|
|||||||||||
| AOPA Reports on the Presidential Candidates | back to top |  |
||
Where The Candidates Stand On GA
Two days after the Nov. 4 election, AOPA will host a discussion at AOPA Expo, in San Jose, Calif., among several Washington, D.C., aviation insiders about what the results mean for GA. Also, since laws get made in Congress, those races are also of interest for general aviation. AOPA has posted a list of its allies in the House and Senate who are up for re-election this year. |
With the U.S. presidential election less than two weeks away, AOPA has released the answers it received from candidates John McCain and Barack Obama on topics of interest to general aviation pilots
and aircraft owners. AOPA has not endorsed either candidate, but asked about a range of issues including user fees, the next FAA administrator, airports, ATC privatization, and more. Senator McCain, a
former naval aviator and former chair of the Senate's aviation subcommittee, can cite more experience with aviation issues. Senator Obama notes that GA accounts for over a million jobs in the U.S. and
says he would "engage the general aviation community in the FAA decision-making process." As for user fees, Senator McCain doesn't express any vested interest in any particular funding system, but
says it is critical for some kind of system to be put in place as soon as possible. "I fear that it will be very difficult to adequately fund the FAA while the aviation community is in a civil war
over funding," he told AOPA. Senator Obama said simply, "I believe we must continue to use an appropriate mixture of reasonable taxes and fees to fund the FAA." To read the full text of the
candidates' response to AOPA,
|
|||||||||||
| Questioning the Training Paradigm | back to top | |
||
Union Decries FAA Change In Controller Training
U.S. Rep. Jerry Costello (D-Ill.), chairman of the House subcommittee on aviation, told the AP that any move by the FAA to lessen certification requirements for controllers would draw a congressional review.
Future UAV Pilots May Skip Real Flying
Also this week, the U.S. Special Operations Command said it expects to take delivery of the first of 10 new A160T Hummingbird UAV helicopters by the end of this year. This new vehicle, which was under development for a decade, weighs three tons and can fly up to 30,000 feet and stay aloft for over 18 hours at a time. As the capabilities of UAVs continue to evolve, it seems inevitable that pressure will increase to expand their use in civilian airspace. |
The FAA wants to change the way air traffic controllers are trained, dividing the job into two specialties for working in either a tower or a radar center. Most controllers currently are trained in
both functions. John Wallin, president of the controllers' union local in Memphis, told 
Unmanned aerial vehicles are becoming more vital all the time to military operations, and as their capabilities develop, demand for trained pilots is expanding. "[UAV] missions are no longer support
operations, they are the operations," USAF Col. Scott Murray told Defense News recently. The Air Force is working on a report, to be released in December, that will lay out plans for UAV development
through 2047, according to
|
|||||||||||
| News Briefs | back to top | |
||
Thielert Hourly Costs Down Slightly
The changes will lower operating costs by about 8 euro ($11) per hour for the 2.0 and about 10 euro ($13) per hour for the 1.7, the company said.
Hawker 4000 Seized In Cigarette-Tax Case
Hall owned and controlled several businesses, including some that deal with wholesale tobacco. Prosecutors allege that companies controlled by Hall and the other defendants improperly stamped some of the cigarettes for sale, avoiding taxes. They carried out the scheme through a variety of means, including communications by Internet and fax and money wire transfers, according to the prosecutors. |
Owners of Thielert aircraft engines who have been impacted by the company's bankruptcy proceedings now can expect some relief, the company said on Monday. Bruno Kubler, insolvency administrator for 
The first
|
|||||||||||
| News Briefs | back to top | |
||
U.S. Pilot Fired On UFO During Cold War
Torres approached the UFO with most of his lights off, checking his instruments with a flashlight. His view was obscured by clouds and he never saw the aircraft. He felt as if he was about to strike the first blow in a war, he told Sun Media.
On the Fly ...Two single-engine Cessnas collided in midair above Colorado on Wednesday, both landed safely and nobody was hurt...
The NTSB has published an update on the South Carolina Lear jet crash that killed four and injured two last month...
Charley Fox, a legendary WWII fighter pilot from Canada who flew a Spitfire in Europe, died last week at age 88...
The popular Copperstate fly-in runs Thursday through Sunday this week in Casa Grande, Arizona...
