!!taf KBTL

KBTL 101736Z 1018/1118 17009KT 3SM BR OVC004
FM101930 16009KT 2SM -RA BR OVC009
FM102245 16012KT 2SM RA BR OVC009
FM110300 18016G23KT 1 1/2SM -RA BR OVC005
FM110500 19014G21KT 1SM -RA BR OVC003
FM111100 22012KT 1SM BR OVC003

!!weather kbfi

BFI/KBFI: Boeing Field King County International Airport • Observed: 11 mins ago • Wind: 180°/S @ 9kts; gusts @ 18kts • Visibility: 10.0mi/16.09km • Clouds: Overcast @ 1,700ft • Temperature: 9.4°C/49°F • Dewpoint: 5.6°C/42°F • Pressure: 30.09" Hg/1,019mb • Conditions: MVFR

!!forecast MGE

@called2voyage That didn't make much sense. Use the !!/help command to learn more.

Oh, I guess he hasn't implemented that yet.

!!weather MGE

MGE/KMGE: Dobbins Air Reserve Base Airport • Observed: 8 mins ago • Wind: 100°/E @ 7kts • Visibility: 1.25mi/2.01km • Clouds: Overcast @ 300ft • Temperature: 8.7°C/48°F • Dewpoint: 8.7°C/48°F • Pressure: 30.12" Hg/1,020mb • Conditions: LIFR

@PatoSáinz Obviously. But of course, Perl is second to COBOL.

!!weather kojc

OJC/KOJC: Johnson County Executive Airport • Observed: 42 mins ago • Wind: 150°/SSE @ 3kts • Visibility: 0.25mi/0.4km • Clouds: Obscured @ 0ft • Temperature: 2.8°C/37°F • Dewpoint: 2.8°C/37°F • Pressure: 29.56" Hg/1,001mb • Conditions: LIFR

ooohhh, awesome

Hooray, I just passed 1,000 rep.

@lnafziger, thanks for the question ref: that got me exactly what I needed (proof that the AC is outdated)!

@abelenky nice! congrats!

@DannyBeckett does the XML provide different results for "no such airport" and "no weather data"?

@PatoSáinz we're hovering in the 200-visits-per-day range too, not too shabby.

!!metar xkta

@egid (since that doesn't exist anymore) :-)

oh well it definitely doesn't exist with the first two letters swapped :P

....I hope I didn't break otto :P

!!live

@SteveV. You do not have permission to use the command live

welp there's your answer

@egid no problem, cool website huh?

yeah, i think the weirdest part of all the government regs libraries is how many there are

ecfr.gov, regulations.gov, faa.gov

Yeah, no kidding

Anyway, back to "work" (sitting at FL270 at the moment).

>:(

@egid the wonderful thing about government standards is how many you have to pick from!

it's true

I'd post a picture, but chat doesn't make it easy. :(

@lnafziger are you working on a FAR/AIM command for the bot?

if not i might mess around with that this weekend

I wish the AIM was conveniently available in link-friendly HTML

the FAA AIM online is terrible :(

well there are at least 2 online aim versions, too, i think

Do you guys know if this is the case?

I've never actually heard charts described as mandatory information for part 91.

faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/faq/#q8b

> "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."

@egid My answer at the bottom there says "If you would ordinarily need to carry charts, you still do unless you have dual EFBs."

I didn't mean to indicate that paper charts were required all the time.

@egid that HTML one is the "good" one :-)

@egid AFAIK for part 91 VFR you aren't required to have the charts (but it's a REALLY GOOD IDEA because of 91.103)

IDK about for IFR -- specifically SIDs/STARs/approaches. You could make the case that you don't NEED the approach procedures if they're programmed into your panel GPS...

edited

hasta la vista for now

Incidentally, related to that answer: "provided the EFB does not replace any equipment or operating information required by the regulations." is an interesting point. e.g. even though I have a copy of my AFM on my ipad I still need the paper one in the plane at all times.

