In our Aircraft Buyer’s Cheat Sheet, we break down this complex process so you can feel more confident.

What you’ll learn:

• The six steps of aircraft financing
• Types of aircraft, and where to shop
• Fixed and variable costs to consider
• Aircraft insurance

Complete the form below to download our guide.

The post 2024 Aircraft Buyer’s Cheat Sheet appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

According to an arrest affidavit, Lake County Sheriff’s Office deputies arrived at Clermont’s Walmart store Wednesday in response to a drone being shot while flying on delivery.

Representatives from DroneUp, a new drone delivery service partnered with Walmart, told deputies they had a two-man crew in a nearby neighborhood promoting their company by doing mock deliveries. The crew was at the delivery point outside Dennis Winn’s residence in a cul-de-sac.

After the drone arrived and began its descent, one of the DroneUp employees told authorities a man, later identified as Winn, pointed a handgun at the drone. After hearing a gunshot, the crew ran to the van and drove back to Walmart. The damaged drone also returned to the store.

The crew spotted a bullet hole in the drone’s payload system and estimated the damage at $2,500. Deputies noted metal shavings consistent with bullet fragmentation. The complainant from DroneUp told deputies the drone will be inoperable for some time.

Questioned by a deputy at his home, Winn said the drone had flown over his house, so he shot at it with his 9 mm handgun. Winn told the deputy he had past experience with drones flying over his house and believed they were surveilling him.

The deputy said Winn reacted with disbelief when he was told he had shot a Walmart drone.

The deputy told Winn the damages amount to $10,000, which he had been advised were the damages at the time. Winn told the deputy that if he had to pay $10,000, then he wanted the drone as his personal property.

The deputy told Winn the round he shot had gone over several other residences, and he acknowledged his actions were reckless. The deputy notes in the affidavit that when officers arrived on the scene, a small child was playing in the cul-de-sac near Winn’s residence.

Winn was taken to Lake County Jail and charged with shooting or throwing deadly missiles into dwellings, vessels or vehicles, criminal mischief of $1,000 or more in damage, and discharging a firearm in public or on residential property. Firing at an aircraft is a felony in Florida. Winn was released on $13,500 bond on Thursday.

According to Florida law, drones cannot be operated over or close to “critical infrastructure facilities” but can fly over residential neighborhoods.

That said, the state does not limit the authority of local governments to enact and enforce ordinances relating to nuisances, voyeurism, harassment, reckless endangerment, property damage or other illegal acts arising from the use of drones.

The representative from DroneUp told Lake County deputies that DroneUp is a drone delivery service defined by Florida statute and is governed by Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations concerning aeronautics and space.

A spokesperson from Walmart Inc. told FreightWaves the company was aware of the incident and referred questions to Lake County law enforcement. DroneUp did not immediately respond to FreightWaves’ request for comment. Winn also could not be reached for comment.

Author CALEB REVILL is a journalist, writer and lifelong learner working as a junior writer for Firecrown. When he isn’t tackling breaking news, Caleb is on the lookout for fascinating feature stories. Every person has a story to tell, and Caleb wants to help share them. He can be contacted by email anytime at Caleb.Revill@firecrown.com.

Editor’s Note: This article first appeared on FreightWaves.

The post Florida Man Arrested on Charges of Shooting Walmart Delivery Drone appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The FAA has said we may log an instrument approach if we are in actual or simulated conditions inside the final approach fix [Ref:§ 61.51(g)(3) and §61.57(c)]. But think about whether you were in actual IMC or not. As one example, you’re on a straight-in visual on a clear evening with the setting sun directly in your eyes, making any visual references in front of the aircraft useless. Although there’s not a cloud in the sky, you loaded the precision approach for belt-and-suspender situational awareness. That was a good call because the early evening sun is blinding any attempt to look out the window. You transition to the instruments and fly the approach, intercepting the GPS glide slope and keeping the VDI centered. Sun visors down, you finally see the runway and land. Was that loggable?

The Moonless Night Letter

Flash back to the early 1980s when Joseph Carr asked the FAA legal department some interesting questions about logging instrument flight time. One scenario is a flight over the ocean on a moonless night, without a discernible horizon for visual reference. Controlling the aircraft by 100 percent reference to instruments, is this loggable as actual instrument time even though the conditions were officially VFR? This resulted in a formal legal interpretation by the FAA’s chief counsel that’s commonly called the “Moonless Night Letter.” And while the rules for logging time (it’s in 14 CFR61.51) haven’t changed in close to 50 years, there’s an interesting discussion about actual versus simulated instrument conditions that’s worth talking about.