The largest airship in the world, the Airship Ventures Zeppelin, has successfully been shipped from Germany to Texas and will now fly cross-country to San Francisco...
Atlantic Monthly reporter Jeffrey Goldberg tried, without success, to arouse the suspicion of the Transportation Security Administration. |
Classified British
|
|||||||||||
| What You Missed in AVwebBiz This Week | back to top | |
||
Eclipse Selling Off DayJet Fleet
McCarraher declined to release prices for the aircraft, saying each will be priced individually based on equipment and use. All the aircraft have some factory warranty left and all have been maintained by Eclipse and DayJet. DayJet closed its doors Sept. 20, citing an inability to get financing for expansion. CEO Ed Iaccobucci insisted the per-seat business model was working but without the capital it couldn't be taken to the level needed for efficient, profitable operation.
AVwebBiz: AVweb's Business Aviation Newsletter
|
It wasn't that long ago that the waiting time for an Eclipse 500 was measured in years, but chances are you could have one in a few days if you don't mind a blue stripe down the side. Eclipse Aviation
is holding a 
HAVE YOU SIGNED UP yet for AVweb's NO-COST weekly business aviation newsletter, AVwebBiz? Reporting on breaking news,
Business AVflash focuses on the companies, the products and the industry leaders that make headlines in the business aviation industry. Business AVflash is a must read. Sign up today at
|
|||||||||||
| New on AVweb | back to top | |
||
Columns | Features | What's New | Calendar | Brainteasers
The Savvy Aviator #63: Recommended or Required?Your aircraft is undergoing its annual inspection, and your IA tells you that he has to perform some costly maintenance task because the manufacturer says it's required. But is it really?
Click here for the full story.
Recently, my aircraft management company SAMM was managing the annual inspection of a client's piston-powered, single-engine airplane at a well-known maintenance facility in Texas. The inspection found very little wrong with the airplane, and it looked like the annual would be completed quickly and inexpensively. Then, quite unexpectedly, the IA responsible for the annual went to work for another shop, and a new IA was assigned to take over. Things quickly went downhill after that. The new IA informed us that he would not be able to sign off the annual unless we agreed to have both TCM/Bendix S-20 magnetos overhauled or replaced, something that would add nearly $2,000 to the cost of the annual and delay its completion by at least a week. He stated that the magnetos were required to be replaced or overhauled because they had been in service for more than 4 years. We told the IA we saw absolutely no reason to overhaul or replace the magnetos, and would not approve this work. The IA stubbornly refused to sign off the annual unless this work was done. After several back-and-forth iterations, it became obvious that we were at an impasse with the IA. At that point, we took the only reasonable course of action available to us under the FARs: We directed the IA to sign off the annual with discrepancies, obtained a ferry permit from the local FSDO -- allowing the aircraft to be flown back to its home base -- and then had a local A&P make logbook entries clearing the "non-discrepancy discrepancy" that the IA had recorded, and approving the aircraft for return to service. (The local A&P saw no reason to overhaul or replace the mags either.) For what it's worth, the TCM/Bendix magnetos on my own Cessna T310R have not been replaced or overhauled for 18 years, and I do not plan to overhaul them until the engines are overhauled. I do regular 500-hour disassembly inspections of the mags and that's all that I consider necessary. Most mechanics would agree with this approach.
What Was the IA Thinking?In subsequent correspondence with the general manager of the Texas shop (who was the IA's boss) we learned more about why the new IA had decided to take the action he did. The shop manager wrote,
We had an honest difference of interpretation of the maintenance regulations with respect to TCM magneto time/life. Please allow me to outline our view. To be clear, there are two very different TCM magneto inspection and overhaul/replace criteria to be met.
