FK's P-51: Innovation that Irritates?

  • E-Mail this Article
  • View Printable Article
  • Text size:

    • A
    • A
    • A

When I was at Aero in Germany in April, one of the head-turner airplanes there was a scale P-51 Mustang LSA proposed by FK Lightplanes. See a video about it here. The reaction to this was interesting to watch and once again demonstrates how pilots love to complain about lack of innovation and then bitch about it when somebody actually does toss out something creative.

Which is another way of saying the reaction to the P-51 seemed polarized. You either loved it or thought it was stupid and should never have been proposed. I say "proposed" because the airplane isn't fully developed and ready for market yet, but when it is, it will be a 70 percent scale replica of the P-51, right down to the rivet patterns in the wings and the belly scoop. No mini-Merlin, sorry. It's got a 100-HP Rotax—probably the iS. Where it caught the ire of many show goers who talked to me is that it also has retractable gear and a constant-speed prop, which are verboten under U.S. LSA rules but may be allowed elsewhere. "Why," asked one Aero attendee "are they putting that stuff on there if they know it's not legal?"

A good point, although as noted, it may be legal in some countries. This is a sore point among some manufacturers who have trouble keeping straight what countries allow what under rules that vary considerably. But that's not the point. The real point is that this is an innovative airplane and my reaction to it is that I'd try to figure out how to make it legal for use in my country rather than getting irritated at FK for stretching the LSA idea envelope to the breaking point. To me, that's what innovation is all about, not lockstep adherence to restrictive rulemaking.

But why is it innovative? It is, after all, a 73-year-old-design. Scale Mustangs are nothing new; there are a couple of P-51 experimental designs out there. But in my view, what's innovative is that FK has used its Mustang to prove some sophisticated production techniques in carbon molding and building that could lead to interesting trends in aircraft production in general. FK gets that the Mustang is just a fantasy ride, which is why they added the smoke at startup and a sound system that mimics a Merlin. They're in on the joke.

But what I found intriguing is where this could go. If the Mustang project is successful, how about an entire line of LSA warbirds? Maybe the F4U Corsair, the Spitfire, the Hurricane or the F6F Hellcat, or Bf 109, all priced as $130,000 or so LSAs, which is where FK thinks the Mustang will sell. What's different—and innovative—is that these could be off-the-shelf products you don't have to build that are perfectly aimed at what LSA is supposed to be: fun sport flying, with a creative twist.

Frankly, I like that. And for my two cents, I'd just as soon like to see the restrictions against retractable gear and constant-speed props for LSAs eliminated. Let the market and insurers sort it out. This will make the safety nerds nuts, but then regulatory oversight is always a balancing act between what the wild-eyed flying public wants and what they're allowed to have to keep from hurting themselves.

Being on the wild-eyed side myself, I'd love to find a way to back that P-51 into my hangar, retractable gear and all.

Comments (37)

If innovation can make flying cheaper, safer, or more fun, have at it! Not sure I would want the FK-51 but I'd sure like to fly one. Maybe there's a chance to get my Culver Cadet into LSA.

Posted by: Richard Montague | June 4, 2013 3:41 PM    Report this comment

Another great example of why the existing S/LSA rules make little sense.

For human-occupied aircraft, the current certification standards based on the gross weight of the vehicle make no sense – and haven't for a very long time, if they ever did. I propose a system that focusses on two metrics: the maximum number of occupants, and the atmospheric operating environment (essentially, whether or not the vehicle is pressurized). I’ve proposed five certification groups based on maximum occupant count and pressurization: • Trainers (2 occupants or fewer) • Personal (3 to 8 occupants) non-pressurized • Personal (3 to 8 occupants) pressurized • Business/commercial (9 to 19 occupants) • Transport (20 or more occupants) Experimentals still would be permitted.

The idea is that the first three groups are intended for occupancy by informed volunteers, so airliner standards are inappropriate and unnecessary. Part-135 operations still would be permitted with all except the trainers. Regardless of group, the type of powerplant(s) would be irrelevant. The empty and gross weights would be irrelevant. An instrument rating and a type rating would be required to act as PIC of pressurized personal vehicles, B/C vehicles, and transport vehicles. Those vehicles would have to be equipped with FIKI-quality anti/de-icing apparatus, and would have to meet lightning-strike-tolerance standards. Balanced field length requirements would apply to ALL operations of B/C and transport vehicles.

