AVmail
AVmailSelected email from AVweb members. Contributions for possible publication in AVmail are welcome at editor@avweb.com. The views expressed in this section are strictly those of the contributors, and are not necessarily shared by AVweb, its staff or management.
NOTE: If we select your email for publication, we reserve the right to edit it for length and to excise language we deem offensive. We will post your name unless you specifically ask us not to do so.
| Gary
Evenson
30 Mar 2001 |
Weather-Related Ground Holds AVweb wrote:
Gets a little dicey when everyone wants to deviate -- toward the same hole.
|
| S. A.
Fisher
30 Mar 2001 |
Leadplanes in Aerial Firefighting AVweb wrote:
I am one of those who flies a leadplane on fires - there are about 30 of us total, all federal employees. In the past 10 years there have been 10 Airtanker (contract retardant bomber) crashes involving fatalities - not one of them was following a Leadplane at the time of the accident. This is the scenario that the US Forest Service aviation safety management claims is unsafe. To recap, there have been no accidents in the last 10 years on a fire with a Leadplane in front guiding the tanker into the drop. We clear the path - including the exit - for vertical hazards (trees/snags), horizontal hazards (power lines), turbulent air, low visibility, and other incident aircraft. There was a Leadplane fatality (low altitude stall - unrecoverable) about 12 years ago - practices were modified to significantly reduce a repeat of this type of accident. There was also a collision in 1994 in the traffic pattern - while landing - between an Airtanker (DC-4)and a Leadplane (Baron) resulting in 3 fatalities. The Forest Service subsequntly outfitted all Leadplanes with TCAS. So current aircraft have collision avoidance systems. No other class of aircraft on the fire, either contractor or government owned, are required to have TCAS - only the Leadplanes. Those close calls you mention were predominatley rotor wing aircraft and other fixed wing aircraft not doing the Leadplane mission. Five percent (ie two) were Leadplane and/or Airtanker incidents that were essentially over run situations for which we have procedures - just like going lost wingman in the military. Those procedures were executed but it was required that a hazard record be filed in those situations. The Bureau of Land Management also flies Leadplanes, although they are crewed by two people (pilot and firecontrol officer) and they will continue to fly Lead runs with Airtankers 1/4 to 1/2 mile in trail because they disagree that it is safer to fly without a guiding aircraft in hazy, turbulent, low altitude (200-500 feet AGL) conditions. Virtually all (more than 98%) of the Leadplane and Airtanker pilots agree that the proposed changes will transfer and multiply the risk to the Airtanker pilots. Like many things that are put out by the Press Release folks in the government there is more than meets the ear to what is being said. |
| Craig
Haw
29 Mar 2001 |
Flight and Duty Time Limits AVweb wrote:
This has been in the works for way too long now and the NTSB has made recommendations, the FAA was going to have a final rule back in 1996, then the aviation rule making advisory comity got into it and was passed off to NASA and the AMES group for more study! My concern here is to improve the horrible safety record here in Alaska, look at the record! and what goes on here. Take one of my flight sheets that shows duty and flight times of 22 and 18 hours. How can anyone call this safe? I confronted our Chief Pilot on this and he opened a full file drawer in His desk and said, "See that? Those are resumes..." and closed the file. I then took this to the Director of Operations and informed him that this long of a day was not acceptable and asked for some relief, He promptly informed me that it was a legal trip and if I did not like it to change the federal law. At this point some crew members asked the FAA for some help and I wrote some letters to inquire on the interpretation of international rules in intrastate operation and have had nothing but sidestepping and buck-passing from what appears to be a dysfunctional FAA . Well after the FAA failed to provide any relief the crew members voted for a union, and the company management made an all out attack on pilot group and the war has been costly for all and there is no end in sight. Alaska is a beautiful place to fly but one must be acutely aware of the inherent dangers that lurk throughout this state. The turn over now is extremely high now so I see young pilots with very little time stepping up to fly with no clue as to they are up against let alone greedy operators who paint a bright picture about how concerned they are on the safety issue and how the company is formats looking out for them. In the last 28 years flying up here, I can tell you that the smallest error in judgment or lack of front seat experience on how powerful the weather really is and not what some dispatcher is reading from some more often or not bogus report. Flying here used to be a career but it now has evolved into a training ground and the level of experience has seriously diminished. So if you feel bulletproof and can't be killed by a BUICK you can probably find work flying here.
