Trig Avionics Is Now Part of The Dynon Group

Agency has dropped plans to deny incomplete applications and will work with aviation groups to streamline the certification process

In a welcomed move from the aviation community, the FAA announced it will not implement a controversial plan to deny medical certifications for incomplete applications.

The news came during a listening session on Wednesday, where the agency said it would instead review feedback from stakeholders aimed at improving the pilot medical certification process.

“I like to talk about safety being a team sport and certainly this is part of that process to make things better,” said acting FAA Administrator Chris Rocheleau in his opening remarks. “Clearly there are things that are not working for everyone.” 

Dr. Susan Northrup, FAA's federal air surgeon, acknowledged significant challenges, including a surge in applications—reaching a record 450,000 in 2024—and a sharp increase in special issuance cases, which require more time and documentation.

To streamline the process, the FAA is enhancing its MedXPress portal and working with industry groups to modernize medical procedures. Stakeholders also developed a checklist for pilots to prepare for exams and proposed several improvements — from simplifying forms and creating flowcharts for common diagnoses to sharing pilot testimonials.

The session included input from nearly a dozen pilot associations including the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, which praised the FAA’s latest decision.

“Dr. Northrup and her team are working to reduce delays in the FAA’s medical system and improve clarity and transparency in the application process—changes which are long overdue and which we very much support, said AOPA president and CEO Darren Pleasance. “Clear and detailed guidance on what medical documentation is required up front will help in reducing that burden.”

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.

New feature draws subject detail from the Airman Certification Standards (ACS) for questions answered incorrectly.

Sporty's Pilot Shop has unveiled a new feature to its pilot training courses that decodes test results using AI.

Understanding test codes that appear at the bottom of the exam report indicating what the applicant got wrong is one of the more challenging aspects of taking a FAA knowledge test for private, instrument, or commercial certification. 

CFIs are tasked with providing the applicant remedial training in these areas, but first they have to figure out what those areas are. This task often results in the applicant and the instructor wading through data bases or computer searches looking to match the codes with the subject matter, which is time that could be better spent shoring up the applicant's knowledge.

Sporty's new AI feature covers private, instrument, or commercial pilot written tests. Each code, drawn from the Airman Certification Standards (ACS) represents a subject area—not a specific question—that was answered incorrectly. With the help of a CFI, the applicant can shore up the soft spots in their knowledge, in preparation for their oral exam part of the check ride while also gaining the knowledge they need to be a safe and efficient pilot. 

"We've opened this tool as a free resource for any pilot, whether they own one of our courses or not," Bret Koebbe, senior vice president at Sporty's, said in a statement.

The AI feature allows the learners to upload a picture of their test report. The system scans the photo, identifies the codes, and lists the description for each from the ACS, according to Sporty's. More information may be found here.

The FAA has released a policy memo that reverses a troubling change in Phase I operating limitations that was originally set to be included with the latest update of Order 8130.2, which became effective in December. The change would have limited aircraft in Phase I to operating out of a single airport, or two with “valid justification of a specific flight test or safety requirement.”

The policy memo restores the previous version of this limitation, which simply requires the designated airworthiness representative (DAR) to evaluate the proposed list of airports for Phase I and enumerate them in the description of the flight test area.

“EAA appreciates the FAA’s action in responding to our feedback and reversing this change,” said Tom Charpentier, EAA government relations director. “Needlessly limiting airports during flight testing is detrimental to safety and the flight testing process itself.”

Homebuilders facing any difficulty obtaining the corrected operating limitation should tell their DAR and/or FSDO to review memo AIR-600-GM17, or contact EAA for further assistance.

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.

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.

Pilots are often nervous about flying into or around airports with skydiving operations. There’s really no need to be, as Paul Bertorelli explains in this AVweb video. Just avoid the airport by three or four miles on the downwind side when transitioning and don’t overfly a dropzone airport if you’re landing there. Just fly a normal (not too tight) pattern.  Watch the video by Paul Bertorelli published 5/29 with full credit to AvWeb