Comments?

Posted by: Thomas Yarsley | June 4, 2013 5:58 PM    Report this comment

Aren't you trading one over-complex system for another? Five categories is a lot.

Eliminating the LSA weight restriction makes sense. Keeping the 12,500-pound (or whatever) weight for a higher pilot cert requirement also makes sense. So does dividing the flying world into for-hire and not for hire.

On the aircraft side, move all cert for not-for-hire airplanes to an ASTM-type process. The Part 23 revision is supposed to do that in principle, but keeps the FAA involved. Maybe that's just as good.

On the pilot cert side, eliminate the Third Class medical requirement for non-revenue flying. Eliminate all requirements for basic flight experience and specific training. Would-be pilots would simply be certified by passing a more stringent PTS and written. How they learn to meet that standard is up to them.

Pilots who wish to fly for-hire would follow more or less the current path, including a requirement for a medical. Under this type of approach, FK's Mustang wouldn't have to dance around pointless legalities over retractable landing gear.

Whether such a relaxed regime would negatively impact safety and accident rates depends on how much you believe that regulation impacts safety. There's also a risk of the industry devolving into regulation by tort. I doubt if anyone knows which way it would go. I certainly don't.

Posted by: Paul Bertorelli | June 5, 2013 7:12 AM    Report this comment

The South-African-sounding guy in the video sounded like he wasn't taking himself too seriously. I like that attitude. I bet they sell a few.

Posted by: john hogan | June 5, 2013 7:20 AM    Report this comment

Paul:

I love your idea about eliminating medicals for all not-for-hire flying – up to some limit on passenger count (in my scheme, 9 or more seats [pilot included] would require a medical, regardless of revenue).

I'm intrigued by your idea about eliminating flight-experience and training requirements, although absent those, crafting an effective checkride could become interesting.

I have difficulty buying your characterization of vehicles as being either for-hire or non-revenue. Many aircraft types get used in both roles, with pilot qualifications and operating procedures being the difference – not the vehicle.

I still think that a weight-based criterion misses the point, on safety and on construction. A 5,000 pound pressurized vehicle operating at FL 250 + offers more challenges than a 13,000 pound vehicle operating VFR below 12,500 MSL.

My 5 categories can sound like a lot, but they’re just a "Punnett square" result of only two variables: seat count and high-altitude operations. If one mission of the FAA is to protect passengers (from unqualified pilots, among other risks), then a seat-count criterion makes a lot of sense. For me, it boils down to “how many innocents are you gonna kill, and are they paying for the privilege?” The FARs now call for high-altitude-operations training and an endorsement, and that seems a lot more reasonable than, say, their similar requirement for a tailwheel endorsement.

Posted by: Thomas Yarsley | June 5, 2013 8:34 AM    Report this comment

I suppose seat count is one way to slice it. But in the end, what we're trying to do here is to stimulate the low end of the market by reducing regulatory burdens that don't yield benefits.

For the transport category, this may not be necessary or realistic, since those airplanes seem to live in their own successful ecosystem. The combined effect of training and regulation seems to have produced an unparalleled safety record.

Light aircraft GA? Not so much. Nor are the sales particularly impressive. My idea of streamlining the training is total pie in the sky. The embedded bureaucracy is too clever and committed to its own survival to ever allow it.

But it is an idea.

Posted by: Paul Bertorelli | June 5, 2013 9:02 AM    Report this comment

I think the LSA weight limit is a bit ridiculous. It should be raised or eliminated and the focus put on pilots. Light Sport pilots and recreational pilots ahould be limited by no night flying, max 2 seats and no class D or higher airspace. Non commercial pilots should need no medical but the PPL gets you into and out of bigger airports and perhaps limited to 6 seat aircraft or smaller. A commercial pilot needs a medical, people are relying on him to get their stuff or themselves where they are trying to go and paying them for it. A flight instructor would be included, anyone taking pay for flying. As far as retracts, controllable pitch etc. these can be handled with applicable type training and transition training signoffs. Theoretically you could have a LSA pilot with transition training in a retractable controllable pitch aircraft and he could fly the FK Mustang. Maybe even a real mustang with appropriate training, that would be the essence of Sport Flying.

Posted by: Rodney Hall | June 5, 2013 11:52 AM    Report this comment

I don't see what the benefit would be in preventing sport pilots from flying in Class-D/C/B airspace. If one can self-announce on a CTAF, talking to ATC shouldn't be any more difficult.