|
| Phil
Bertram
29 Mar 2001 |
Another Fee for Mexico Pilots I just got back from another trip down to Mexico. I flew across to Sonora and then down to Cabo and back. They have a new Commandante in San Felipe named Martha. She is real nice, friendly and cheerful, just a wonderful lady. I still think it's the best Airport Of Entry in Baja. However, she noticed that my plane is registered under a corporate name. A lot of us do this for tax reasons and to isolate ourselves from liability in the event something may go wrong. (Knock on wood here). She handed me a new form for a permit that she said would need to be sent to Mexico City before I came back next time. She said it is required for all corporate aircraft operating in Mexico. I told her that I was not doing business in Mexico, but that I have my plane in a corporation for the above stated reasons. She said that was not the point. The point is it is a corporate aircraft therefore it needs a corporate permit. I still checking into this but I'm afraid if it is true, the cost of flying in Mexico is going up again. AVweb responds... Please keep us posted on this, Phil. Like you, my airplane is registered in corporate name, and I'll bet this could affect lots of us. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Michael
Muetzel
29 Mar 2001 |
Grand Canyon National Park AVweb reported the ongoing debate regarding the Grand Canyon airspace. I followed your link to read the government description of what will happen. There is a significant precedent being set regarding aircraft overflights that is going uncontested, for the most part. It regards the National Historic Preservation Act, which some people may regard as a "payback" to the Indians for our "rape" of their culture. In reality, it is Pandora's box. The GCNP rules first phase will implement the modification to the SFRA boundary, as contained in the April 2000 final rule, by extending the SFRA boundary over the Navajo Nation lands five miles to the east. This phased process will provide for the elimination of overflights of some of the traditional cultural properties identified by Native American Tribes during the National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 consultation process. That means the Federal government is providing special protection to a minority of citizens who have identified areas they don't want aircraft to fly over. Since discrimination on the basis of race or religion is prohibited, what next? Prohibitions on flying over the Crystal Cathedral? Cowboy Stadium? Satanist rituals? We need to speak up, or the airspace will be a narrow trail between airline hubs. |
| Philip
Terpstra
29 Mar 2001 |
Airbus 380 It's good to see that Boeing is not trying to compete with the Airbus 380. Airbus has been distributing propaganda, saying that their new aircraft will be virtual hotels in the sky, with showers, shopping centers and many other amenities on board. The B-747 is already big enough to have all those things, but none of the airlines will equip their aircraft that way. Instead, most passengers are crammed in to tight spots for the terribly long flights. When the 747 first came out, marketing offered images of the plane being loaded with 4 or more jetways. In reality, it's always just ONE jetway. I've made many miserable trips to Southeast Asia as a passenger with US and Asian airlines. The boarding gates are usually chaos because 450 passengers jam the area at once -- the masses pay no attention to row numbers called. In "steerage class" you sit with your knees against your chin for 14 hours on board a huge spacious widebody jet. The Airbus 380 would only make this so much worse. A much better idea is smaller long-range aircraft with more restrooms per capita. Many carriers crossing the Atlantic have sold their 747s in favor of long-range 767s that allow passengers to go directly to the smaller cities they prefer, rather than crowding everyone onto 747s and then forcing most passengers to make connections on to where they really wanted to go in the first place. As a pilot I've flown both passenger and cargo jets. Cargo is much better. I'd feel sorry for Airbus 380 pilots having to deal with 900 angry passengers on a delayed flight. Pilots are blamed for any problem that arises. The Airbus 380 is really a bad idea and it's good to see that British Airways has canceled its plans to buy any of them. |
| Wayne
Landis
27 Mar 2001 |
IFR Training in IMC Nice article by Rick Durden. I agree that instrument students do need to fly in clouds when they are ready. I usually find that it takes more than five hours of dual before the student is ready to actually fly into a cloud. However, by the cross-country phase of training, flying in clouds is fun. I teach north of Seattle along the Cascades and icing is a clear problem for half of the year. Often the freezing level is below the MEAs, providing few alternatives but to wait for better weather. The best part of training in actual is the transition from actual to the visual on the approach. ILS approaches are not too bad because the airplane tends to be lined up fairly well. NDB approaches are another animal, high minimums, not a lot of accuracy, and usually (here at least) mountains sticking up into the clouds. Again, nice discussion
|
| Phil
Myers
27 Mar 2001 |
New Cessnas Singles I just finished reading Mike Busch's comprehensive article on the 1997 and 1998 new Cessna singles ("The New Cessna Singles: Who's Going to Buy Them?"). I am considering purchasing either a new 172 Skyhawk SP or a 1999-2000 182 and was wondering if your opinion of the new Cessna singles has been further substantiated in recent years, or whether Mike has had second thoughts since he reviewed these planes in 1997. I am still a student but will be purchasing in the next six months. Mike's article was wonderful for the newly initiated in that it also tells us neophytes what we should be looking for in an aircraft! Thanks!
