As AOPA's Summit draws to a close today, I'm finally catching a breather and looking over my notes. Yes, the show was smaller than in past years, at least in terms of exhibitor numbers. It's hard to judge attendance—there were moments when I couldn't navigate the aisles in the convention center and moments when they were empty.

So should the name be "Summit" or "Expo"? I have to admit, I don't get Summit—it doesn't resonate with anything other than a meeting of pols or world leaders, and this convention is not that. It is and should be about members, their airplanes and the companies in the industry. They are the people who will make it live or die. My vote is to go back to Expo or pick another name if the association thinks it needs to reposition itself.

One thing that did work was the live coverage at the show. If you were in the convention hall, the center stage area had giant screens on the ceiling, plus repeaters all around the hall. At best, with their bloodless lighting and dull carpets, these convention halls can be a graveyard with lights. But the center stage idea livened up the joint and the programs we're appropriate and interesting. Plus, I found myself exposed to the specter of the Inescapable Dave Hirschman. I was wandering the hall when he was interviewing someone and he was everywhere, following me his eyes—sort of like 1984, but in a wholesome, friendly sort of way.

The static area—now there's something that does need a name change—was anything but. And AOPA tried. They called it "AirportFest," but it didn't stick, as such things never seem to. The place was hopping and if you've never been there, Peter O. Knight Airport in Tampa is one of the best sites for this display. It's hard by Tampa Bay and right near downtown. Boats, cars and airplanes all come together and it is as pleasant a place to be in November as you can imagine. I found it interesting and upbeat and I'm hard bitten enough to make Dick Cheney look like Mary Poppins.

We did a video story on Joe Shepherd's Electra, which appears in the current film, Amelia. Bernard Chabbert e-mailed to remind me that it was his France-based Electra that appeared in the flight scenes, not Shepherd's. We should have noted that somehow in the story; Shepherd told us and he was clear that his airplane was used for static shots—there's that word again.

Chabbert flew his Electra to South Africa for 65 hours of aerial photography and a total of 165 hours of flying. Marooned in Luanda, Chabbert tells us avgas had to flown in via Twin Otter at a cost of $54 per gallon. Lessee, at 25 per side, that leg cost $2700 an hour, just for gas. The real Amelia flew her Electra 17,000 miles before it vanished. Chabbert's trip totaled 19,000 miles.

I had a terrific time interviewing Thom Richard for the Invictus video story. My idea of max zoot flying has always been anything below 100 feet and at Reno, they not only allow it, they expect it. The Formula One International class is something that an amateur racer can afford and that makes it all the more appealing. Check out Richard's cockpit-view vid of the race here.

I've seen some hardworking PR agents in my time, but the guy representing the Dominican Republic at Summit set new standards for dedication. In the press room, he buttonholed everyone in sight—did we want to interview the air minister for a story? Well, no…On the convention floor, he spotted my camera and media badge and tried again, suggesting I might like to meet the two stunningly gorgeous Latin beauties the DR had thoughtfully provided to staff the booth. Not that I wouldn't liked to have met them, but I was already two hours behind some deadline or another. To such depths has my beloved craft of journalism sunk that we now throw over the babes just to get a few seconds of fleeting video that's forgotten 30 seconds after it's viewed. This is progress?

One thing that is progress is Cessna's rollout of the 162 Skycatcher. I flew it for a video review and a full report in the December 2009 issue of Aviation Consumer. It was exactly what I expected it to be—solid, competent and no major warts that I could see in a short trial flight. Well, there was one surprise: the control stick emerges from under the panel, rather than being floor mounted. I'm not sure if I like that or not. I'm still chewing on that. One thing I am certain of: The Skycatcher will break the LSA market wide open. I don't see how any but a few smaller companies can compete with it.

View comments by other members (0) | Post comments

Anyone who has ever flown a long cross-country in an airplane knows that the cabin turns into a disorganized mess of charts, water bottles, headsets and snack sacks. Why is that? Give us a good reason and we'll send you a hat.

Don't see a video screen? Try disabling ad blockers and refreshing this page. If that doesn't work, click here to download the video directly.

View comments by other members (28) | Post comments

Well, those poor sods over at Delta who landed their B767 (with 193 aboard) on (active) taxiway M at ATL after being cleared to land on runway 27R in the pre-dawn of October 19 sure had one thing going for them -- what the pilots at Northwest were about to do on October 21 to trump them. But did they?