According to the Moonless Night Letter, “simulated” instrument conditions occur when the pilot’s vision outside of the aircraft is intentionally restricted, such as by a hood or goggles. Moreover, “actual” instrument flight conditions exist “when some outside conditions make it necessary for the pilot to use the aircraft instruments in order to maintain adequate control over the aircraft. Typically, these conditions involve adverse weather conditions.” Typically—but not always.

The chief counsel concluded that actual instrument conditions may occur in the case described, which is a moonless night over the ocean with no discernible horizon, if use of the instruments is necessary to maintain adequate control over the aircraft. Still, that brought yet more questions than answers.

The Six-Month Rule

Before 1997, the six-month rule for instrument currency in 61.57 also required six hours of instrument flight time. This may have originally prompted Carr to query the FAA, but discussions and questions about the Moonless Night Letter continue, which we’ll explore. They have not been addressed by the FAA, so we’ll speculate on the answers. You might have different opinions, and you might be right. Consider two concepts.

First, the Moonless Night Letter does not define “instrument meteorological conditions” (IMC). It defines “actual instrument flight conditions.” The two are not synonymous. The FAA defines IMC as conditions less than the requirements for VFR flight (see, for example,14 CFR 170.3 and the pilot/controller glossary).

The second concept is “adequate control of the aircraft.” To borrow two of the three oft-repeated trio of flight priorities, I’d say this refers to the ability to aviate, not navigate. The “aircraft instruments” referred to are the aircraft’s attitude instruments, not its navigation instruments. Put another way, the Moonless Night Letter permits us to log actual instrument time when outside conditions require us to use the instruments to keep the shiny side up. For example, a pilot flying on top of an overcast to a broken cloud deck, who has no difficulty flying level but needs to rely on some navaids to stay on course, is not in “actual.”

Who Needs an Instrument Rating?

It’s not only about instrument currency. Notably 61.65 requires 40 hours of instrument flight time for the airplane instrument rating, only 20 of which must be dual with a CFII. Some of those are commonly flown under simulated conditions. Could our student forgo the hood, find a desolate area on a moonless VFR night with high overcast, and build some of that time solo? Visibility might even be excellent, with another aircraft’s bright LED navigation and anti-collision lights clearly visible 20 miles-plus away. Putting the wisdom of that aside, the Moonless Night Letter presumes visual conditions qualifying for VFR, and there is nothing to suggest our student couldn’t log that. Then there’s the question of adequate control. 

If you consider that this Moonless Night Letter refers to aviating and not navigating, when exactly do the outside conditions require instruments “to maintain adequate control over the aircraft?” There’s a lot of personal comfort, proficiency, and pilot discretion here. “The determination as to whether flight by reference to instruments is necessary is somewhat subjective, and based in part on the sound judgment of the pilot.” But the letter adds “the log should include the reasons for determining that the flight was under actual instrument conditions in case the pilot later would be called on to prove that the actual instrument flight time logged was legitimate.”

Most can agree on the “flight over the ocean on a moonless night without a discernible horizon.” Aviation texts and FAA handbooks and guidance (and countless National Transportation Safety Board accident reports) describe a series of visual illusions that can lead to severe spatial disorientation. Among them are sloping cloud formations, a nighttime scene with little ability to differentiate ground lights and stars, and “black hole” approaches and departures.

After that, reasonable opinions diverge. Flying above a broken cloud deck? Unless the cloud formations are sloping, even a student pilot should be able to maintain control. Similarly, on my checkout in the Colorado Rockies I was asked to do steep turns in a valley surrounded by mountains. It was disorienting and I had to go to instruments. That was the point, but it certainly wasn’t “actual instrument flight conditions.”

Can You Log the Approach?

The FAA’s 61.57 requires, among other things, logging six approaches and one hold in the past six calendar months to stay current. You might ask if you could log a practice approach while in Moonless Night conditions. In the scenario, the pilot heads to a remote airport in a desolate area, “activating the airport lights only after passing the FAF.” I don’t think there’s an easy answer, and my educated guess is a firm “maybe.” I don’t see a problem with natural phenomena such as the FAA-recognized “black hole” approach when there are no approach lights giving visual cues. But how would the FAA treat the decision to avoid turning on the lights? Is it “outside conditions?” Or is the pilot’s vision being “intentionally restricted” in a manner akin to simulated instrument flight?