AVweb responds... Phil, in the years following the time I wrote that article, the Independence-produced Cessna singles went through a succession of ADs, service bulletins and special service projects reflecting some early quality assurance problems. For awhile, it seemed like a month didn't pass without some new problem surfacing, and we wondered if the folks in Independence would ever get their act together. It appears that they did, however, because it's been quite some time since we received reports of manufacturing problems with these airplanes. All the information I have indicates that the Independence plant is now turning out first-rate airplanes. They may not have the sex appeal of a Cirrus SR22 or Columbia 400, but they're solid, reliable, well-supported airplanes. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Carl
Barne
27 Mar 2001 |
IFR Training in IMC I would suggest that instructors always take new VFR private pilots on a real IFR flight
As a young VFR pilot I got up into the bases one night and had real trouble. If I had flown straight into a cloud I probably would have been done for. Once you go on a real IFR flight where you climb up through the clouds, fly on top in the sunshine and make the decent down and land it is so cool you are hooked plus you see it is possible and how useful it is to be able to get on top. For a long time I thought it would be extremely difficult and something only airline pilots should be doing. So just my sales pitch, if you want a steady flow of IFR student make sure your new private pilots get a taste of IFR+IMC. AVweb responds... I'm with you 100% on this, Carl. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Jay
Mason
26 Mar 2001 |
IFR Training in IMC Rick Durden has done it again: a great article that addresses a common argument among instructors, even here in sunny So. California. I'm sure you'll get lots of comments either way, but I'm solidly in the "train in as much actual as possible" camp. You addressed all the thoughts I've had on this topic, and several that never crossed my mind. For those CFI's who are like our compadre from the ab initio program, here are a couple of more thoughts. I've had a couple of students who were doing just fine under the hood, in VFR conditions. In one case, upon entering a cloud the first time, a student just came unglued. How are you going to evaluate that response, or the potential for it, if you don't take them up in the clouds? I TOTALLY agree that I want to be there with them the first time these experiences occur, for all the reasons you cite. Further, several airline pilot friends have told me that a pilot ought to be fairly experienced with IFR flying before going to interview with their company. One said, "be sure operating in the IFR system IN WEATHER is like driving your commute in the rain". So the ab initio types need to get more comfortable with it, and no, I don't think the regionals and commuters are going to overlook a pilot's nervousness and lack of experience in IFR flying that would show up in the pressure of a simulator evaluation. Sure, the new FO is going to get seasoning and learn from the (hopefully) more experienced captains, but every airline I've heard about makes every other leg the First Officers'!! |
| John
Cropa
26 Mar 2001 |
IFR Training in IMC Instrument training should have flying in ACTUAL IMC conditions, Try flying at night in a cloud --.it is a completely different world .It takes a lot of skill to fly in actual IMC conditions. It isn't required because it is hard to schedule and adds cost get the rating.To get my PP cert. I was thought to take off in 0-0 conditions which was easy until I went up at night into a low ceiling IMC. Simulation will never replace ACTUAL. |
| Hank
Sproull
27 Mar 2001 |
NTSB Proposes AD for Cessna Landing Gear Struts I would like to comment on the NTSB recommendation on increased inspections for Cessna 170,180,185 etc spring steel landing gear. We have operated C180 & C185 Since the late fifties for the 180's and early 60's for the 185's.We mainly used these aircraft on wheel/skis Genair C3200's and after extensive snow landings on the glaciers in New Zealand these legs starting cracking on the lower section of the leg from the top axle bolt attachment holes. We then adopted the practice of magnetic particle inspection of the lower leg each 100 hours. The cracking was due to the twisting motion of the skis and no cracking was found on any other section of the leg. We would remove the leg from the aircraft each 500 hours, paint-strip, MPI, repaint and refit. Today we retire these spring steel legs at 1000 hours time in service on ski work and up until 1987 our Cessna 185 fleet had flown 42,000 hrs, 73,000 ski landings and 86,000 wheel landings and no failures of the upper leg. Really what I'm saying is if the legs are maintained properly and the aircraft is operated on wheels then these legs will serve the aircraft well and trouble-free. Mechanics fail to realise that rust or nicks in these legs if untreated will cause a failure. How many maintenance technicians know about the underside of the leg being shot penned? In the 28 years I have been involved with these aircraft I have come to admire the spring steel gear leg as a simple, cost-efficient undercarriage system. How many times do we see ADs raised only because someone has tried to cut corners with maintenance?