I know which event the major news outlets found more egregious, but for my dollar I'll take landing between the blue lights before oversleeping ... or being placed in a sleep-like state by your laptop (whatever). And, frankly, I'm not entirely clear on how the pilots at Northwest managed to so decisively steal Delta's thunder. Is going NORDO at 37,000 feet and flying 144 passengers 150 miles past MSP in an A320 really a bigger deal than planting a 767 on an active taxiway in the dark at the busiest (albeit, sometimes the second busiest) airport in the country? Since when did doing something dangerous fall below being irresponsible? Eh, what do I know... .

I know this much. It sure shut up those pilots at Northwest who were yacking in cyberspace about how you'd never see one of their own make the kind of mistakes the Delta pilots (Delta absorbed Northwest about a year ago) made at ATL. Gotta give it to them. They were right.

Kudos to all. When the spotlight's on -- with Washington focussed on crew rest and training -- the gents at the majors really know how to make the most of it.

There but for The Grace... .

View comments by other members (26) | Post comments

As the Northwest Flight 188 saga continues to unfold in standard leak-it-to-the-media fashion, we were treated over the weekend with the convincing denial by the First Officer that neither he nor the Captain were sleeping. I say "convincing" because he looked sincere to me. He offered no other details, nor would I expect him to. He'll have his hands full with the investigation board this week. I'm willing to take his word for it.

Meanwhile, one other bit of information emerged that I found interesting, if it's true. The Wisconsin Air National Guard was evidently placed on alert to scramble an intercept flight but someone made the decision not to do that. This suggests a couple of possibilities. Either the Guard couldn't pull it together fast enough to get the fighters airborne, it actually did get them airborne and we're not being told that or, indeed, restraint was exercised. If the latter, hats off to whomever or however that decision was made. It's tempting to overreact in a situation like this and it wouldn't have been an overreaction to have intercepted the airplane for a closer look. Deciding not to do that strikes me as a slightly righter decision.

I've seen a couple of remarks in other blogs and forums ridiculing the notion of launching fighters in the first place, as though the Guard is trigger happy to splash an airliner. This attitude ignores the just-barely-beneath-the-surface trauma of the 9/11 attacks, which began with exactly the same NORDO situation. It would be downright stupid not think about that in this context. It also raises this question: Would fighters ever be justified in shooting down an airliner known to be hijacked? To answer that, take yourself back eight years and imagine you were in the cockpit of the F-15 sent to find United Flight 94 or you had to make the decision to authorize deadly force. What would you do?

This is by no means an easy decision to make and I don't envy the people having to make it. But conceptually, my answer is that in the right circumstances, deadly force is appropriate. The trick is knowing what those circumstances are and last Wednesday night, someone did know.

View comments by other members (29) | Post comments

Sometime later today or early next week, we should learn of the results of what has to be the biggest slam dunk investigation in the history of aviation: Whether the crew of Northwest Flight 188—which sailed 150 miles past its destination Wednesday night-- was snoozing or “discussing airline policy.” Either way, both of these guys are in a pile of trouble.

In some ways, I hope the CVR reveals a chorus of snoring rather than the discussion the crew says they were having. Falling asleep I can understand, but losing the bubble because you’re talking to your crewmate? Please. The last thing the industry needs is smearing the piloting profession with that kind of incompetence, in my view. We’ve all missed the occasional radio call or flubbed a descent clearance, but 78 minutes worth of no comm as the destination airport scrolls off the moving map is a bit much. I’m having a hard time seeing why these guys—or at least the skipper—shouldn’t be permanently beached. I’m just able to maintain a sliver of open mindedness to see what the investigation reveals. I can’t come up with anything that mitigates this poor performance.

But there’s a positive aspect to this and that’s this: Whether they were sleeping or not, the incident focuses attention on something the pilot unions have hammering for years—crew fatigue and flight and duty times. Regulations exist to address this, but these are widely seen as inadequate, especially at the regional level, where fatigue has been cited in accidents and incidents. Fatigue keeps coming up and the FAA continues to resist a meaningful regulatory solution. It may take another smoking hole for the agency to take this seriously.

You can easily see how a crew snooze could turn fatal. If fuel is a little tight due to winds and weather and the crew is checking their eyelids for light leaks, running the airplane dry is a real possibility. The flying public should expect better than that. We can only hope that it doesn’t require the locomotive solution, where the operator has to press an idiot button every two minutes or the train comes to a halt. A few more of these incidents, and it could come to that.

FRIDAY P.M. UPDATE: Northwest and the FAA revealed Friday that the A320 was equipped with an older CVR that retains only 30 minutes of data, not the two hours newer recorders store. That means the initial loss of comm and, likely, the cockpit discussion won't be on the recording.

View comments by other members (45) | Post comments

More AVweb Insider »