Flight instructors don't currently even need a medical, if they aren't acting as PIC. I think this makes sense, and should be carried forward. I would agree an instructor should need at least a 3rd-class if they are acting as PIC, however.

As for the weight limitation on LSAs, it's an entirely arbitrary and pointless limit. 12,500lbs is fine, since that's where landing fees/etc typically go up, but anything below that should be game. Any actual limitations on the pilot's privileges (# passengers, night flying, etc) should be left to the pilot certificate type and ratings (as appropriate).

Posted by: Gary Baluha | June 5, 2013 1:26 PM    Report this comment

Do any Senators read this blog?

Could it be arranged?

:-)

Posted by: Thomas Boyle | June 5, 2013 4:24 PM    Report this comment

Gary Baluha,

The regulations don't prevent sport pilots from flying in those classes of airspace. As I understand it, they require only that the pilot receive specific instruction and a sign-off for those airspaces, since operation inside them is not part of the basic Sport Pilot syllabus.

Posted by: Thomas Boyle | June 5, 2013 4:26 PM    Report this comment

No B, C or D airspace. Tell me you're jocking, please! I fly in all three all the time. My God what is your bias based upon?

Posted by: Jay Manor | June 5, 2013 8:35 PM    Report this comment

I don't think it needs to necessarily be an LSA it just needs to meet some criteria to be sold here as a regular aircraft. Perhaps the upcoming revamp of part 23 might find some way to make this airplane and others like it fit. The price vs. bang for the buck certainly seems attractive.

Posted by: Randolph Palma | June 6, 2013 1:36 AM    Report this comment

More proof that less regulation and less government is better. The FK-51 was actually announced at AERO 2012 but few took notice. Many aircraft we get as LSAs in the US are de-rated from faster European planes. Tecnam, TL and others offer retract versions with variable pitch props. I am. Not aware that their accident rate is higher. Is the FK-52 any different than a dozen modern Cub copies, a plane that is not a very practical cross country machine but is fun?

Posted by: Kent Misegades | June 6, 2013 5:32 AM    Report this comment

More proof that less regulation and less government is better. The FK-51 was actually announced at AERO 2012 but few took notice. Many aircraft we get as LSAs in the US are de-rated from faster European planes. Tecnam, TL and others offer retract versions with variable pitch props. I am. Not aware that their accident rate is higher. Is the FK-52 any different than a dozen modern Cub copies, a plane that is not a very practical cross country machine but is fun?

Posted by: Kent Misegades | June 6, 2013 5:32 AM    Report this comment

More proof that less regulation and less government is better. The FK-51 was actually announced at AERO 2012 but few took notice. Many aircraft we get as LSAs in the US are de-rated from faster European planes. Tecnam, TL and others offer retract versions with variable pitch props. I am. Not aware that their accident rate is higher. Is the FK-52 any different than a dozen modern Cub copies, a plane that is not a very practical cross country machine but is fun?

Posted by: Kent Misegades | June 6, 2013 5:32 AM    Report this comment

More proof that less regulation and less government is better. The FK-51 was actually announced at AERO 2012 but few took notice. Many aircraft we get as LSAs in the US are de-rated from faster European planes. Tecnam, TL and others offer retract versions with variable pitch props. I am. Not aware that their accident rate is higher. Is the FK-52 any different than a dozen modern Cub copies, a plane that is not a very practical cross country machine but is fun?

Posted by: Kent Misegades | June 6, 2013 5:32 AM    Report this comment

More proof that less regulation and less government is better. The FK-51 was actually announced at AERO 2012 but few took notice. Many aircraft we get as LSAs in the US are de-rated from faster European planes. Tecnam, TL and others offer retract versions with variable pitch props. I am. Not aware that their accident rate is higher. Is the FK-52 any different than a dozen modern Cub copies, a plane that is not a very practical cross country machine but is fun?

Posted by: Kent Misegades | June 6, 2013 5:32 AM    Report this comment

Paul’s comment about the difficulty of getting a bureaucrat to let go of regulation reminds me of one of the many pithy Australian terms for people with annoying characteristics; I can’t recall the actual term but it doesn’t matter, let’s use “Fnurf”.

A Fnurf is one of those people who exists in a constant state of unrest, tortured by the knowledge that somewhere out there, just beyond his control, there are people enjoying themselves.