AVweb responds... From your mouth to the FAA's ear, Hank! Sounds like your operational data is precisely the sort of thing the FAA needs to make an intelligent decision on what to do with regard to this matter. I couldn't agree with you more -- way too many ADs are the result of a few badly-maintained apples in the barrel, and the rest of us wind up suffering the results. On the other hand, in the past year or two the FAA has shown increased willingness to listen to use input before issuing an AD, a trend we sincerely hope will continue. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Ed
Herlik
26 Mar 2001 |
ATC Delegation of Decision to Pilots AVweb wrote:
This 'pilot choice' system has been the norm in the United Kingdom for many years. In airspace outside a crowded corridor north and west of London and below 24,500', pilots tell controller where the plane's going. And that's regardless of the weather. Check it out. It's quite an adjustment for American pilots. AVweb responds... Very interesting, Ed. Of course, some of us pilots have been doing the same thing in U.S. airspace for years. <g> --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| David
Green
26 Mar 2001 |
IFR Training in IMC I enjoyed Rick Durden's recent article on the need to train in IMC. I am a private pilot/attorney from the NYC area and own a Cessna 182. After the death of JFK, I closed my practice for three weeks and obtained my instrument rating, flying mostly in VMC. Although I have in excess of 600 hours total time (and nearly 100 hours hood time), I feel a complete lack of confidence to actually fly in IMC without an instructor on board. Moreover, most local flight instructors will not fly in IMC in an owner's aircraft. Do you have any suggestions?
AVweb responds... Davis, maybe it's because they know you're a lawyer. <g> All kidding aside ... Like Rick Durden, I'm a CFII who believes passionately in exposing my instrument students to actual IMC (especially low ceilings, turbulence and icing) before turning them loose. Like you, I did my instrument training in the New York City area (35 years ago) and my CFII did not instruct in actual IMC. I remember my first encounter with ice, flying a Cherokee 140 and quite alone in the airplane -- it was only a trace of rime but I was nervous as hell. Years later when I got my CFII, I vowed never to let one of my instrument students be similarly alone when they first get their feet wet. I have to believe that there are lots of other CFIIs who think along the same lines. With any luck, some like-minded CFIIs from the New York area will read this and contact you. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Don
Mitchell
26 Mar 2001 |
Big-Screen IFR: Garmin's GNS 530 Mike Busch received so many well-deserved comments on his GNS 530 article (including one from me) because he set a new standard for reviews. FLYING Magazine's recent review of the GX60 and MX20 sets a different standard -- the graphics were such bad quality that they detracted from a reasonably well-written article. Mike's graphics over the 'net were better than those in an offset-printed magazine -- who would have thought! AVweb responds... On the other hand, Don, my GNS 530 review included more than 100 graphics, a feat that would be difficult to duplicate in any paper publication due to copyfitting constraints. For in-depth coverage of any subject, it's hard to beat the Internet as a delivery vehicle. I agree with you, however, that there's no excuse for poor-quality graphics in a publication like FLYING. And I thank you for the kind words about my Garmin GNS 530 article. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Barbara
Burian
26 Mar 2001 |
IFR Training in IMC I found Rick Durden's recent column about taking IFR students into real IMC to be quite interesting and I agree with much that he had to say. However, I am curious what Rick and his CFI colleagues think about taking primary student pilots into marginal weather conditions while they are working on their private certificates. I recently completed a survey of newly certificated private pilots regarding the weather training they received while student pilots (I also surveyed CFIs but didn't get much of a response so am in the process of surveying them again). Some of the questions I asked were if they had gone into marginal conditions during training, why, what types of marginal conditions they had flown into, and what impact this experience had regarding future flights into similar conditions on their own. Of the 69 private pilots who said they had flown in marginal conditions with their CFIs during training, 47 (68.1%) said that they would be more confident of their abilities to handle similar conditions on their own but would not be comfortable doing so. Only 4 (5.8%) said that they would be less confident of their abilities to handle similar conditions on their own and would not be comfortable doing so. 15 (21.7%) said they would be more confident to fly in similar marginal conditions on their own and would be comfortable doing so, 1 (1.4%) would be more confident to fly in even worse marginal conditions on his/her own and would be comfortable doing so, and 2 (2.9%) would be more confident of their abilities to fly in even worse marginal conditions on their own but would not be comfortable doing so. Also, 19 (27.5%) of those responding said that they had flown in marginal conditions during training, not because their instructors wanted to show them what such conditions were like, but instead because they (the students? the CFIs?) had wanted to complete a flight or some training that day......nicely demonstrating "get-home-itis" behavior in a training context.... Some CFIs that I interviewed before constructing the survey said that they took students into marginal conditions to show them how bad such conditions could be so the students would be less likely to fly in those conditions in the future on their own. If this is the intent, then do we want our students to be more or less comfortable with their abilities to handle such conditions? (Clearly we want our students to be able to handle inadvertent flight into IMC -- hence the hood time requirement for private pilots.) However, is it possible that flight into actual marginal conditions is having an unintended effect on students feeling that they can handle marginal conditions and thus, perhaps related to later VFR flight into IMC? I'm not sure what my thoughts are on this but think that it is an interesting and important debate.
