Can’t uninstall single Exchange 2013 role

I was very surprised to learn today that you cannot uninstall a single Exchange 2013 role from a serverb.

Quick review: one of the major changes in Exchange 2013 is that the number of server roles has decreased from 5 (hub, mailbox, edge, UM, CAS) to 2 (mailbox and CAS). This approach offers lots of potential benefits, but it also represents a major change to the internals of Exchange.

In Exchange 2007 and Exchange 2010, you could easily combine multiple roles on a single server, adding and removing roles more or less at will. This was fully supported and worked well: running setup with the /roles switch and the appropriate mode would do the trick.

For what I’m sure are excellent reasons, this is no longer supported; attempting to remove either the CAS or mailbox role from a server that has both will produce an error message indicating “invalid command line arguments”. In fairness, this is documented in the release notes, right up at the top– but I missed that the first time around and wanted to mention it here as a reference. 

The workaround: if you want to remove a role, you must remove Exchange entirely from the target server, then reinstall only the role you do want.

2 Comments

Filed under UC&C

Skype automatic updates: in-app vs Microsoft Update

One of the problems I most often run into when working with Windows machines is the way updates work. Microsoft has made great strides in improving the update experience for Windows and for Microsoft applications; compared to the steaming pile of filth that is Adobe’s updater, for example, or the mishmash of every-app-its-own-update-client behavior common on the Mac, Microsoft Update is pretty smooth.

But what about Skype? It’s now a Microsoft application, so you’d expect it to receive updates through Microsoft Update… and it does. However, it also has its own update mechanism. What gives?

Here’s a solid explanation, which Doug Neal of the Microsoft Update team was kind enough to let me republish. (My comments are italicized):/p>

While we’re still working through the best way to complement the updating system available via Skype, here are some insights that may explain the differences:

Skype 5.8 [released nearly a year ago] introduced a Skype-based auto-updating features unrelated to any Microsoft technology (and before knowledge of the merger). This updating service will remain for the foreseeable future – and is Skype’s method of offering updates on a more frequent basis than Microsoft Update. These settings and consent to update via Skype’s updating service can be controlled via the Skype | Options | Automatic Updates setting – which also provides a link to more information on Skype’s updating approach via their updater. These updates via the Skype updater can include major and incremental updates. [in other words, the Skype app can pull both minor updates and entire new versions through its built-in update mechanism, as do many other third-party apps on Windows and OS X. ]

As a new addition to the products supported via Microsoft Update, only major versions of Skype are made available via MU. Consent to automatically update via Microsoft Update is granted via Microsoft Update opt-in – the same opt-in experience available via Windows Control Panel | Windows Update | Change Settings. [So MU may offer you major versions, which is useful if you don’t now about ]

So, updating Skype via Skype’s updating service is controlled from within the Skype application. This updating experience may include various Skype-specific reminders and prompts that a newer update is available. Turning off updates here will reduced the number of incremental updates your Skype client will receive assuming Microsoft Update is still enabled to provide more major, less-frequent updates to Skype.

Updating via Microsoft Update will only occur for major versions and is controlled within the Windows Update control panel – the same place for all Microsoft product updates. Turning off Microsoft Updates is not recommended – and will result in preventing any updates from Microsoft for all 60+ products supported by Microsoft including security updates. The updating experience for Skype will be the same as you expect for all other Microsoft Updates, namely that unmanaged consumer PCs will see these as Important updates with no UI (applied automatically), or to managed PCs via WSUS/SCCM admin approval.

Having a single update mechanism, à la the iTunes App Store and the Windows Phone Marketplace, certainly seems to be the best model for end users: all app updates are packaged and available on demand in a single location. On the other hand, putting the responsibility for applying security-critical updates in the hands of end users, instead of in a centralized patch management system driven by WSUS or equivalent, is a terrible idea for the enterprise. Having a hybrid approach like this is a compromise, albeit an unintentional one, that may deliver the better aspects of each approach. Long-term I’d like to see the major OS vendors offer a flexible method of combining both vendor-specific OS/app updates with opt-in updates provided by third parties– something like the existing Marketplace combined with the controls and reporting in WSUS would be ideal. Here’s hoping…

