This brilliant sketch manages to encapsulate my daily life as a CFI in the wilting summer heat. At 8 a.m. I’m Dean Martin. By 8 p.m., I’m Foster Brooks.

Yes, it has quite a familiar ring to it, right down to the part about running an an hour and forty three minutes late for the next flight.

If I had a “frequently asked questions” list for glass panels, the first question on the list would probably be: “is it legal to fly with electronic charts alone (ie. no paper on board)?”. Without exception, every person I’ve flown with in an Entegra or G1000 equipped aircraft has made this inquiry.

My response has always been that while it’s not a wise idea to fly without paper since an electrical component failure could render your whole charting system inoperative, from a legal standpoint, electronic charts are acceptable as a substitute. Get caught above the stratus without your approach plates? If you have the electronic charts, go ahead and do the approach.

In fact, as far as I know there is no legal requirement to carry charts whatsoever. This applies to VFR and IFR under Part 91. And from a practical standpoint, it doesn’t make sense that there would be. There are aircraft out there — my Pitts S-2B is one of them — which literally don’t have any room for a chart. No room to unfold it, store it, keep it secure during hard aerobatics, etc. Sure, we use one during cross-country operations, but for acro flights? Who really has a chart readily accessible to the pilot in that scenario?

If there is an FAA regulation, case law, regional counsel legal opinion, advisory circular, directive, or other binding document which indicates otherwise, I’m not aware of it.

The only exception I can think of is on the Los Angeles terminal area chart on the Special Flight Rules panel which states “The following rules shall be adhered to while utilizing the Los Angeles Special Flight Rules Area:” and below that one of the requirements is “The pilot shall have a current Terminal Area Chart in the aircraft”.

Beyond that, I just don’t see any regulation requiring charts. The closest thing would be 14 CFR 91.103:

Sec. 91.103 - Preflight action.

Each pilot in command shall, before beginning a flight, become familiar with all available information concerning that flight. This information must include –

(a) For a flight under IFR or a flight not in the vicinity of an airport, weather reports and forecasts, fuel requirements, alternatives available if the planned flight cannot be completed, and any known traffic delays of which the pilot in command has been advised by ATC;

(b) For any flight, runway lengths at airports of intended use, and the following takeoff and landing distance information

Anyway, I bring this up now because the FAA has issued Advisory Circular 91-78, Use of Class 1 or Class 2 Electronic Flight Bag (EFB), which basically confirms my thoughts on the matter. In summary, electronic charts are acceptable legal substitutes for paper charts, but carrying paper backup is recommended.

In other words, common sense. Which, when the government is involved, isn’t necessarily all that common.

The phrase “electronic flight bag” is probably not part of your lexicon, but it refers to a wide variety of panel mount and handheld electronic navigators. The Advisory Circular covers everything from the G1000 to a lowly black-and-while portable GPS and is, I believe, the first time the FAA has granted implicit admission of “non-IFR” receivers to the cockpit.

As always, the ultimate responsibility for ensuring receipt of the latest and most currently available information lies with the pilot. That much remains the same. But it’s refreshing to see that the FAA doesn’t care how you get the data as long as you get it.

Now the that door is open, I would love to see a parallel Circular to make sites like Weathermeister legal for official FAA weather briefings. Lord knows the data is infinitely cleaner and easier to interpret when viewed in such a manner. Alas, one step at a time…

Ah, the minutia of aviation.

A fellow CFI and I have been scratching our heads for the past month about the proper type designator for a DiamondStar. I’ve always thought it was DA40 and hadn’t heard anything to the contrary until someone recently said it was actually “DV40″. What the…

Socal TRACON was queried during a flight today and confirmed it should be DV40. Now normally I don’t argue with the Feds, but I think Socal was mistaken.

Diamond refers to it as a DA40 in manuals, on their web site, and on the aircraft itself. I just looked up the ICAO type designator for the DiamondStar and it shows as DA40. The Eclipse/Katana is a DV20, however. Try it yourself and enter “Diamond” as the manufacturer.

The DiamondStar is a DA40 according to ICAO. Maybe the FAA has decided on something different, but I doubt it. I found FAA documents instructing pilots to use the “ICAO Doc 8643″ type designator, which comes from the above referenced web site.

Also, I checked with an LAX tower controller who used to work TOA and LGB, she confirmed it’s DA40.

By the way, the ICAO list also shows a “Katana DA40″, so perhaps Socal hasn’t been wrong when calling us a Katana. Is it possible I’ve been taking offense for no good reason?? The ICAO list is very current — it even lists the Diamond D-Jet.

With all due apologies for destroying the Top Gun mythos, yes, these really are the things pilots talk about and research for hours on end.