Years after the famous Moonless Night Letter, if asked, the FAA might make a distinction between “natural” conditions resulting from outside causes and “artificial” conditions the pilot creates. Or it might say it doesn’t matter whether the conditions are natural or artificial, so long as the pilot (a) needs the flight instruments for aircraft control and (b) is not wearing a hood restricting the ability to see and avoid traffic.

That Blinding Sun

We began with a scenario where the position of the sun makes seeing the runway impossible, so the pilot flies the approach to find the runway. Here, there’s no “natural” vs. “artificial” distinction—it’s the sun. But what about the aviate-vs.-navigate distinction? If some of the horizon is visible to the sides, is flying the approach required to maintain control of the aircraft or is it simply a navigational aid?

Ultimately, it’s a judgment call. As the FAA chief counsel acknowledged, it is “somewhat subjective, and based in part on the sound judgment of the pilot.” One pilot in this situation might decide to log the approach—another might not. My best answer is borrowed from longtime aviation writer Bob Gardner who once said, “You are the best judge of whether an approach has made you a more proficient instrument pilot or has just allowed you to fill a gap in your log.” That has always been my personal guide.

Fortunately, this discussion is an academic mental exercise for most of us. We no longer have a time requirement, and Moonless Night conditions requiring an approach are uncommon. If you do encounter one, use your best judgment, but be prepared to justify it in the rare instance a question arises.

Mark Kobler is a regular contributor to sister publication IFR magazine, the journal for the accomplished pilot continuously looking to expand their knowledge base in the name of safety.

The post Logging Actual IMC Requires More Than Clouds appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Since I was planning a flight the following week during the day from Paine Field (KPAE) in Everett, Washington, to Jefferson County International Airport (0S9) to take a taxi into Port Townsend, then fly back to Paine after dark, I needed to get night current. Having not flown at night much over the last couple of years, I thought that I would prepare in advance.

I rented a Cessna 172 from Regal Air at KPAE and scheduled company CFI Nick Butterfield to come along to make sure that I was up to speed. Instead of just doing three stop-and-goes on Paine’s 9,010-foot-long runway, I asked Nick to put me under the hood to see if I could keep a heading and altitude without looking at outside references, then do a couple of night landings at “JeffCo.” 

The hood work turned out to be a very good idea. I was very rusty on instruments. “That’s harder than I remember,” I told Butterfield as he asked me to climb from 2,500 to 3,500 feet while changing directions from west to south and descending down to 2,700 feet while turning to north and then back to the west. Keeping straight and level at a prescribed altitude provided a challenge. It seems that I had trouble with my scan. Focusing on the altimeter caused my heading to drift and vice versa. It took several attempts before I could get it right.

After the hood work, it was well after dark but a beautiful, clear, calm night to fly 20 miles over Puget Sound, picking out city lights on the shoreline. As we got near JeffCo, I let Butterfield know that I had flown there many times, even back in the day when it was the only U.S. international airport with a grass field, but never at night.

• READ MORE: Beloved Flight Instructor’s Lessons Continue to Replay in Airline Captain’s Head

Butterfield shared that he had not either. He said he avoided that airport at night since it was set in forests that, in the dark, looked like a “black hole.” He also heard that wildlife could be a problem in those conditions.

“It looks like we are both in for an adventure,” I said. Around 7 miles out near Port Ludlow, we headed toward Port Hadlock to avoid overflying a Navy-restricted area on Marrowstone Island. We switched to JeffCo’s frequency, and Butterfield checked the weather and learned that the winds were calm and that there was no other air traffic. He then asked me what I planned to do next.

I told him that I was going to continue along the shoreline, get the airport lights in sight, turn west from the shoreline, and then go on a 45-degree entry to a left downwind to Runway 27 for a full-stop landing. He responded, “Right answer.” After beginning a descent to pattern altitude of 1,100 feet, it did seem like we were over a black hole with only a couple of cellphone towers and the distant runway lights in view.

After turning on the 45, the airport complex came into full view, and my first night landing in a long time was OK. The second was a bit better. After landing, we exited the 3,000-foot runway and taxied back to 27. 