Posted by: John Wilson | June 6, 2013 8:28 AM    Report this comment

John, in this country we call such people "The FAA"

Posted by: Richard Montague | June 6, 2013 10:41 AM    Report this comment

Tom Boyle's question is valid, Paul.

Having arrived at my summerhome location near Oshkosh last week, I decided to attend the GAMA tete-a-tete at Gulfstream Aerospace in Appleton. ALL the speeches given by GAMA's President and Chairman, WI Senator Ron Johnson, WI Reps Ribble and Petri, et al were wonderful to listen to but as I stood in the crowd of mostly Gulfstream employees, I couldn't help but think, "Stop talking and start DOING something, boys!" In fact, afterward, I walked up to Senator Johnson and bent his ear for a minute telling him how we have to stop the insane over-regulation of aviation by the FAA. His demeanor -- in semi-private -- was quite different than his words on stage. At that point, I realized ... we're all screwed! These guys all want to flap their jaws but do little to change the insane mindset that Government (read FAA) has the answer to everything.

We pilots spend too much time commiserating with each other and too little wrestling the system to change. Maybe it's time to just go buy the damn FK51 and fly it and the FAA be damned. As a group, we pilots try to abide by the rules but the rules just don't change to fit changing times and thoughts. We tried joining 'em ... maybe we should now just 'fight' 'em??

When I saw that FK51, I fell in love with it. I could see one in my hangar and -- right now, with a medical -- I could legally fly it. Later, however, as I age, things could be different.

Posted by: Larry Stencel | June 6, 2013 10:57 AM    Report this comment

How was his demeanor different?

Posted by: Paul Bertorelli | June 6, 2013 11:18 AM    Report this comment

ALL onstage public comments were exactly as 'we' would expect ... supportive, proactive, positive and even sympathetic.

I forgot to mention that WI Gov Scott Walker was there, as well.

When I spoke to Sen Johnson on the factory floor, I ID'ed myself as a local pilot with a hangar and airplane at a nearby airport. I told him that the FAA IS the problem and that they need to at least be throttled, if not changed. I told him that GA -- despite their words -- is slowly dying in this Country and needs his help.

I told him how attendance at Airventure and GA interest caused me to establish both an aviation operation and a residence in the State. HIS facial demeanor was one of ambivalence, at best. He seemed preoccupied with seeing who was next in line versus listening to my words. He gave no indication that he either understood the problems or was working to ameliorate same. It seemed he was just going thru the motions ... much different than his speech.

He's from Oshkosh and I'd think that if a rank and file constituent was bending his ear, he'd take the time to give that person 100% attention and maybe even ask for a card or name or ?

Peter Bunce of GAMA gave a rousing intro speech and intro of each speaker. Each speaker gave good albeit short talks. Problem is, I thought, who the heck are they talking to? It was almost as if they were showing the town of Appleton, "See what we did with this nice factory for you." EAA was there, too.

Posted by: Larry Stencel | June 6, 2013 12:13 PM    Report this comment

Now that I think about it, Paul, I can answer your question simpler.

In a minute or so, I tried to quickly ID who I was, what my interest was and what I thought needed to be done. I told him I've been a pilot for 40+ years and have concerns and, in return, I got a 'deer in my headlights' look from the him.

You'd think a Senator on the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, and the sub-committee on Aviation Operations, Safety and Security would be more interested in hearing from 'the troops.' I didn't get that impression.

I was unable to get at (R) Reps Petri and Ribble who both serve on the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, sub committee on Aviation. Gov Walker didn't spend much time on the floor and was whisked away to his waiting King Air shortly after the affair ended.

The whole thing seemed like a 'love fest' for politians to get their faces and names into the media and show how they're supportive of Gulfstream in Appleton vs. helping aviation, in general and in toto.

Maybe thinking these guys want to hear from 'me' is ... naive?

Posted by: Larry Stencel | June 6, 2013 12:50 PM    Report this comment

There are many factions, viewpoints and attitudes nowadays concerning the people and the government that I feel work against the best interest of the nation. I've had only one bone-headed experience with the FAA that AOPA cleared up for me, but I can speak a little to my work with the VA on a daily basis.