AVweb responds... That's fascinating, Barbara. It would also be interesting to learn what the effect would be of CFI's taking primary students on an IFR flight in actual IMC as a motivator for those students to continue their training through the instrument rating. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Steve
Elefant
26 Mar 2001 |
Flying After SCUBA Diving I understand that the recommendation regarding SCUBA diving and flying have recently changed from waiting 24 hours to 12 hours. Have you heard about this change to 12 hours? What are your thoughts? I have heard that the previous 24 hour rule was mostly being very conservative that if a jet had a rapid decompression, you could get the altitude decompression sickness. I am planning trip to the Caribbean in a Piper Navajo with lots of diving and flying and am concerned. Most (if not all) dives will be less than 100' and most flights will be less than 10,000' (un-pressurized but with oxygen available). Would Nitrox diving be any better for me? Also, while I am thinking of it, do you have any suggestions for what my blood oxygen saturation (pulse oximeter reading) should be, and at what levels I should be concerned?
AVweb responds... Steve, you're right, the flying-after-SCUBA recommendations are very conservative. If you can keep your last day of diving to shallow levels, then 12 hours overnight before flying would be very reasonable. I do not believe Nitrox will be necessary. Your blood oxygen saturation levels (SpO2) living at low elevations in California should be in the 95-100% range. I recommend that you SHOULD consider using supplemental oxygen when your SpO2 drops 5 percentage points below your home level, and that you MUST use oxygen if it drops 10 percentage points below your home level. --Brent Blue M.D., Senior AME, Aviation Medicine Editor |
| Michael
Vivian
26 Mar 2001 |
NTSB Proposes AD for Cessna Landing Gear Struts Clearly the new inspection criteria proposed by the FAA is above and beyond what is necessary and is clearly another indicator of the TOO MUCH GOVERNMENT approach by the FAA. Operators in Alaska may indeed have to inspect, on an annual basis, but certainly not so frequently as each 100 hours as is proposed. If anything, the number of landing events should be included into the inspection criteria. AVweb responds... Michael, don't be so hasty to condemn the FAA. So far, this is strictly an NTSB recommendation. The FAA has not yet indicated whether it has any intention of publishing an NPRM for an AD, much less issuing a Final Rule. Remember that the NTSB is not required to perform any cost/benefit analysis when it issues a safety recommendation, but the FAA must do so as part of any proposed rulemaking action. We frankly don't think this particular recommendation will survive such an analysis. Also keep in mind that this recommendation was the product of a narrow 3-to-2 vote of the NTSB. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Pat
Trenner
26 Mar 2001 |
MIR Space Station's Last 'Hoorah' Allow me to express gratitude on behalf of word people everywhere for NOT referring to Mir's final resting place as a watery grave. |
| R.
Wolff
26 Mar 01 |
Flying to Your Floating City News coverage of the Freedom Ship, the first civilian aircraft carrier, seems to have glossed over a couple of points. First of all, a runway on a ship is subject to pitch and roll, unlike a runway on land (recent events at Sea-Tac and Boeing Field notwithstanding). This adds a level of complication to takeoffs, and especially landings, that anyone not trained in carrier operations may have trouble with. More insidious is the fact that aircraft on the deck will be exposed to salt spray. Naval aircraft and seaplanes are designed for use in a hostile environment, are equipped with additional corrosion protection, and their operators know to take additional care in cleaning and inspecting them. How many incidents will arise where landplanes suffer failures due to salt-induced corrosion resulting from their being operated in an environment they were never meant to deal with? |
| Name
Withheld
22 Mar 2001 |
Continental Air-Rage Trial As I watch the trial of the young man accused of breaking the neck of a Continental Air Lines gate agent last year at EWR, I recall the following: A year ago November my in-laws and I were en-route from Newark to Miami, we were about to pre-board (my mother-in-law really needs that extra time) an officious gate agent tried to stop us and send us back into the check-in line. Seems they were confused and wanted everyone to re-check their boarding passes even after they had begun pre-boarding. Obviously, that meant we'd miss the pre-board opportunity and half to get an elderly woman aboard amidst the struggling coach crowd. We made it clear we were none too happy and ended up having a confrontation with the gate-agent, who was the height of insensitivity. Of course, they then decided they didn't need to re-issue all 200 boarding passes after all, and turned the crowd loose. Now, this particular gate agent seemed to relish the opportunity to make passengers miserable. He seemed to enjoy causing trouble. You know when you get the feeling that this guy is liking it? I couldn't swear to it in a court of law, but when I saw the photo of the gate agent who was foolish enough to get between a father and his toddler who had toddled off down the jetway, I thought "My God, that's the guy who treated us so callously when we were flying to Miami!" Now I don't hold much with "blame the victim," but if this was the guy and if our experience was any indication, he had been "cruisin' for a bruisin'" for some time. And I'm hard-pressed to work up any sympathy who gets between a father and a child in danger, and gets hurt as a result. Just as it's a fool who gets between a she-bear and her cubs. Both a recipe for major trauma, and just a damn fool thing to do. Please withhold my name. |
| John H.