Along the way, I let Butterfield know that there was a very good restaurant called the Spruce Goose Cafe at the airport that is definitely worth a breakfast or lunch flight and that the Port Townsend Aero Museum offers a great variety of military and civilian aircraft. But one of the best reasons to fly to JeffCo is that it is just a 10-minute taxi ride from the historic seaport of Port Townsend.

At the end of the taxiway, I came to a full stop and looked around, announced our intention to depart on Runway 27 for a left downwind departure, and began to enter the runway. Then we both saw a deer scamper away from the south side of the runway, and I came to a full stop on the centerline. We both looked around and did not see any more critters.

I pushed in the throttle and began the takeoff roll. Suddenly, another deer ran from the north side of the runway, coming to a dead stop on the centerline and staring at our landing light. I yanked the throttle out, hit the brakes hard, and stopped less than 10 feet from the deer.

After pausing to look at us, the deer sprinted to the south side of the runway, disappearing into the darkness beyond the runway lights. Butterfield and I took a deep breath and stared at each other. “That was quite a wildlife experience,” I said.

• READ MORE: Ice on the Wings Brings About a Near-Miss Episode

“If you hadn’t hit the brakes,” he said, “that would have been very messy.” 

Not exactly sure where we were on the runway, and a bit excited, I decided to taxi to a midfield exit and go back to the start of Runway 27 for another attempt. Fortunately, that takeoff was uneventful.

We headed back to KPAE, where there are no blackholes around the big complex that includes one of Boeing’s large facilities to the north of the runway. However, the tower closes after 9 p.m., and there were five aircraft in the pattern, all trying to get night current. Adding to the multiple headlight scenario, a Horizon Air pilot announced, “Inbound for landing on 34 left, 10 miles out.”

Those of us in the pattern extended our downwind legs a few miles before attempting to land. I gave myself a “B” grade on the first attempt. The next try was a squeaker I deemed worthy of an “A.” Time to call it a night and talk more about deer in the headlights. Butterfield filled in my logbook: “Four night landings; one deer near miss.”

After that experience, I will follow Butterfield’s lead and avoid JeffCo after dark. The next week, I took off just before dark from the airport—avoiding more deer in the headlights—and got back to Paine before the tower closed so it could direct traffic.

Tom Murdoch is the director of the Adopt A Stream Foundation (www.streamkeeper.org), conducting aerial wildlife surveys and taking aerial photos of the organization’s stream restoration projects.

The post Finding a Deer in the Headlights appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

By Jack Sweeney

The recent H.R. 3935 “FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024,” which was signed into law, contains some measures that are supposed to enhance privacy.

The bill contains section “SEC. 803. Data Privacy” with two main sections.

In the data privacy section, subsections A and B require the FAA to establish procedures that allow an aircraft owner to request their ownership info obscured or removed from “broad dissemination or display by the FAA.” A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request is not broad dissemination, so technically, if you FOIA request ownership of an aircraft, you will still have this information, but take this as you will. Not to mention that other sources of this data exist not via registry or not via FAA.

• READ MORE: Bipartisan FAA Reauthorization Act Signed Into Law

Hiding Ownership Doesn’t Fix the ‘Problem‘

This move of enabling owners to hide ownership already exists, just not via the FAA. Did it solve the problem in the past? No, not really. 

Most people don’t search the entire FAA aircraft registry when searching for an aircraft owned by someone notable. We use the media and associated sources, so hiding the ownership details will not fix this privacy issue.

Cons of Hiding Ownership

I’ve become aware that law enforcement agencies have failed to identify aircraft registration before because of blocking techniques previously put in place. One such event occurred because a plane used the Privacy International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Address (PIA) to hide its identity. The agency was not aware of what PIA was. No good tool exists for law enforcement agencies that allows them to see this associated jet tracking data and ownership data while these privacy programs are implemented. These privacy programs being incorporated for private aviation are being implemented to reduce law enforcement’s efficiency in identifying bad actors.

Replacement ICAO Code

Subsection C of data privacy requires the FAA to establish a program that allows aircraft owners to apply for a new ICAO code for the aircraft (transponder code). Aircraft owners must attest to the FAA’s safety or security risk when applying for a new ICAO code. If the aircraft owner is given a new ICAO code, the aircraft owner must also update their N-number (the registration/tail number, including the physical markings on the aircraft). This ICAO or transponder code change is a one-time event, it is not the same as the existing PIA program, and it’s a worse solution.