Leave a comment

Filed under General Tech Stuff, Security

Thursday trivia #84

  • Joel Gascoigne has some interesting advice about the value of setting a morning routine. I haven’t been successful in doing that lately, but the benefits are sure appealing.
  • Amazon’s new AutoRip service is very cool: buy a physical CD and it shows up in your Amazon Cloud Player. The best part: it’s retroactive, so CDs you bought from Amazon in the past are automatically included.
  • Why the Gun Is Civilization.” Read it and tell me if you find it persuasive in the comments.
  • If your doctor carries a purse, you should be very afraid. (Bonus: now I know what “fomite” means.)
  • Hey, the Lenovo A720 (which seemed to have gone missing over the holidays) is back, in a single configuration, at Lenovo’s site.
  • Protip: if you use the Lync 2010 topology builder to add a new Lync standard edition server to your topology, do not then try to use the Lync 2013 deployment wizard to install Lync 2013 on it unless you like swearing and error logs.
  • This year is the 150th anniversary of both the Emancipation Proclamation and the London Underground.
  • Nearly done with the unified messaging chapter for the book– it’s a game of incremental progress, but I’m slowly getting back into the groove.

Leave a comment

Filed under General Tech Stuff

Checkride: a drama in two parts

Executive summary: I am now a certificated private pilot, airplane, single-engine land (what the FAA refers to as the PP-ASEL rating). 

I’d originally planned to take my checkride on 11 December, just a few days after my previous checkride post. The DPE, Sherry Diamond, met me at Palo Alto right at 9; I had arrived earlier to preflight the airplane and pull the maintenance records to verify that the airplane was airworthy.

Sherry did a great job of concisely explaining the process: we had a few minutes of get-acquainted time, then we reviewed the paperwork necessary for the checkride (including the IACRA application), and she explained that we’d do the oral portion of the exam then proceed to the flight test portion. At any time, she told me, I could discontinue the test without penalty– yeah, right, I thought.

Briefing done, we started the oral portion of the exam. There were no surprises here: she asked me questions about weather, night operations, aircraft systems (example: “does this airplane have any deicing equipment?” “Not really; just a heater and defroster, but it’s not approved for flight into known icing anyway.”), and other topics specified in the PTS. I reviewed the maintenance records with her, then we discussed the planned route of flight: from KPAO east across the Bay to the east side of I-880, then south to pick up US 101, then continuing on along a route I carefully plotted with checkpoints. As I briefed her on the route, I explained why I’d chosen that particular route, what the weather briefers had told me about enroute and destination weather, and so on. She asked a few additional follow-up questions and then asked me if I was ready to go to the plane. Was I ever!

We went to the plane, where I gave her a quick passenger brief ( a required element of the PTS). After that, we strapped in and I started the plane, completed my pre-taxi checklist, called Palo Alto ground to get taxi instructors, and taxied out for takeoff. After the runup, Sherry asked for a short-field takeoff and I gave her a good one, then I demonstrated power-off and soft-field landings.

On my next takeoff, I started flying the planned route… but not for long; Sherry told me that the weather at our destination was below minimums and that I should divert to Hayward. I planned the diversion without incident, then it was off to the practice area for airwork.

My airwork was a little raggedy; in fact, I muffed the power-on stall, a maneuver that’s supposed to simulate an accidental stall during takeoff. I didn’t take off enough power at stall entry, so my pitch angle was too high. I knew right then that I’d failed, which was aggravating for two reasons– the obvious one, plus the fact that I hadn’t failed on the recovery from the stall but on the entry. The whole point of that maneuver is to test whether you can safely get out of a situation that you should never get into in the first place.

We headed back toward Palo Alto and she gave me a simulated engine failure over Fremont. I was rattled from my previous failure, so I put the flaps down too early and failed to maintain the correct airspeed (a topic on which I’ll have a lot to say in my next aviation post, in fact). I wasn’t too upset about that, since I’d already failed the ride. We headed back to the airport for a debrief; Sherry and Andy were both encouraging, but I was crushed.

It’s fair to say that I went through the standard mourning process over the next couple of days, but it didn’t take me long to realize that it was no one’s fault but mine: I had failed to meet the practical test standards, so I determined to redouble my efforts and fix the deficiencies.. and that’s exactly what I did! We rescheduled the checkride for 21 December, but the weather was terrible; with the intervening holidays, 8 January was the first date that Sherry had open.

In the interim, I practiced a whole bunch. As promised, I’ll cover that in another post later.