Cook
22 Mar 2001 |
Big-Screen IFR: Garmin's GNS 530 I've read several of Mike Busch's fine reviews -- the one on the Garmin GNS 530 and more recently, the one on the Sandel SN3308 EFIS. Fine work! I have a Garmin GNS 430 installed in my '89 Turbo Arrow and consider it to be the finest addition to the fairly well-equipped avionics rack(s). While at Hill Aviation in ATL, who installed the 430, the radio shop tech showed me a C-210 in which they had just installed the Sandel SN3308. Sharp, but it wasn't necessary to sell me on the idea of a glass HSI, as I'd flown the MD-80 (Douglas Death Tube) with its partial glass cockpit (ADI and HSI) and also the Airbus 600 with its dual FMCs and two-tube-per-side glass cockpit. Even with my Garmin 430, which is not really the latest and greatest, I'm amazed at the features it contains, and when compared to the Honeywell monsters in the Airbus, it has some features not found on the older Honeywell units. As you pointed out in your Garmin piece, it's just the clunky key/knob inputs that set it back from the $100,000 items. P.S. My first experience with a moving map system goes back to about 1960, in the F-106. It had a TSD (Tactical Situation Indicator) about an 8 inch b&w projector of a film strip, sitting forward of the stick, sort of between your feet. Clunky, but high tech then. As you selected a different TACAN, the film slewed to match, with a choice of 3 scales, 50, 100, and 200. The TACAN was centered and the aircraft was a 'bug' that was positioned by the bearing\distance from the TACAN. Early product by Hughes. AVweb responds... Now THAT was truly a "moving map." I love it! --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| John R.
Merola
22 Mar 2001 |
High Cost of Aviation Insurance According to the latest aviation accident statistics in your report the GA accident rate has continued to drop. Why then has the aviation insurance community up their rates 25% for flight schools? When added on to high fuel, maintenance and airport lease costs this is in many cases is the last straw that has caused some schools in our area to close their doors. Even by passing the high cost of flight training on to students there is also the added problem of an acute shortage of flight instructors that has left revenue producing training aircraft idle for days on end. The only positive side to all of this is because of the demand instructor flight pay has increased dramatically .That is of course if there are any flight schools left to hire the few that there are.
AVweb responds... John, we've been asked this question many times. The short answer is that insurance premium rates are cyclical, and those swings are related far more to interest rates and stock market performance than they are to accident rates. In essence, insurance companies make their money by investing the premium dollars they receive. When investment returns are low due to low interest rates and (to a lesser extent) poor stock market conditions, the insurance companies' investment income suffers, and they compensate for this by hiking premiums. Conversely, when the investment climate is favorable, premiums tend to come down. This may not seem fair, but it's the way the insurance game works. Another factor at work here is the fact that as jury awards have skyrocketed in recent years, the aircraft insurance underwriters have clamped down on high-limit liability policies. Ten years ago, it used to be easy to get five million "smooth" on a GA airplane -- today, anything over one million is tough to get, and some companies won't offer more than $100,000 per seat or $100,000 per person (which is only marginally better than no liability insurance at all). --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Jim
Wholey
22 Mar 2001 |
ATA Propses Additional Runways AVweb wrote:
$10 billion at SFO! The solution already exists: Moffet Field. That would also solve growth pains at San Jose International. Will common sense and politics ever mix, just once? AVweb responds... Is Ariel Sharon a Catholic? --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Ric
Morrow
22 Mar 2001 |
Ex-PATCO Controllers Sue FAA Has AVweb been following the woes of the FAA in their hiring criteria of Air Traffic Controllers? Since the PATCO job action in 1981, avenues for the former PATCO controller have been established to be rehired into their former positions. However, the FAA has shown discriminatory practices by NOT hiring the "most qualified" personnel. I am one of those persons. I worked at the Memphis Air Route Traffic Control Center, Memphis, Tennessee for 11 years and was a Full Performance Journeyman Controller. I participated in the 1981 job action, was arrested, but in 1985 I worked my way back into the Federal Government, only after having to fight a court battle, and currently operate as a Team Chief in charge of Aeronautical Analyst for the Department of Defense, in St. Louis, Missouri. In 1993 President Clinton lifted the ban on the former controllers and allowed them to apply for their former positions. Approximately 5,000 applied for their positions. To this date less than 1,000 have been hired. Now comes the FAA woes....