Best Case ‘What If?’ for Jet Owners

Using these two new provisions that will be put in place by the FAA, let’s talk about a what-if scenario, so let’s assume someone is approved for a new ICAO code and associated N-number. The person also requests that for this new N-number, their personal details be hidden from the public by the FAA. However, the aircraft, when turned off before the new N-number and ICAO code were applied, was still broadcasting its exact GPS location thanks to automatic dependent surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B). The aircraft’s new N-number and ICAO code are installed. The aircraft powers up with its new ICAO code, but at the same coordinates where it previously powered off, revealing it is likely the same aircraft.

Existing Blocking Programs

Limiting Aircraft Data Displayed (LADD)

LADD was the first blocking program put in place by the FAA. Aircraft owners request the FAA that their aircraft be added to the LADD blocking list. Users of FAA data sign an agreement to block aircraft present on the LADD list. The problem is that aircraft still have ADS-B out; individuals not using FAA (live) data are not required to block aircraft present on the block list. ADS-B can be collected via the radio signals straight out of the air.

PIA

The second program, PIA, is more so of a cloaking program than a blocking program, enhancing privacy with ADS-B. This program allows aircraft owners to use an ICAO code not linked to their N-number. This program has many hurdles to proper use and is flawed. This program is meant to fix the flaws in the LADD program.

• The program is limited to U.S. airspace.
• Installing a PIA code is timely.
• PIA codes can only be changed every 20 days.
• A third-party callsign is required.
• The use of PIA is limited/rare, reducing its effectiveness in helping privacy.
• PIA ICAO codes are distinct from regular ICAO codes, and they stick out compared to regular ICAO codes.

PIA can be proven ineffective, like the new legislation, where an aircraft changes its ICAO/tail number. With PIA, an aircraft powers down in X location, changes the PIA code, and powers up in the same X location, we know it’s probably the same aircraft due to location and characteristics.

ADS-B Encryption

First, this bill does not prevent ADS-B tracking, and every aircraft must still have a transponder to share telemetry and identity. The only proper solution to solving privacy in the ADS-B era where we can track any aircraft is reducing access to ADS-B or encrypting ADS-B, which is questionable in many aspects, technologically, costs, and ethically. 

The associated ADS-B technology in aircraft and ground stations must be upgraded to support a new ADS-B standard that supports encryption. Would it be worth the cost when one in six flights in the U.S. is private, especially when private aviation only contributes to two percent of taxes that fund the FAA? Is it proper for this information to be encrypted at all? 

Perhaps we want to see what aircraft are flying overhead. One of the earlier drafts of H.R. 3935 had a section that would require the FAA to do a study on ADS-B encryption, but it was removed before the bill was passed. The problem also cannot be solved by just the FAA. ADS-B is a global standard required by many countries, and cooperation is required by the ICAO.

Legality

Just because an owner can hide their information from the FAA registry, making it “private,” does not make it illegal to track these jets. I have been advised that we don’t have laws against using public information to conclude who owns what.

NBAA Statements

Dan Hubbard, senior vice president of communications for the National Business Aviation Association (NBAA), [told Bloomberg] that the new bill renews “protections from questionable flight-stalking methods while ensuring that law-enforcement agencies, security officials, air traffic managers, and other appropriate parties” have the necessary information about all aircraft. 

This is simply not true, as previously mentioned. It is putting the private aviation industry before law enforcement. Privacy measures are being implemented without thinking about how this makes it more difficult for law enforcement. If privacy measures are implemented with tools for law enforcement to access data easily, this would be OK, but this is not the case. 

Hubbard also said, “A person shouldn’t be required to surrender their right to privacy and safety just because they board an aircraft.” A person has never surrendered their privacy when they board an aircraft. We aren’t tracking flight manifests with the passenger list. We are tracking the jet regardless of who’s on it.

Inadequate Solutions

We see tool after tool and measure after measure to fix this problem, not the problem at hand. First was the FAA BARR (Block Aircraft Registration Request) in 2000. Then, BARR was revised to LADD in 2019 and PIA in 2019. If you ask anyone in the aviation industry, you will know that the FAA struggles with information technology and staying up to date with technology. An excellent example of this is when you make a FOIA request to the FAA, and it  sends a disc to you in the mail. What is this—1998 Netflix? Congress is implementing measures here that will have unintended consequences, just like when ADS-B was implemented. It ended up creating this very privacy problem.