There's been a sea change, to me, over the last decade or so when it comes to the relationship noted above. Many times I walk thru pickets to my entrance and always stop to hear the beef. Never anything new, demands from the VA for specifics without being specific. Angry, intolerant and unwilling to see and do the hard work it would take over years to get what they want. I've encountered dozens of different complaints this way. Still waiting for someone to say, 'hey, mind if we sit down at lunch and talk over our issue?'

From the windowed offices inside with the ties and plaques, the view I would condense to be is this: They increasingly experience having to do more with less for more groups and viewpoints in an increasing populace that thinks government should be smaller with less influence, while the populace demands more, wants more without self-initiative, expands, and lives longer. This is compounded by the social impatience and collapse of time to everything needing to manifest now, but that is astoundingly naive.

Posted by: Dave Miller | June 6, 2013 1:47 PM    Report this comment

For many of the managers and providers they're exasperated and are insulating themselves (perhaps relating to Larry's experience) from this modern day behavior of choosing emotion over intellect, so to speak. Many of us go out of our way to perform our jobs for the veterans, but we're losing our battle. There's a real problem, a growing disconnect between reason and intolerance today that showcases in the procedural and political processes of government, and until this is acknowledged and dissolved, everyone is just going to fortify their bunkers - jobs and self-interests on all sides- and it will not get any better. Sorry to rant, but offering my view from another angle.

Posted by: Dave Miller | June 6, 2013 1:48 PM    Report this comment

Larry, the key word here was "politician." They are all the same. They are just as much, if not more, of the problem, than the FAA itself. To actually get there attention, get as many supportive pilots as you can, then ALL of you get right in their faces, with the number of votes you and your team represent. Follow that up with letters from as many fellow pilots as you can get to inundate their offices with VALID information, regarding the problems we all have. Remember, these people live and work in a different world than the reality we have to endure. Get clubs started, get as many high school and college students interested in our problems as you can. Forward this email to as many friends as you can. Expand the interest base. If we can get enough people actually interested in our plight, they will have no choice but to pay attention.

Posted by: Doyle Frost | June 6, 2013 1:54 PM    Report this comment

To Dave Miller's point, maybe people that want part 23 changed could pick something specific and recommend a specific change.

For example stall/spin testing is expensive, uncertain, significantly drives the design and yet we recognize spin accidents start too low for recovery. Based on the reaction to Cirrus's chute elos my feeling is many pilots would think a plane that ignored those standards was an awful design, an unsafe pos. If you eliminate the requirement but the market and/or liability demand meeting the same standard, where exactly is the savings supposed to come from?

Posted by: B Noel | June 6, 2013 3:16 PM    Report this comment

You already have a variety of "simple" regulation frameworks including primary category, jar-vla, lsa. None of them produced affordable airplanes backed by healthy companies. Why not? What was wrong that time that is going to be fixed this time?

Posted by: B Noel | June 6, 2013 3:22 PM    Report this comment

Designing airplanes that people actually want to buy *is* the expensive part. Engineers command a relatively high salary and the tools and facilities they need are expensive to use too. Look at how much a cad license costs per seat. According to the always reliable internet a new car is about a billion dollar development. People seemingly demand the airplane industry produce the same level of design refinement at similar costs but spread over a tiny number of units . If it doesn't happen, must be the damn gubmint. If we were talking about shaving 5-10% off the price I could buy it but if you expect 50% price reductions I say, show your work. How do you get from here to there.

Posted by: B Noel | June 6, 2013 3:35 PM    Report this comment

Two points. I've never understood what a weight restriction adds to safety, be it 12,500 or 1320 lbs. Overall it just doesn't impact the operational/handling characteristics of an aircraft, which is the purpose of regulation. Years ago the FAA allowed some jets that were certified under 12,500 lbs. to be flown over that weight, with certain certification changes. Now tell me, how did that change the handling of the planes and, therefore safe operation of them. They were the same planes from a handling and cockpit complication standpoint.

Second, if there are changes that are needed in the LSA rules I submit it should be to allow night and IFR operation by appropriately rated and experienced pilots. This applies also to the EAA/AOPA push to add a new category of pilot certificate that doesn't require a medical. Why does having a medical cause an increase in safety for night flying.

Posted by: Ed Fogle | June 6, 2013 3:49 PM    Report this comment

Two points. I've never understood what a weight restriction adds to safety, be it 12,500 or 1320 lbs. Overall it just doesn't impact the operational/handling characteristics of an aircraft, which is the purpose of regulation. Years ago the FAA allowed some jets that were certified under 12,500 lbs. to be flown over that weight, with certain certification changes. Now tell me, how did that change the handling of the planes and, therefore safe operation of them. They were the same planes from a handling and cockpit complication standpoint.