Why the IA Was Wrong
It is apparent from this correspondence that the IA at the shop in Texas did not arrive at his decision lightly. His position was thoughtful and logical. Unfortunately, it was also wrong. I decided to write this column because I think it's important for aircraft owners and mechanics alike to understand precisely why the IA was wrong, and why the four-year magneto overhaul/replacement is not required. The same logic used by this IA to conclude that the magnetos had to be replaced is also used by many other mechanics and shops to justify all sorts of other maintenance "requirements" that aren't actually required. The Texas IA's principal mistake was misunderstanding the meaning of FAR 43.16:
§43.16. Airworthiness Limitations. The critical point that the IA missed is that TCM SB643 (which he is relying upon for authority on the four-/five-year "requirement") does not contain an "Airworthiness Limitations" section. In fact, according to TCM's Loren Lemen (who is the person responsible for writing TCM's maintenance manuals and ICAs), no current TCM maintenance document contains an "Airworthiness Limitations" section. No Lycoming maintenance document has one, either. Most maintenance manuals for unpressurized piston-powered airplanes do not contain an "Airworthiness Limitations" section. The only ones that do are recently certified Part 23 airplanes like the Cirrus SR2x, Columbia 3/4xx, and Diamond DA-4x -- and for those aircraft, the Airworthiness Limitations section contains just a tiny handful of items, none of them related to magnetos. For instance, the Airworthiness Limitations section of the Cirrus SR22 maintenance manual contains a 10-year parachute repack requirement, a six-year replacement for the parachute-reefing line cutters, and a 15,000-hour life limit on the airframe, and that's about it. So long as a maintenance manual or ICA does not contain an Airworthiness Limitations section (and most do not), FAR 43.16 does not apply. If it does contain an Airworthiness Limitations section, FAR 43.16 applies only to those items in that section. The Texas IA also seemed to ignore the fact that TCM SB643 is a manufacturer's service bulletin and therefore ipso facto non-compulsory for a Part 91 operator. I have an official Letter of Interpretation from the FAA Office of General Counsel that states unequivocally that compliance is never required by regulation with any manufacturer's service bulletin -- even if the manufacturer says it is mandatory. Consequently, I'm fairly certain that there's no such thing as a service bulletin that contains an Airworthiness Limitations section -- it would make no sense to have something that is always compulsory embedded in the middle of something that is never compulsory. Here's the key point that every aircraft owner and mechanic needs to understand: No manufacturer can mandate any maintenance requirement on a Part 91 aircraft owner; only the FAA can do so. The FAA may mandate a maintenance requirement in three different ways:
If a maintenance requirement is not mandated by the FAA in one of these three ways, then it is not required by regulation for a Part 91 operator.
Recommendation vs. RequirementThe manager of the Texas shop also spoke about a 500-hour time-in-service inspection "requirement" for mags. This disassembly inspection is not a regulatory requirement either, only a manufacturer recommendation. It happens to be a good recommendation, and one that I agree with wholeheartedly. I do this 500-hour inspection on my own aircraft and always have it done on the aircraft my company manages, because I believe that it is important to ensure continued reliable operation of the magnetos. However, I never refer to the 500-hour mag inspection as a "requirement" because it is not. It's simply a recommendation, and a good one. Many operators go far beyond 500 hours without opening up their magnetos for inspection, and while they may be imprudent in doing so, they are not in contravention of any FAA regulation. Now, it's very likely that the Texas shop works on multiengine turbine aircraft and large aircraft above 12,500 pounds gross weight. The rules for those aircraft are completely different; they are required to be maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's recommended maintenance program. Thus, for such aircraft, a manufacturer's recommendation does become a regulatory requirement. But small piston or single-engine turbine aircraft are maintained under a far-less-exacting set of rules, the requirements for which are set forth in Part 43 Appendix D. Those aircraft are not required to be maintained in accordance with manufacturer recommendations. For such aircraft, manufacturer's recommendations are only that: recommendations. When I maintain my own airplane, or advise my clients on how to maintain their aircraft, I suggest following manufacturer's recommendations when they make sense, and to disregard them when they do not make sense. The Texas IA and I seem to agree that arbitrarily replacing or overhauling magnetos every four years does not make sense. The difference is that he believed it was required, while I know it is not.