Tuesday morning dawned bright and clear; I packed my flight gear and went to work until it was time to meet Sherry at the airport. This ride promised to be shorter since we didn’t need to repeat the oral exam or any of the other stuff I’d previously practiced. After reviewing the paperwork again, a process made more challenging by a balky computer, we headed out to the airplane. After a normal takeoff, I took us to the practice area, avoiding conflicting traffic twice, demonstrated recovery from both power-on and power-off stalls, and headed back across the Bay towards Palo Alto, whereupon Sherry promptly gave me a simulated engine failure. I handled this one much more gracefully, maintaining the right airspeed throughout. With that done, she had me fly back to Palo Alto, whereupon I stuck a very nice short-field landing– one of my best ever, in fact.

We taxied back to the parking area in silence; after I shut down the airplane, Sherry extended her hand and said, simply, “Congratulations.”

We had a short debrief that covered her impressions of my performance, then we used the computer to print out my Temporary Airman Certificate. This is exactly like a temporary driver’s license; I’ll use it until I get the nice laminated plastic one from the FAA in Oklahoma City. In the meantime, though… I’m a pilot!

2 Comments

Filed under aviation

Michael B. Smith’s list of Exchange 2013 gotchas

Fellow MVP and all-around ace Michael B. Smith just published an article accurately titled “Exchange Server 2013 Gotchas.” Rather than editorialize, I’ll just ask that you read the article and consider the list of issues he’s found.

I don’t agree that all the things he lists as faults are actually faults; for example, I have no problem with Outlook 2003 no longer being supported, and it doesn’t matter to me that installation is slow. Many of the other items he lists have fairly low impact, such as the absence of the Edge Transport role (which very few of my customers use) or the fact that there is no longer a separate UM role– very few organizations have enough concurrent calls to warrant investing in a dedicated UM server. No one likes to see functionality disappear, such as the loss of S/MIME support in OWA, but at the same time we’ve gotten a ton of new functionality (including offline mode and touch mode in OWA, to name two possible reasons why S/MIME was deprioritized.)

Having said that, there are a number of his points that I agree with wholeheartedly. The documentation is clearly not finished; there are many missing pieces, and this is compounded by Microsoft’s still-unresolved decision to change the way TechNet URLs work. The Exchange 2013 message hygiene functionality is useful but limited, and the fact that there is still no way to deploy Exchange 2013 into an existing Exchange 2007/2010 organization is difficult to swallow– Microsoft must know that this is a huge bottleneck for deployments, so there must be some very good reason why the needed coexistence patches have not yet been released.

I don’t think I’d agree with his opinion that “Exchange 2013 is not ready for prime time,” though. Shipping is a feature in itself, and while that’s no excuse to rush a poorly designed or unstable product out the door, I think that Microsoft generally does a good job of balancing market demand for releases against the engineering and support effort required to prepare those releases. With Kevin Allison’s many public statements about getting to a more stable, predictable release cadence for Exchange (both as an on-premises product and a service), I think the new normal is going to be seeing more frequent, more incremental releases. Exchange 2010 RTM, of course, lacked a number of features (such as the ability to manage public folders) that were added in SP1, so the idea of shipping what’s ready to hit a schedule and fleshing it out in an incremental release is nothing new.

Michael’s larger point is well taken: before you deploy Exchange 2013, you should be very sure that you understand how it differs from previous versions and how those differences may affect your messaging operations. As Tony and I work on Exchange 2013 Inside Out, we are taking careful note of the kinds of issues Michael points out, as well as how Microsoft responds to them; we’ll keep doing so throughout the release of Exchange 2010 SP3 and, eventually, Exchange 2013 SP1, to make sure that the book reflects the best available knowledge when it’s released later this year.

In possibly related news, if you’re interested in software engineering and release management issues, I suspect Steven Sinofsky’s new blog, Learning by Shipping, might be of interest to you.

Now, back to the unified messaging chapter… and go Seahawks!

1 Comment

Filed under UC&C

Thursday trivia #83

The boys and I had a wonderful Christmas– in fact, we’re still having it, evidenced by the wrapping paper and assorted detritus in the living room. Last night we went to see Monsters Inc during its re-release; later in the week, I’ll take each of them on a 1:1 outing, and we have a few other things planned. David’s been reading; Tom’s been composing electronic dance music, and Matt has been doing a little of everything.. it’s been a real blessing to get to spend the holiday with them.

  • This list of the metropolitan areas with the highest, and lowest, numbers of electric and hybrid vehicles is a little surprising– not because of the top areas (most of which are in California), but because so many of the bottom areas are smack in the middle of the oil patch– Lafayette made the list, as did Shreveport, Beaumont, and Baton Rouge. The bottom 15 areas have 5% the EV registrations as the top areas.
  • Microsoft is now shipping an iOS version of the popular Wordament game for Windows Phone. No big deal? Well, it includes Xbox LIVE achievements. That’s certainly a departure.
  • It’s better to have a 100kt plane and a 130kt brain than a 100kt brain and a 130kt plane.
  • By this definition, it looks like I’m a libertarian too (but you might have already guessed that.)
  • More than twice as many men as women die in pedestrian-vehicle accidents. I wouldn’t have guessed that, but the possible reasons why make sense. Be careful out there, guys.

