Lower pressure in cabin. Fast moving air around the fuselage, due to Bernoulli's Principle, pulls air out of the fuselage thereby decreasing the pressure. When using the alternate static source, You should see a momentary climb of ~100fpm and about 20-40 feet high in altitude, depending on how fast you are moving. (A Bonanza would probably show a higher altitude than a Sky Hawk, due to the increased IAS).

At 1:29:30, the MRA of 4500 applies only to reception of the VOR whose cross radial is used to identify the intersection marked with the “R” flag; it does not apply to reception of the VORs used to track the airway.

Training out of falcon field in mesa. I appreciate this content !

A velcro stopwatch would technically be permanent equipment but because it's not STC then it's not legal

Fantastic video, I’m not even half an hour in but this format is great, explanation of the answer is not known or wrong.

When will we see a mock commercial? Great content

I will give a hot take on the deflection scale discussion at 59:30. I don't have any references, and I am basically pulling it out of thin air, so there is that. The most common traditional approach procedures have angular lateral deviation scales, e.g. LOC, VOR, NDB. At some point we became able to get LNAV guidance, and the obvious display choice was absolute cross-track-error. Likewise, the obvious choice for vertical deviation (BARO-V/NAV) was the difference, 'in feet', from your calculated nominal path. It turns out (easier to notice in hindsight for sure) that it is difficult to design a safe LNAV approach procedure with low MDA. It is reasonable to design approaches, such that an aircraft can safely go-around when reaching half-scale CDI deflection, say. The thing is on an ILS approach, established on approach close to the ground implies close to the runway, which in turn means a narrow CDI full-scale (or half-scale) deflection in absolute cross-track distance. Not necessarily so with LNAV. That means a go-around might begin from a relatively awkward off-track position when flying LNAV. In a nut-shell, it turns out the traditional ILS approach design was better than we maybe realized. To get the best from both worlds (angular scale and absolute scale) the LP guidance can be made so that at long distances it behaves like LNAV (absolute scale, so as to not become too wide), during final approach it is angular, and then somewhere nearer the threshold it again uses absolute scale. You may want ensure that you can fly the LPV vertical profile at least as precise as LNAV/VNAV. Therefore full scale deflection for LPV should not grow (too far) beyond that of a comparable LNAV/VNAV approach, which means LPV vertical guidance probably should be absolute at long distances too, just like the LP lateral guidance. So, to have the best of both worlds then, both lateral and vertical guidance should use angular scales for the final approach proper, but linear guidance may be better usable at the very far end and the extremely close end of the approach path. That might be the explanation why so few people are willing to confidently say angular or linear, as the truth may actually be "both". edit: added "(too far)" to soften statement about LPV vertical scale.

SFO, IAH and EWR have several GLS/GBAS approaches. I think United has invested a lot in them

Well, LORAN might be back again some time (as eLORAN). Edit: Also, I am pretty sure that you can get, or at least used to be able to get, ADF and DME integrated in your Garmin G1000.

When pulling The Alternate Static Source the pressure inside the flight deck is lower to the pressure outside so it is like you're flying at a higher altitude because the pressure will be lower I believe correct me if I'm m wrong

Hello all!!!!

Can she log actual IFR time without having the rating?

What app are y’all talking about?

I never post negative comments on videos but for this one I can't just ignore and move on... When I first saw the duration of this video, I thought it'd be great and one of the most complete IFR mock checkride videos out there. Unfortunately, that's far from being the case, very poor video, lacks lots of subjects (like weather, to mention one of the most important ones). A lot of time was wasted by adding side stories that are only funny for the owner of the channel. With a video this long, you missed the opportunity of doing something remarkable. Instead, you made one of the most mediocre videos for IFR mock checkride. I hope you come up with something better in the future, and I hope even more that IFR students who are about to get their checkride done (like myself) don't use this video as a reference for what an actual IFR checkride is.