@voretaq7 technically even for IFR you are just required to have a description of the approach. I think the approach overlay in a GPS is not sufficient.

however, you could scrawl the relevant information on a napkin using a grease pencil (good luck!) and technically as long as it was accurate you could shoot the approach legally

@egid I don't know that the approach info in the GPS wouldn't qualify as a "description" -- particularly if you've got one that shows an approach plate (there are panel-mounts that do that, right?)

it would have to show the plate, which is separate from the actual GPS approach info

. . . perhaps I should camp out on the doorstep of the local FSDO...

it's supplementary and in an MFD

and what's in your gps (the overlay) doesn't include altitudes, etc

even G1000 with more advanced approach data don't necessarily know how high you should be over WAYPT

@egid your description doesn't have to be the plate does it? It could theoretically be just text (which your GPS or a fancy FMS could show...)

yes, but nothing does that that i'm aware of ;)

that's my point about the napkin

@egid yeah stuff like the various minima would need to be shown too

but you need to have the full description

to my knowledge, you can't get that from any panel-mount GPS units; those that have plates are literally displaying the plate (poorly) on a screen

as of the G1000, they were basically unusable

i haven't flown Perspective

@egid you have the information - the regs say nothing about it being usable. (Grease pencil, napkin :-D )

I find it hilarious that my iPad is still superior as a navigational tool to pretty much every panel-mount GPS I've encountered.

I interviewed for a software development position at Garmin, and learned what they have to deal with, regulatory-wise, that slows them down.

iPad apps aren't covered by regulations, so they can iterate far faster... and do more.

well, Garmin also apparently don't have anybody who is an expert in user experience or interaction design

regulations aside

they literally just don't have a team that focuses on HCI

I envision the day when planes will have "regulatory" GPS equipment... but it will barely hit the minimums (smallest screen possible, least information possible). And everyone will use "unapproved" iPad apps as their PFD/MFD.

I'm convinced they try to have good HCI.... they're better than others (Bendix/King anyone?)... but held back by other factors.

@egid The Marquis de Sade is totally an expert in UI/UX design :-)

@abelenky . . . aren't we there now?

even the guys flying the G1000 panels or the GTN600 series are carrying ipads - I bet they use them more than the panel GPS

problem is you still have to program your route and approach on the shitty panel-mount beast's UI

With Garmin's newest stuff, you can plan it on the iPad, then bluetooth it to your Avionics, and your watch.

@abelenky I'm not so sure. The number of students who screw up basic data entry by mashing CRSR a second time (rather than ENT) is extreme.

Fair point.

and that's consistent across Garmin products, not limited to G1000 or GNS430

Other than the crappy display, I actually really like my old Garmin 196.

@abelenky the number of times your data entry gets screwed up because you hit a little air pocket and your finger BUMPED CRSR instead of ENT is too damn high :)

Everything was very simple, and it showed a very basic map.

(hey, I said I interviewed there... I don't actually work there! I'm not responsible for CRSR/ENT)

@abelenky the blame: you gets it! :)

LOL.

If I had worked there, apparently there are some really good employee discounts.

I woulda blown my whole paycheck right back at the company.

heh

the Apple Technique

@abelenky . . . o O ( Is it worth working at Garmin to get a GTN 650 for less-than-my-soul dollars? )

Indeed, that is the question.

( I wonder if Aspen has a decent discount program? The IFD 440 looks schweet! ) O o . . .

will-sell-soul-for-panel-gps-that-doesnt-suck

:-P

I've heard some horror stories about working there.... but more generally on the Consumer side (car-GPS... running watches, etc....). I hear the Aviation side is pleasant and professional. Just moves at a snails pace to develop or produce anything.

THANKS FAA!

someday i'll have a job that will pay me to sit on SE chat...

But today is not that day.

@egid It pains me so to admit that one of my favorite things to do is perhaps not the safest of operations :-/

(but at least I'm cognizant of that fact!)

Hi, just a test to see if I can post here.

@voretaq7 it's also not the worst

but it shouldn't be a normal operation

@Terry looks good

Thank you.

welcome aboard, I'm looking forward to taking a look at your W&B app

Hi Terry, is your app really thought to be used with a 747 or is it some kind of slang?

@Falk I think it's a calculator designed for use with heavy aircraft, including the 747, based on what he has described

It's a total rewrite of a DOS program I originally wrote in 1988 to do weight & balance for 747 freighters.

It could, of course, be modified for any aircraft, although it's structure is very much setup for large cargo aircraft.

The project is primarily a way of my learning Javascript, which in turn is an exercise to keep my 74 year old brain from completely atrophying.

It's not quiet operational yet, but you can look at it at 747.terryliittschwager.com. It's open-source, so it's no-cost. Whether anyone will ever use it, I don't know, but that's beside the point for me personally.