Tell the public that and see what response happens. |
| Dan
Drew
22 Mar 2001 |
U.S. Airlines Meet Fire Suppression Deadline AVweb wrote:
This is correct except for one glaring exception. Cargo Airlines! They are exempted due to number of seats. They are also exempted from being required to have TCAS! We have repeatedly asked the FAA, Congress etc. as to why there is not one level of safety in aviation. No answer. I fly around the world. I am safer in India than I am in the USA. Why? India requires TCAS. ADSB is not a collision avoidance device and they ARE NOT installed on UPS aircraft as the ads suggest!
AVweb responds... While it's certainly easy to understand your desire for TCAS and fire suppression gear aboard the UPS freighters you fly, Captain Drew, the case for "one level of safety" is certainly not obvious. In fact it's a rather slippery slope. If you argume that the government ought to mandate TCAS in freighters on the basis of "one level of safety," wouldn't the same argument apply to my Cessna 310, or my friend's vintage Cessna 195, or another friend's homebuilt RV-4? You've got to draw the line somewhere. Basic common sense seems to dictate that paying passengers are entitled to a higher level of safety than freight -- or even crewmembers who are presumably well compensated to accept the risks of their profession. This has always been the policy of the FAA, and it's not entirely clear to me why that policy should change now. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Bob
Joyce
20 Mar 2001 |
Naked Truth About Known Icing I fly a Cessna T310Q which is fully deiced, but is not known-ice approved. After reviewing Mr. Puddy's articles on the subject of icing, and Mr. Jaderborg's reply, I still have a lingering question: It appears that if I operate my 310 under Part 91 rules, FAR 91.9 prohibits me from flying into ANY known or forecast icing conditions, since I have a placard that prohibits flight into known icing conditions. If I operated the same 310 under Part 135 rules, then FAR 135.227 would grant me the authority to launch into known or forecast light or moderate icing. I would only be prohibited from launching into known or forecast severe icing. Is this a correct interpretation of the regs? It seems illogical that the rules for part 91 flight would be more restrictive than for part 135.
AVweb responds... The regs are indeed illogical as presently written, and it would be foolhardy for a pilot to rely on that interpretation of Part 135 as protection against a certificate action. The "naked truth" is that if you fly a non-approved aircraft in icing conditions and wind up bending metal or getting someone upset enough to file a complaint, you will be the target of a certificate action by the FAA. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief To the best of my knowledge, there is no decision of record discussing the tension between AC 135-9 (which permits placarded aircraft to fly in areas where icing is forecast) and section 91.9(a) (which requires pilots to comply with placards). If you reread Eric's article The Naked Truth About Known Icing Conditions I think you'll see that his interpretation is that, AC 135-9 notwithstanding, an aircraft equipped pursuant to 135.227 could not be flown into areas where icing is forecast because the advisory circular applies only to operations under Part 135. Eric reasoned:
There is no "answer" so I don't have to know the answer, but I do know a contrary argument.
I know -- legal mumbo jumbo. Sorry 'bout that. Just a long-winded way of saying that there really isn't a firm answer to your question and that Eric and I (predictably) have the landscape covered through our disparate views. --R. Scott Puddy, Contributing Editor |
| Bill
Lawyer
21 Mar 2001 |
TWA Lands At Wrong Airport When I was at Ohio State University (OSU) in Columbus, Ohio, during the 1960s, a TWA aircraft landed at what was then known as Don Scott Field now OSU airport. OSU is on the flight path to Port Columbus Int'l (CMH). This is nothing new for them.
AVweb responds... Hey, we all make mistakes. Most of us are just fortunate enough that our mistakes don't make it onto the 11 o'clock news.. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| R. D.