Leave a comment

Filed under General Stuff

Bad experience at Larry’s Pistol and Pawn in Huntsville

I’m not really a complainer by nature (thank goodness), and I don’t tend to have problems with customer service at most of the businesses I deal with– in part because I am picky about who gets my money. Having said that, I had a bad experience with Larry’s Pistol and Pawn in Huntsville that I wanted to document.

Larry’s has been in business for a long time; when I moved to Huntsville in 1991, they had the only indoor pistol range in town. As long as I’ve lived in the area, I’ve shopped there, and I’ve never had a bad experience. Yesterday, though, I had a salesman who was both discourteous and uninformed about the law. He refused to sell me a rifle because I am a dual resident of California and Alabama– “I won’t sell you this because it’s not legal in California,” he said. 

I explained that I’d just gone through the same process at another local store, which had called the local Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE) office to confirm that it was legal. According to 27 CFR 478 § 11, it is in fact legal for a US citizen who resides in more than one state to purchase a long gun in any state of residence. I meet the legal residency definitions for both Alabama and California, and if you read Example 2 in the definition for “State of Residence” it’s clearly applicable.

Rude Guy wasn’t in the mood to listen; he told me that the other store where I’d made a previous purchase had broken the law. That didn’t seem likely; gun stores tend to be terrifically careful to follow the law and ATF regulations because failure to do so can get them shut down and their employees jailed. I politely thanked him and left. Then I called the local ATF field office myself and spoke to a very helpful ATF employee. I explained my situation, she cited 478§11 to me, told me I was good to go, and gave me her phone number to have Larry’s call her if they had any questions.

Armed with this information (ed.: see what I did there?) I went back to Larry’s, stood in line for the same guy, and explained my phone call. He was even ruder than before: “I don’t care what she said,” he said angrily; “I still won’t sell to you.” Clearly there was no point in arguing, so I left.

I’ve sent Larry Burnett, the owner, a detailed letter explaining what happened, so we’ll see what action, if any, he takes. Until I hear back, though, Larry’s is off my shopping list. If you’re in the market for firearms, ammunition, or supplies, I suggest you go elsewhere.

129 Comments

Filed under FAIL, General Stuff, Smackdown!

CrashPlan “Cannot connect to backup engine” errors on Mac OS X

I recently updated to Java 1.7 for work, and after doing so I noticed that CrashPlan was no longer performing backups. (I’m a bit ashamed to admit how long it took for me to notice though!) The company’s support forum suggests uninstalling and reinstalling the client, which didn’t fix the problem. A bit more searching identified the problem: CrashPlan expects Java 1.6, the official Apple version, and it gets unhappy if you replace that with 1.7. The instructions here outline a workaround: you have to stop the CrashPlan background service, modify its configuration file to point to the official-Apple version of Java, and then restart the service. Happy backups!

Leave a comment

Filed under General Tech Stuff

Microsoft wins UK case vs Motorola Mobility/Google

Earlier this year I had the unique (to me) opportunity to serve as a technical expert witness in a court case in the UK. Tony’s already written about the case but I wanted to add my perspective.

I was contacted by Bird and Bird to see if I might be willing and able to act as a technical expert in a court case; that’s all they said at first. The nature of the questions they were asking soon clued me in that the case involved Exchange ActiveSync and multiple-point-of-presence (MPOP) support for presence publishing– two completely separate technologies which Motorola/Google had lumped together in this case.  .

My role was to perform a wire-level analysis of the protocols in question: EAS, SIP/SIMPLE as implemented in Lync, and the Windows Live Messenger protocol. For each of these protocols, my job was to produce an accurate, annotated packet capture showing exactly what happened when multiple devices synchronized with the same account, and when the status on one device changed.

This isn’t what most people think of when they think of expert testimony; in courtroom dramas and books, it always seems like the expert is being asked to provide an opinion, or being cross-examined on the validity of their opinion. No one wanted my opinion in this case (which is perfectly normal), just for me to to accurately and impartially report what was happening on the wire.

