With two weeks left in my plan, I haven't yet acquired the perfect interview suit. Shame isn't it? Especially as I have no sceduled time off during the hours when the stores are open, between now and my interview. The general rule with interviews is that you dress one level up than you would dress on the job. So if the job would require you to wear a filthy t-shirt and jeans, you wear a clean t-shirt and jeans. If the job requires a clean t-shirt and jeans, you go polo and khakhis. All the way up to if the job requires a suit, you wear a damn fine suit (not a tuxedo or evening gown: that's where the rule breaks down). Well my job requires a shirt and tie, so guys wear a suit. But when I wear a suit, that's a skirt and heels. It seems to derail the object. I want the employer to picture me flying his airplane, not stalking the catwalk. Slacks I think.
Getting dressed in the mornng is more complicated for girls.
So as not to dedicate an entire post to my wardrobe, I'll also tell you of today's ATC weirdness. Approaching a busy control zone VFR, I received an instruction from the controller to remain clear of the airspace. He suggested I orbit over a named landmark. Problem was that the named landmark, depicted on the chart and clearly visible on the ground was unambiguously inside the control zone I had been ordered to remain clear of. As the "remain clear" was an instruction and the "orbit over" was a suggestion, I resolved the ambiguity by orbiting over something else, outside the control zone. A moment later I was cleared to enter the zone for landing. After landing, I asked the (less busy) ground controller about the instruction, and then the first controller's voice came on the ground frequency explaining that he thought it would be safer to orbit over the landmark he named, and that while yes, it was technically inside the control zone, that he had expected me to disregard the part about remaining outside, and orbit over his landmark. "But," he conceded, "I can see how that could be confusing." No kidding.