Methods, Techniques and Practices
Another much misunderstood regulation is FAR 43.13, which states in part:
§43.13 - Performance rules (general). This regulation is often misinterpreted by mechanics to mean, "If it's in the maintenance manual, then you have to do it." But that's not what it means, at least for Part 91 operators of small piston or single-engine turbine aircraft. The key to understanding FAR 43.13 is the phrase "methods, techniques and practices." That phrase refers to how to do something, not when to do something. In other words, if the manufacturer's maintenance manual or ICAs tells us to do some maintenance task every 500 hours or four years or 2500 landings (or whatever), that's simply a recommended interval and we (as Part 91 operators) aren't required to comply with those times if we don't want to. However, if we ultimately decide to perform the task at some point, then we are obligated to do it in precisely the fashion spelled out by the manufacturer in the maintenance manual or ICAs. The manufacturer's "how-to" instructions are compulsory, but the manufacturer's "when-to" instructions are not. For example, suppose the maintenance manual tells us to remove, clean, gap, rotate and reinstall spark plugs every 100 hours. This is merely a recommended interval, and we're not required to do it every 100 hours if we don't want to. However, if the maintenance manual tells us to torque the spark plugs to 330 ±30 inch-pounds, then whenever we decide to do spark-plug maintenance, we are required to install the plugs to the manufacturer-prescribed torque. The 100-hour interval is a "when-to" (and therefore not mandatory), while the 330 ±30 inch-pound torque is a "how-to" (and therefore mandatory). The exception is that a "when-to" becomes mandatory if it is prescribed in (1) the aircraft, engine or propeller TCDS, (2) an "Airworthiness Limitations" section of the maintenance manual or ICA, or (3) an Airworthiness Directive.
EpilogueThe general manager of the Texas shop was not an A&P or IA himself, so he had relied on his IAs to ensure compliance with FAA regulations. But I found the general manager to be an extremely intelligent, well-educated and thoughtful person. I had him pull out a copy of Part 43 and of TCM SB643 and we walked him through those documents together much as I have done in this column. After reading the regulations and the service bulletin with his own eyes, the general manager agreed that I was right and that his IAs were wrong, and promised to give them a little remedial education in this area. We've now got another client's airplane undergoing an annual inspection at this same shop, and I don't expect that we'll run into this problem again. See you next month.
Want to read more from Mike Busch? Check out the rest of his Savvy Aviator columns. // -->
Across the Pond #22: Report from Europe
AVweb's European correspondent Liz Moscrop pays a fond farewell to the Robin and the Kestrel manufacturers and tells why it is vital to speak up in Europe now.
Click here for the full story.
Bad News For British Radio UsersBritain's Office of Communications (OFCOM) is proposing all users of U.K. airspace -- i.e., airports and air-navigation service providers -- should pay an "administrative incentive pricing" charge for using radio spectrum. According to the Association of European Airlines (AEA) the new pricing scheme is merely "a euphemism for tax" that will add £60 million ($105 million) a year to the U.K. treasury's coffers. AEA also points out that U.K. airlines, airports and general aviation (GA) will become less competitive, since no other governments charge. OFCOM's response is that it is simply suggesting that aviation and marine sectors be brought in line with other services that use the spectrum, including radio and television. Police and ambulance services are already charged. It is possible to comment here on the proposed charges until Oct. 30.
Importance Of Speaking Up
IAOPA-Europe reports that Eurocontrol's director general David McMillan has warned that GA must ensure that its "voice really is heard" as European consultations continue on the development phase of the Single European Sky SESAR. He indicated to IAOPA that the regulators are aware that GA should not be penalized as new airspace regulations are formulated. He said, "I'm conscious that there's a direct link between the levels of equipment that we regulators impose on people and airspace access issues, and we need to find the right balance between the two. It doesn't seem to me that it's in anybody's interest to regulate a level, either in terms of airspace classification or equipage, that prevents GA doing what seem to me to be a very legitimate set of activities. We need to get that balance right."
EASA Extends FCL Discussions Deadline To DecemberA great place to speak up is via the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Web site. EASA has extended the deadline for responses to some of the most far-reaching discussions to impact GA to December 15, two months later than its original deadline of mid-October. New regulations for flight-crew licensing will attempt to bring all European pilots under the same umbrella, with rules implemented by EASA. The discussions cover the new Leisure pilot license, an overhaul of the IMC rating and medical assessment, among other key issues. Regional AOPAs are urging their members to log on and respond. AOPA France reports that in the last 18 months 200 French Private pilots obtained an American Instrument rating. The French pilots' group is calling for an Instrument rating "adapted for Private pilots" (much as the IMC rating is available for U.K. Private pilots). The association says that in North America more half of private pilots are qualified to fly on instruments and that proportionally PPLs are safer. On a similar note, Martin Robinson, chief executive of AOPA-U.K., is calling for pilots to complete an online survey on the current IMC. Germany's AOPA Web site concentrates on the potential pitfalls of over zealous license revalidation. Should a pilot fail an onerous theory test, says AOPA, he or she may abandon flying completely. EASA says that it has "further extended the consultation period due to the importance of the subject." The relevant documents NPA 2008-17 a, b and c are available here. Be warned: NPA 2008-17b is 647 pages long (4.5 Mb). To comment on the new rules go to this page at EASA.