The Future of Identifying Aircraft

Currently, all my aircraft identification is done manually with me and members of the flight tracking community. As of now, I use no AI in any of my processes. But, AI could analyze aircraft’s flight patterns, altitudes, speeds, and other operational characteristics. By comparing these patterns with historical data, it could infer the identity of aircraft despite the use of temporary ICAO addresses. 

Neural networks could correlate data from multiple sources, such as airport departures and arrivals, known flight schedules, the media and other publicly available information, to identify aircraft. Sophisticated machine learning models could be trained on large datasets of flight information, learning to recognize subtle cues and patterns unique to specific aircraft or operators. 

PIA has downsides, and required upkeep causes the program to hinder its adoption, which reduces its effectiveness. The reduced effectiveness of PIA and other blocking programs allows for a future where using the mentioned methods makes identifying aircraft of interest possible.

Jack Sweeney is a programmer and flight-tracking enthusiast who is known for creating automated bots that track celebrities’ private jets, such as Elon Musk and Taylor Swift.

The post Thoughts on FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 and Data Privacy appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Utah native Luke Maddox was working as a Spanish teacher when he realized he needed a career change. “When I finished my bachelor’s degree I started into a graduate program, and did a year of that,” he says. Something gnawed at him, though, as he recalled his childhood dream of becoming a pilot. “I thought, Wow, I’d really rather be flying.”

A little over a year later, in fall 2016, he began his private pilot training at ATP. “I looked into Part 141 schools and even did Air Force ROTC for one semester, but none of those options felt right,” he says. Today, he works as the lead flight instructor at ATP’s Ogden, Utah, location, where he earned all of his certificates and ratings. “I coordinate check rides and make sure everyone’s happy and doing what they’re supposed to be doing,” he says. Luke also flies on a regular basis with several commercial and multiengine students.

Luke says what he enjoys most about instructing in Ogden is the variety of flying conditions. “We’re in the mountains, we’re up high and we get all four seasons,” he says. “We get experience flying in cold, snowy conditions, and in the summer we get experience flying in super-hot high-density-altitude mountain conditions. It really is a lot of fun, and with ATP, the nice thing is there’s a timeline that we follow to keep students on track, but as far as what we do and where we go, a lot of that is up to us.”

Luke credits his grandfather and uncle, both pilots, for sparking his interest in aviation. “Between the two of them, they told me a lot about flying,” he says. “I remember growing up always being interested in planes. We’d go to the Air Force museum and watch documentaries on World War II planes, things like that. I think that’s mostly what got me interested at a young age.”

His advice to anyone considering a career in aviation today is just to go for it. “It’s a realistic goal, especially now,” he says, with demand for pilots so high and entry-level pay on the rise. “As an instructor, I make more than enough to make the payments on my flight-training loans and live. I’m not rich, but it’s doable.”

Luke is participating in the tuition-reimbursement program offered by SkyWest Airlines, which he says will credit him $11,000 toward his flight-training loans on the condition that he will work for SkyWest for at least one year after meeting the minimum flight time requirement of 1,500 hours. “At SkyWest, first officer to captain is about two years, and I’ve heard of people moving to the majors in as little as three years. I feel like I got in at the right time.”

The post Luke Maddox: Living His Childhood Dream appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

California native Sherry Smith never imagined she’d grow up to be an airline pilot. Nobody in her family is in the aviation industry, and flying wasn’t something she ever seriously considered. But when she graduated from college with a business management degree, Sherry knew that she wanted to travel, and soon found a job as a flight attendant with Virgin America.

“One of the captains took me on a fun flight around the San Francisco Bay Area, and that’s when I had that moment when I realized I wanted to fly,” Sherry said. “The lifestyle is what got me interested in becoming a pilot. I knew once I started taking lessons that it was something I wanted to pursue.”

Sherry earned her private pilot certificate at a local airport near her home base while she was still working as a flight attendant. In fall 2012, she left Virgin to train full-time toward her airline career at ATP’s Trenton, New Jersey, location. In about a year she had earned all of her ratings and immediately began working as a flight instructor at ATP’s Daytona Beach, Florida, location.

“I chose this kind of accelerated program because I already had a college degree,” Sherry said. “It seemed like the best option because I wanted to get it done as fast as possible. I liked having a structure and being able to fly all the time. I really enjoyed instructing there. As hard as it seemed at times, I do miss it.”