This proved to be incredibly interesting from a technical standpoint. Like most administrators, it had never really occurred to me to look into the depths of the EAS protocol itself to see exactly what bits were being passed on the wire. After a great deal of study of the ActiveSync protocol documentation and many a late night slaving away over Wireshark and Network Monitor captures, I’d produced a report that showed the actual network traffic that passed between client(s) and server for a variety of test scenarios, along with an explanation of the contents of the packets and how they related to user action on the device.

Along the way, I gained a new appreciation for the economy of design of these protocols– it’s surprising how efficient they are when you look at them at such a low level. (And a shout out to Eric Lawrence for his incredibly useful Fiddler tool, which made it much easier for me to get the required data into a usable format.) I found a few bugs in Wireshark, learned more than I wanted to about SSL provisioning on Windows Phone 7.5 devices, and generally had a grand time. I particularly enjoyed working with the attorneys at Bird and Bird, who were quite sharp and had lovely accents to boot. (I’m not sure they enjoyed my accent quite as much, but oh well.)

When I finished my report, I submitted it to Bird and Bird and that was the last I heard of the case until today, when Mr. Justice Arnold issued his ruling. It was submitted as part of Microsoft’s justification explaining why their implementations did not infringe on Motorola’s patent; the purpose of having an annotated set of packet captures was to clearly illustrate the differences between the claimed innovations in the patent and Microsoft’s implementation to show why Microsoft wasn’t infringing.

Florian Mueller has a good summary of the case that highlights something I didn’t know: the patent at issue is the only one on which an Android manufacturer is currently enforcing an injunction against Apple. I am no patent attorney, but it would seem that Apple might have grounds to have this injunction lifted. It will be interesting to see what happens in the related German court cases that Muller cites, but it’s hard for this layman to see any other likely result besides a Microsoft win… but we will see.

Leave a comment

Filed under General Tech Stuff, UC&C

More on the Lenovo A720

It turns out that I was perhaps a little hasty in dismissing the Lenovo A720. If you use the link that Google and Bing offer when searching for “Lenovo A720,” the Best Buy page you get says that the product couldn’t be found; searching for the SKU embedded in the link returns no results. However, searching Best Buy’s site itself for “Lenovo A720” does bring up a grand total of 1 A720 configuration: 6GB of RAM, 2.5GHz Core i5, 1TB hard drive, and a 1920×1080 27″ multitouch display with a BluRay player.

Best Buy shows that they have the A720 in stock, but only for shipping; it’s not in stores. I didn’t try to order one, so it’s possible that they are exaggerating their stock on hand.

The least expensive 27″ iMac is $1799, which buys you more RAM (8GB), a faster CPU (2.9GHz Core i5), and a 2560×1440 screen. The iMac lacks the A720’s touchscreen, but it can be configured with a larger hard drive (including Apple’s Fusion hybrid SSD/conventional disk) and more RAM (max of 32GB vice the A720’s 8GB.)

Is this a price premium? For your $300, you get a higher-resolution (and, probably, higher-quality; Apple’s iMac displays are very, very good) display, more RAM, and a faster CPU, but you lose the touchscreen. I am not convinced of the value of touchscreens for desktops for the kind of work that I do, so that might not be a bad tradeoff.

However, the iMac isn’t itself available from Apple’s website until January, so the comparison is a bit of a moot point as this juncture. I’ll write another post once the highest-end models from both vendors are actually, y’know, shipping; comparing vaporware or you-can’t-have-it-ware is pretty pointless.

2 Comments

Filed under General Tech Stuff

Where is the Lenovo A720?

About a year ago, I wrote an article examining whether there really was a price premium for Apple laptops. My conclusion: yes, in some cases. A short while ago, Apple introduced a new line of iMac all-in-one computers, and, that same day, Dan Holme and I got to debating their merits on Twitter. Dan is a big fan of Lenovo’s all-in-one desktops, about which I knew little, so I decided to do some digging.

I wanted to see if Apple was able to get a price premium for their all-in-one computers compared to comparable Windows 8 machines. Dan said he’s a fan of the Lenovo A720, which looks like a pretty spiffy machine. I went to Lenovo’s site on 23 October and found that there are 4 A720 models ranging in price from $1949 down to $1469. (These were sale prices; the Lenovo site had a prominent banner pointing out that their sale prices would be in effect for a week or so.) The highest-end machine shown on their site was an A720 – 25647CU. Your $1949 buys a quad-core 2.3GHz Core i7 CPU, 8GB of RAM, a 1TB disk with a 64GB SSD, and a 27″ 1920 x 1080 27″ multi-touch screen. This particular machine also includes a TV tuner and a Blu-ray optical drive. You can’t get a bigger drive, more RAM, or a better graphics card through the usual configure-to-order process.