Second, if there are changes that are needed in the LSA rules I submit it should be to allow night and IFR operation by appropriately rated and experienced pilots. This applies also to the EAA/AOPA push to add a new category of pilot certificate that doesn't require a medical. Why does having a medical cause an increase in safety for night flying.

Posted by: Ed Fogle | June 6, 2013 3:49 PM    Report this comment

John Wilson, "A Fnurf is one of those people who exists in a constant state of unrest, tortured by the knowledge that somewhere out there, just beyond his control, there are people enjoying themselves."

As an Australian I can tell you the word is "wowser".

As for weight limits, all they do is produce fragile, non robust airplanes with short fatigue lives. Look at a 2 seat LSA compared to a C150. Figured out where the weight is saved. Right, the structure is 1/2 to 2/3 that of a C150 which is as tough as nails. Complete bureaucratic idiocy. Australia allows CS and retracts in ultralight /LSA(different from USA ultralight). We do have other problems though, with the regulator.

Anyway I just had a good day, still flyin'*. Passed the PPL medical again. * Capt. Malcolm Reynolds, Firefly.

Posted by: Mike Borgelt | June 7, 2013 3:01 AM    Report this comment

In oz there's also no speed limit on 600kg LSAs and the stall speed, while the same, is based on full flaps. I thought retractable gear was still out though... It leaves open the possibility of something like a cross between a small Lancair and an MCR-01.

Posted by: john hogan | June 7, 2013 3:27 AM    Report this comment

Dave, your comments are insightful, thanks for your VA work. Being a retired USAF Sr NCO, I can tell you that I have first hand experience with doing more with less over several decades of service. That said, I always made each of my subordinates feel that I gave them 100% attention in any interpersonal contact. This takes no extra resources, just attention to the individual for the brief moment.

With respect to changing the FAA mindset, Paul hit it right on the noggin in a previous blog. The FAA is NOT run by Mr Huerta, it's a conglomeration of individual "duchies" with folks who have enough power to enforce their respective issues. Maybe when there are so few pilots left that their jobs start going away, they'll start being attentive to the needs of their "customers?" Kinda like how nice control tower operators got when sequestration threatened their livelihoods recently.

It is SO sad to think of how just a few changes to the regulations that govern our aviation activities could reinvigorate same. Refine LSA rules, do away with third class medical, smartly update FAR Part 23, and so on. There are plenty of companies wanting to offer a good product that are being held back by insane regulations. The FK51 is a good example.

My recent less than optimal political interface won't disuade me from keeping up MY 'good fight' for change within the FAA on several different fronts.

Posted by: Larry Stencel | June 7, 2013 7:24 AM    Report this comment

I agree with you Paul, this is wonderful. I applaud their efforts. They have to start somewhere; and it certainly is an attractive start.

Posted by: William Fair | June 7, 2013 9:29 AM    Report this comment

The appreciation back at ya, Larry. And I agree that just a few reasonable, bold changes to the regs could really help GA into the future.

But I'm a little less optimistic today, because as Paul rightly pointed out in a previous blog to me when I proposed simply charging five bucks a head to the air show faithful would have kept the Blue Angels performing thru the summer despite sequestration, government just doesn't operate that way. Of course, it could, without waste and allocative inefficiency, but we've lost much of the creative power of government in recent years to the entrenchment, self-protection and power trips you and many have mentioned.

But the FK-P-51 is a beautiful airplane, smart and innovative and fast for 100hp. Wonder if the woofers are internal only? Be a shame to hear the Merlin on your headset but the airport cafe only hears a snowmobile engine... :0

Posted by: Dave Miller | June 7, 2013 1:48 PM    Report this comment

My experience with politicians in attempting to communicate on various issues has been met with pretty much the same attitude as Larry describes. The longer they hold their position the more unresponsive they become. The dwindling number of pilots doesn't help in getting their attention. Maybe more noise as in "the squeaky wheel" saying would help.

Posted by: George Welch | June 16, 2013 3:12 PM    Report this comment

Add your comments

Log In

You must be logged in to comment

Forgot password?

Register

Enter your information below to begin your FREE registration