GPS Approach for UK's Shoreham AirportPointing the way to a good reason to retain the IMC in the U.K. is the U.K.'s first approved RNAV Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) non-precision approach for GA to use with a GPS. The GPS approach will be introduced at Shoreham Airport. Details of the approach at Shoreham are included in the U.K. Air Pilot update published on Oct. 9, and the approach will be available to aircraft and crew meeting the necessary requirements starting on Nov. 20. Richard Taylor, Chairman of the CAA's Communications, Navigation and Surveillance for Air Traffic Management (CNS/ATM) Steering Group, said, "The introduction of the GPS approach at Shoreham Airport is a significant development in the on-going project to make GNSS non-precision approaches available to U.K. GA pilots." Pilots flying the approach must have a current Instrument rating or IMC rating. Taylor added, "Now the first approach has been introduced at Shoreham we hope to see other airfields follow. We would encourage any other airfield meeting the criteria that wishes to add an approach to contact us for assistance and guidance."
Green Taxes?
Elsewhere in Europe the European Commission imposed a new tax on Swedish avgas, equating to around one US$1 per liter for "private pleasure flying." Since personal pleasure flying is only a tiny fraction of the community who use avgas, mountains of extra work are created, as those who are eligible must claim the new tax back. The EC has refused to consider tax reductions for cleaner, lead-free avgas, which is the majority of avgas sold in Sweden. Ironically, the European Parliament looks set to take a tougher stance on aviation emissions by revamping the European Union emissions trading scheme. The Environment committee proposes that aviation buy 20 percent of its carbon credits at auction from 2013, gradually increasing to 100 percent in 2020, as well as introducing annual reductions on aviation emissions. The committee will also try to subject aviation to a 5-percent higher level of auctioning than other sectors. Parliament will vote on the amendments on Dec. 16. Ministers were due to meet at the EU Environment Council on Oct. 20-22 to debate the topic further.
Fight Instructor Training Camp at EgelsbachAOPA Germany's flight instructor training takes place twice annually alternately in Egelsbach and Braunschweig. This year the course is in Egelsbach on the weekend of Oct. 25-26. The advanced education course fulfills the prerequisites for extension and renewal of CFI Airplane, Helicopter, and Instrument (Airplane or Helicopter). Interested parties can register at AOPA Germany. Costs are €130 (including tax) for AOPA members and €180 for non-members. You can get the registration form here.
Credit Crunch Bites Europe's Manufacturers
French aircraft manufacturer Apex Aviation has been put into liquidation by a court in France. The company built Robin and CAP aircraft. In Farnborough, U.K., the company behind the Farnborough F1 Kestrel is now in administration. The six-seat, single-engine, turboprop design was intended to be an air-taxi vehicle. Only one prototype was built, which first flew in 2006.
New Owners For Europa
On a brighter note, Britain's Swift Aircraft has bought British homebuilt firm Europa Aircraft. The Europa is the most popular kit-build in the U.K. The company says it has sold more than 1,000 models over the last two decades. Europa will continue to operate from its Yorkshire home.