At that time Apple hadn’t announced availability dates for the new iMacs, so I put this post aside as a draft. I went back to Lenovo’s site on 3 December and found that the A720 models are all listed as “out of stock.” I checked again 19 December and found they were still out of stock. This is odd, given that we are the height of the holiday buying season; rather than a page that says “out of stock- try back later” you’d think Lenovo would be trying to capture my money somehow.

Interestingly, if you use Google or Bing to search for “Lenovo A720,” the first two sponsored results are for Best Buy and Amazon. The Best Buy link 404s, and the Amazon link leads to a single used A720.

So where did the A720s all go?

Searches for phrases like “A720 delay” don’t bring up any results. Perhaps Lenovo is selling A720s as fast as they can make them, or perhaps there’s some issue with their production or distribution. Regardless, if you cannot actually buy one, the question of whether they are less expensive than Apple’s nearest equivalent isn’t very interesting. I look forward to revisiting the question once the A720, or its successor, resurfaces.

3 Comments

Filed under General Tech Stuff

“Go or No-Go: Heading North”

Air Facts Journal is one of my favorite web publications. I’ve been reading Richard Collins since I was a wee lad (thank you, FLYING Magazine) and the other authors and editors there are every bit as good– I learn something from just about every article. One of my favorite features is their “Go or No Go,” in which you’re presented with a realistic scenario involving a flight: you’re in city X, you want to get to city Y, here’s the weather, here are any other pertinent facts… do you go or not? The discussions around these articles have been really helpful in pointing out to me what my personal minimums and comfort levels are at this stage of my aviation career (which I intend to be long-lived, thus my interest in learning from the experiences of others).

This week’s “Go or No-Go” involves the world’s most famous freight pilot:

Talk about “get-home-itis.” Your trip today is the final leg of a marathon freight dog run, with over 1 billion legs in the logbook so far. The flight has gone flawlessly, but you’re dead tired and would really like to get home to the Mrs. (Claus, that is). But just because you’re the big red man doesn’t mean you can skip the weather briefing, so you take one last glance at your iPad before takeoff.

It shows a good deal of white stuff out there and some serious fog, so it looks like your last flight won’t be easy. The good news is you are very current (23 hours in the last day) and your Mark IV sleigh is in excellent condition. You also don’t have to worry about running out of fuel tonight–you started using renewable energy sources long before it was fashionable–so you can deviate if you need to.

Read the report below and then tell us if you’re going or canceling.

Even if you aren’t a pilot, it’s worth looking at the scenario to get a sense of some of the factors that can influence, positively or negatively, a decision to complete a planned flight. The other scenarios they’ve published make for interesting reading too.

Leave a comment

Filed under aviation

Thursday trivia #82

No time for trivia this week, sorry. Instead, let me leave you with a mashup for your listening pleasure:

Or if your tastes run more towards Christmas music I strongly encourage you to give this a listen:

Leave a comment

Filed under General Stuff

Santa’s checkride

The FAA requires that pilots have what’s known as a biennal flight review, or BFR. Every two years, you have to fly with an instructor, who’s supposed to point out anything you need to work on. Of course, pilots who fly charter, passenger, or cargo flights may have additional “line checks” or other check flights.

To prepare for his checkride, Santa had the elves wash the sled and bathe all the reindeer. Santa got his logbook out and made sure all his paperwork was in order. He knew the examiner would examine all his equipment and truly put his flying skills to the test…

The morning of the checkride arrived. The examiner arrived promptly, introduced himself, and started the inquisition with a barrage of questions. Moving to the hangar, the examiner walked slowly around the sled. He checked the reindeer harnesses, the landing gear, and Rudolph’s nose. He painstakingly reviewed Santa’s weight and balance calculations for the sled’s enormous payload.

Finally, they were ready for the checkride. Santa got in and fastened his seatbelt and shoulder harness and checked the compass. Then the examiner hopped in carrying, to Santa’s surprise, a shotgun.

“What’s that for?!?” asked Santa incredulously.

The examiner winked and said, “I’m not supposed to tell you this ahead of time,” as he leaned over to whisper in Santa’s ear, “but you’re gonna lose an engine on takeoff.”

(hat tip to John at Golf Hotel Whiskey).

Leave a comment

Filed under aviation

Thursday trivia #81

2 Comments

Filed under General Stuff