Sherry’s enthusiasm and hard work paid off in June 2014, when she was hired by regional carrier Republic Airline. Just less than three years later, she earned a spot flying for a major U.S. airline, where she now flies the Boeing 757 and 767. Her husband is also an airline pilot, and has been a tremendous support to her in her career choice, she said.

“He encouraged me to just go for it,” she said. “My only regret is that I would have started my training sooner. It’s such a good feeling to have my dream job. I can’t believe that I’m here now. It just happened so fast.”

What advice would she give to an aspiring airline pilot today? “Go take an intro flight and see if this is something that you want to pursue,” she said. “It’s a big investment and a big jump. Taking the first step is sometimes the scariest.”

The post Sherry Smith: Hooked by the Traveling Life appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Oscar Mims knew at a young age that he wanted to be an airline pilot. His uncle is a pilot for American, and his mother is a flight attendant for Delta. The family’s airline travel benefits allowed him to see the country and develop a sense of what it would be like to work as an airline pilot. He earned his private pilot certificate at a local airport near his home in Thomasville, Georgia, during high school, and went to work, not college, after graduation while he decided where to complete his commercial pilot training.

Mims says ATP’s career pilot program was a good choice for him financially. “It was economical and fast. For me, it was the speed at which they can get you through the program. I think that it’s good to have that experience because that’s exactly how airline training is. No matter where you go, you’d better learn how to pick up information quickly and take the important stuff and run with it.”

After graduating from ATP in 2006, Mims instructed at the Trenton, New Jersey, location for less than a year before he was hired by Atlantic Southeast Airlines (ASA) to fly right seat in a CRJ200.

Once he started flying for ASA, Mims enrolled in an online bachelor’s degree program through Utah Valley University. “It was tough; it’s not for everybody. I can see why a lot of pilots never do it, but it definitely will limit one’s career choices without that degree.”

He flew for ASA until 2011, when he seized an opportunity to gain some unique international experience. “My whole reason for leaving ASA was stagnation,” he says. “At the time, you had to have 1,000 hours PIC to get an interview anywhere. I had very few options, so for me, being young and single, it was a perfect time to look overseas.”

He moved to Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and began flying a Boeing 737 for Fly Dubai, a subsidiary of Emirates. “The experience was good, flying into Iran and Afghanistan. You learn a lot about flying around terrain. The money was good at the time, and the opportunity to upgrade was good.” Mims was able to upgrade to captain at just 26 years old. But despite the adventure and glamour of an international jet-flying job, Mims longed to return home. In 2016, he resigned from Fly Dubai, moved back to the States and soon began flying for a major U.S. airline.

With 5,400 hours of 737 experience in his logbook already, including more than 1,000 as PIC, Mims, who is 31 now, thinks he will be able to upgrade to captain within a year or two. He recognizes the great responsibility that comes with moving to the left seat. “It’s one thing to be eligible for the upgrade, and another to decide whether you’re really ready for it,” he says. “With quick upgrades at most airlines now, even at the majors, it is something pilots should really think about. Think about what happened with [Capt. Sully] Sullenberger. If you think you’re ready [to be captain], think about how you’d handle a situation like that.”

Mims says regional airline first officers today can be eligible for an upgrade in about a year and a half to two years, after having logged 1,000 hours with their company. However, as an alternative, he would suggest bypassing that and moving directly to the right seat of a larger jet with a low-cost carrier like Southwest or Spirit, gaining an A320 or 737 type rating in the process.

“The best part of my job is not being in an office. It doesn’t feel like work a lot of the time,” he says. “We get a lot of time off, but I choose to work a little more than most guys do.” He’s currently based in New York, but his long-term plan is to be in Atlanta. “My schedule is very easy to manage, and a typical four-day trip is not fatiguing for me thanks to good work rules. It’s easy to balance work and personal life.”

The post Oscar Mims’ Unique Path to the Majors: Flying in the Middle East appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The rigors of an intensive, fast-paced flight training program are proving no match for 28-year-old Tennessee native Trevor Pickard. When he’s not working on his instrument rating, he’s training for his first Ironman competition, which he hopes to complete later this year. “Flying ties so many emotions together,” he says. “The sense of exploration, adventure and freedom, you can’t really get that from anything else. More than anything, it gives you a new perspective on this world. Being a real active person who loves traveling, this really ties in a lot of things for me.”

