changed to read, “A direction indicator non-stabilized magnetic compass.” No powered instruments need apply. End of story.

This wording was maintained through other amendments, until Amendment 62 in 2012, where the wording for minimum required flight and navigational instruments mysteriously changed back to “A magnetic direction indicator,” language that remains to this day. So, what happened? Does an electronic instrument now count? Sorting through volumes of commentary that went into the rationale for many of the changes in Amendment 62, they all point to “Yes.” Beginning in 2012, there was an industry push to accept that electronic instruments could deliver levels of accuracy and reliability that mechanical instruments simply could not. And so, the requirement for a “compass” has finally been relegated to the history books. A “magnetic direction indicator” is the current requirement for VFR flight, alongside the airspeed indicator and altimeter. (IFR flight requires additional instruments including artificial horizon, directional gyro, slip-skid, rate of turn, and others.)

Given the numerous electronic flight instruments available for the general aviation pilot, will this soon make the classic wet compass a thing of the past? The answer is…maybe. Some primary flight displays and electronic flight instrument systems on the market still list a “compass” as required equipment under their supplemental type certificates. It would certainly have been better if their STC language matched the FAA’s “magnetic direction indicator.” But the pieces are certainly in place to support a retrofit, all-electronic panel that meets the FAA requirements for certification, redundancy, and emergency power backup.

In 2015, the FAA released a policy statement (PS-ACE-23-08) acknowledging the superiority of electronically driven attitude indicators, making it possible for thousands of aircraft to easily upgrade to electronic attitude indicators and dump their old vacuum pumps. These days, many new flight instruments on the market utilize modern magnetometers, delivering reliable and highly accurate magnetic direction indication. I suspect it won’t be long before the old wet compass and all of its issues are a thing of the past. The FAA removed the “compass” specific requirement from the private pilot certification standards back in 2013. Now it’s time for the retrofit avionics industry to step up and complete the process, relegating those compass correction cards to the museums. Until next time, I hope you and your families remain safe and healthy, and I wish you blue skies.

Jeff Simon is an A&P mechanic, IA, pilot, and aircraft owner. He has spent the last 22 years promoting owner-assisted aircraft maintenance and created the first inspection tool for geared alternator couplings available at ApproachAviation.com. Jeff is also the creator of SocialFlight, the free mobile app and website that maps more than 20,000 aviation events, hundred-dollar hamburger destinations, and also offers educational aviation videos. Free apps are available for iOS and Android devices, and users can also visit www.SocialFlight.com.

The FAA contends commercial airline passengers bound to central Florida airports from northeastern U.S. states will no longer experience delays or re-routes during what the agency called “typical” space launches.

Based on analyses of past space launches and data provided by the U.S. Space Force and major space launch concerns—the FAA has determined existing airspace restrictions pertaining to Florida launches are generally excessive and may be safely reduced. By not closing the aforementioned airspace, the FAA ensures busy overwater routes linking airports in the Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Washington D.C. metropolitan areas to destinations the likes of Orlando, Tampa, St. Petersburg, and Sarasota are utilized to the fullest extent.

Individual space-launch operations, on average, occasion the re-routing of 36 Part 121 air-carrier flights. Subject re-routes affect as many as 4,300 passengers, waste up to three-hundred total minutes (five-hours) of irrecoverable time, and necessitate over 1,300-nautical-miles of unplanned, unpleasant, and unprofitable flying.

By virtue of the FAA’s revised space-launch policy, flights formerly obligated to re-route around the Cape Canaveral region will remain more consistently along the most optimal and efficient routes.

Ten of the 12 space-launches undertaken since the April 2023 implementation of the FAA’s new policy saw no flights rerouted.

To better convey the particulars of its revised space-launch conventions, the FAA has produced a public-service video titled Safe Integration of Space Launches. Parties wishing to view the two-minute, 42-second presentation may do so by visiting: www.faa.gov/space/airspace_integration .