For more aviation news and information from Europe, read the rest of Liz Moscrop's columns. // -->
AVweb Insider Blog: Fresh Blood for Aviation, One Waiter at a Time
|
We've all heard how difficult it is to get new people involved in aviation, and at this year's NBAA Convention AVweb Editor-in-Chief saw how easy it can be to spark an interest in aviation
— and why it doesn't always work out. Russ shares his tale (and that of Dan-the-possible-pilot-in-waiting) in the latest installment of our AVweb Insider blog.
|
|||||||||||
| The Top Reporter on Our Crack Staff ... Is You! | back to top | |
||
Question of the Week: How Much Specialization Is Too Much?This Week's Question | Previous Week's Answers PREVIOUS RESULTS *** Last week, we asked about the TSA's proposed Large Aircraft Security Program rule. A full 52% of readers who took time to participate in our poll told us this was the tip of the iceberg for regulations that will kill GA as we know it. At the other end of the spectrum, on only five of you (!) called it a reasonable rule. (Although another 17 readers called it mostly reasonable.) For a complete (real-time) breakdown of reader responses, click here. THIS WEEK'S QUESTION *** This week, the FAA said it wants to create separate training regimens for tower and radar controllers, and the Air Force said its next batch of UAV pilots won't have actual flying experience. AVweb wonders if this kind of specialization is a good idea.
Have an idea for a new "Question of the Week"? Send your suggestions to . NOTE:
AVweb's Newstips Address ...
|
Our best stories start with you. If you've heard something 200,000 pilots might want to know about, tell us. Submit news tips
via email to
|
||||||||||
| Your Favorite FBOs | back to top | |
||
FBO of the Week: Homestead Executive Jet Center (X51, Homestead, FL)
Nominate an FBO | Rules | Tips | Questions | Winning FBOs
AVweb's "FBO of the Week" ribbon goes to Homestead Executive Jet Center at X51 in Homestead, Florida.
AVweb reader Skip Weld has been there twice and found them to be an outstanding FBO on both visits, going "far beyond what a normal good staff would do":
They have offered to stay late or open after hours ... [even] offering me the code for the pilots room so I could wait out bad weather in comfort. When I was too tired to fight bad weather, they made sure I got into a reasonably priced hotel at a good price, made sure I knew where to eat, and picked me up the next morning and brought me to the airport. All because I filled up with fairly-priced self-serve gas. (They also have full serve.) It is clean and neat [and] doesn't have gold-colored fixtures in the bathroom! ... I will be back every time I am going to the Homestead race track.
Keep those nominations coming. For complete contest rules, click here.
AVweb is actively seeking out the best FBOs in the country and another one, submitted by you, will be spotlighted here next Monday! |
|
|||||||||||
and
| AVweb Media: Look, Listen, Laugh and Learn | back to top | |
||
AVweb's NBAA Convention 2008 Video Round-UpOriginal, Exclusive Videos from AVweb | Reader-Submitted & Viral Videos
Related Content: |
and
|
||||||||||
| Reader-Submitted Photos | back to top | |
||
Picture of the Week: AVweb's Flying Photography ShowcaseSubmit a Photo | Rules | Tips | Questions | Past Winners Each week, we go through dozens (and sometimes hundreds) of reader-submitted photos and pick the very best to share with you on Thursday mornings. The top photos are featured on AVweb's home page, and one photo that stands above the others is awarded an AVweb baseball cap as our "Picture of the Week." Want to see your photo on AVweb.com? Click here to submit it to our weekly contest. *** THIS WEEK'S WINNERS *** Opening copy
Want to see more reader-submitted photos? O.K., we guess you've got some time before those reports are due, so we'll help you goof off a little longer. Cruise on over to AVweb's home page and scroll down to the slideshow to see all the "POTW" entries we couldn't squeeze in here. Click here to submit your own photos to "POTW." — A quick note for submitters: If you've got several photos that you feel are "POTW" material, your best bet is to submit them one-a-week! That gives your photos a greater chance of seeing print on AVweb, and it makes the selection process a little easier on us, too. ;)
A Reminder About Copyrights: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
| Names Behind the News | back to top | |
||
Meet the AVwebFlash TeamAVwebFlash is a weekly summary of the latest news, articles, products, features, and events featured on AVweb, the internet's aviation magazine and news service.
The AVwebFlash team is:
Click here to send a letter to the editor. (Please let us know if your letter is not intended for publication.)
Comments or questions about the news should be sent here.
Have a product or service to advertise on AVweb? A question on marketing? Send it to AVweb's sales team.
If you're having trouble reading this newsletter in its HTML-rich format (or if you'd prefer a lighter, simpler format for your PDA or handheld device), there's also a text-only version of AVwebFlash. For complete instructions on making the switch, click here.
Aviate. Navigate. Communicate. |