Pickard caught the flying bug as a child. His eighth-grade baseball coach was an aviation maintenance teacher at Middle Tennessee State University, where he would later graduate with a degree in flight dispatch and scheduling. He took an introductory flight during his freshman year and loved it, but at the time, pilot jobs weren’t paying as well as they are now, so he instead pursued a career as a dispatcher. For the next several years, he worked for various aviation-related companies nationwide, including an aerial-photography company in Florida. It was there that he met and became good friends with two pilots who persuaded him to pursue his dream of becoming a pilot.

“The close friends I came to know in the aerial-photography program, they were both graduates of ATP,” Pickard says. “Knowing their learning styles and mine as well, it was a good fit. It mimics how the airlines run.”

Pickard says the greatest challenge of ATP’s program is also what he loves about it the most. “It is a fast-paced program. Avionics, navigation equipment, radios … there’s only so much time. For me, it reinforces the importance of continuing to be present and learning, and then moving on. You’re continually learning that there’s nothing you can’t overcome or master. There’s always something new to learn.”

His goal is to earn his commercial multiengine, CFI and MEI certificates by the end of September. He’s looking forward to instructing because teaching others will reinforce the skills he’s already learned. After he completes the ATP program, Pickard says, he will consider instructing to build time but also explore other options, including aerial photography. “I’ll be pursuing the market for interesting and unique low-time pilot jobs,” he says.

Where will the sky lead this adventurous, tenacious young pilot? Perhaps to the Alaskan bush, or to a remote part of the world where he can use his skills as a pilot to help people in need, he says. Pickard says he’d love to fly a Pilatus PC-12 because it’s “a small but very powerful, versatile and beautiful aircraft. I backpacked through Europe in college and saw a lot of them flying there.”

What advice would he give to someone considering a career as a pilot? “Take an intro flight to physically take control of the plane and experience it firsthand. It’s very contagious,” Pickard says. “As a CFI, giving demo flights will allow me to pay it forward, to help people understand where I was at that point.”

The post Trevor Pickard: A Life of Adventure and Travel appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

For 29-year-old National Guard veteran Justin Miller, the best part of being an airline pilot is the view from the flight levels. Miller recalls his first flight on a Northwest DC-9 from Detroit to Syracuse, New York, to visit his grandfather. “I remember looking out the window and seeing the Great Lakes, the snow-covered ground, getting up above the clouds.”

Miller’s parents were both ramp workers for Northwest Airlines in Detroit, and the family used its free standby travel benefits often. It was shortly after that Syracuse trip when young Justin realized he wanted to be a pilot. “I remember always telling my parents I wanted to fly. My parents would introduce me to people as ‘their little pilot-to-be.’”

But during his post-9/11 high school years, he realized he should probably have an alternate career plan. “It was a scary thought, that I might not become a pilot,” he says. Miller moved to Denver and earned a bachelor’s degree in marketing from Johnson & Wales University. While in college, he worked part-time at Centennial Airport, and was able to earn his private pilot certificate there in 2008.

After graduation, he got a job in retail, but soon realized that’s not what he wanted to be doing long-term. In 2010, he joined the Guard with the hope that he might complete his flight training in the military. He served six years, all the while on the list for flight school, but was never selected. “It kind of worked out though, because while I was overseas earning a good living I was able to pay off all of my debt and start saving to go to flight school on my own,” he says. “ATP was always sending me stuff in the mail, and after my last deployment, I came back and had enough money.”

Miller began training full-time at ATP’s Centennial location in February 2016. Since he enrolled with a private pilot certificate and 80 hours, he was able to complete the program and qualify for his first flying job in about six months. For the next year, he flew a Cessna Caravan, and by October 2017 had accumulated the required 1,500 hours of flight time to qualify for a regional airline job. He was hired by Republic in December 2017 and is currently a first officer for the airline, flying the Embraer 170/175 out of its base in Columbus, Ohio.

The afternoon of our telephone interview he was waiting out a delay in Newark, New Jersey. “This is a pretty typical four-day trip. With weather popping up all up and down the East Coast, there are delays, especially this time of year,” he said.

But despite these occasional inconveniences, Miller said being an airline pilot is a great job that fulfills his childhood dream of flying. “Getting up to cruise altitude, at 5 in the morning, when the sun is just coming up…that’s what does it for me,” he said.

The post Justin Miller: Flying is All About the View appeared first on FLYING Magazine.