Livingston
21 Mar 2001 |
Boeing To Move Out Of Seattle These guys deserve a medal for this idea! OH YEAH!!! Instead of having to explain cutbacks at the old headquarters, they just simply move away, and then don't have to move the employees! Great idea! So, who is the CEO of Boeing these days? Is it Simon Lagree, Snidely Whiplash, or Ebenezer Scrooge? |
| Vince
Fischer
21 Mar 2001 |
FAA Refusing IFR GPS Installs Outside USA You may be interested to learn that the FAA in Frankfurt, Germany is refusing to approve Garmin 430 and King IFR-GPS installations in Europe under Form 337 procedure. They are requiring that such installations be done under an STC for the aircraft in question. In my case this is a Cessna R172K. The original Garmin STC is for a certain Mooney, and Garmin has no intention of pursuing others. The FAA here approved a Garmin IFR-GPS installation in one Mooney, but then required a dual-430 installation in a second Mooney, despite the STC. The same problem applies to Bendix-King IFR-GPS. There is an STC for new Cessna aircraft from the factory, but add-on units to earlier Cessna's are not being accepted under the STC by the FAA here. This seems to be an attempt by the FAA to discourage the continued use of N-registered aircraft outside the USA. The has been a growing trend in Europe due largely to the favorable FAR 91 and pilot licensing compared to JAR rules. I have heard that there is also a difference among FSDOs within the USA, but did not realize that individual FSDOs had the freedom to change the regulations through interpretation as is clearly the case here. This is unfortunate, because through this type of action the FAA is indirectly supporting the JAA and their draconian regulations in Europe. I would be interested in your reflections on the possible reasoning behind this policy. AVweb responds... The current FAA policy of requiring a field approval for every IFR-approved GPS installation is nothing short of stupidity. It's only made worse by the inconsistent requirements for approval that exist from one FSDO to another. As the number of these installations increase, we're hearing that many FSDOs are streamlining their field approval process ... simply because they must do so to keep up with the rising flood of Form 337s in their in-boxes. While that's good news, clearly these things should not require field approvals at all, any more than the installation of a VOR/ILS, DME, or transponder. Inconsistency between FSDOs is nothing new, and it'll never be completely eliminated. For a one-of-a-kind major alteration (the kind of thing the Form 337 was meant to deal with), a judgment call by a local on-the-scene inspector is absolutely appropriate. But for those same inspectors to have to sign off on every IFR-approved installation of a TSO'd GPS navigator is simply absurd. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| T. D.
Ponder
20 Mar 2001 |
F-16/Skyhawk Midair in Florida I see the F-16 jock has been cleared by the Air Force. I presume his defense went something lie this:
Ergo, I am guilty of nothing! |
| Brian
Pence
20 Mar 2001 |
Northwest Mechanics Turn Down Deal I find it sad that an aviation news organization is misleading the readers in the same way the network news and the print media have done by only telling part of the story in the Northwest Airlines/AMFA negotiations. In your story "Labor's Latest" (AVflash7.12a), you say that the mechanics union turned down a deal that offered 26% raises and doubled retirement benefits. What you don't say is that these mechs have been working for 4 1/2 years without a contract and 10 years without a contract raise. Their current wages and retirement are lowest among airline AMTs. The deal you refer to was part of the last-minute negotiations on March 11 and the union did not have a chance to respond before the NMB called it off. And by the way, there would have been a deal between the two if Bush had not stepped in ... they were that close. |
| Dan
Gill
20 Mar 2001 |
Love Those Columns! I enjoy AVweb's news coverage, but the columns are what keep bringing me back. They're just the thing on a warm spring day when I wish I was up in the sky instead of sitting at a desk. You have assembled a very good bunch of columnists, and all of them have something to teach me. I especially enjoy John Deakin's Pelican's Perch. John has taught me a great deal, often about airplanes I'll never come close to flying. But that's half the fun . . .
AVweb responds... Yeah, we all hate Deak for getting to fly all that exotic hardware! --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| William
de Groh
20 Mar 2001 |
In Search of a Fix for Airline Delays I believe that additional runways are needed but in our haste to build them please don't overlook designing efficient and expeditious taxi routes to/from those runways. As an airline pilot flying out of a hub that has four parallel runways, I can tell you from experience that some of our longest delays occur on the ground taxiing to or from the gate. This is because of the necessity of crossing multiple active runways to get to the gate. A parallel runway layout may minimize the amount of real estate required but negate the improvement in capacity. So please don't forget to stress the impact of the runway layout on taxi routes. A parallel runway layout may not be the best way to go. AVweb responds... Excellent point! --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Greg
Williams
20 Mar 2001 |
Legend Lives Up To Its Name AVweb wrote:
I couldn't help but notice the insinuation against American Airlines in the Legend story below. I live in the D/FW area and there was a lot more to this story than meets the eye. As I understood it, American didn't want to see Love field get growing again and neither do a lot of people who live nearby. But, Legend got approval, so American decided to compete. (Competition is still legal.) The last numbers I saw showed Legend doing better than American. I can't say if anybody undercut the other, or tried to run anybody off and frankly I don't see how anyone else should insinuate it unless they have hard evidence. I feel bad for Legend's employees, but there could be lots of legitimate reasons for their going out of business. I wish whoever wrote the article would retract the insinuation that it was American's fault and how things might turn out for American. It comes across to me that this person either doesn't like big airlines or doesn't like American Airlines. The David and Goliath example is not accurately applied either. This implies that all big airlines are the bad guys. How could this be? Is this the kind of journalism you wish to put out? I would hope not. |
| George
Cooley
20 Mar 2001 |
GPS Interference from UWB Wireless AVweb wrote:
First of all, thank you for a wonderful publication. Over the years I've been an avid reader of AVweb and before that enjoyed participating in the AvSig forum. Both mediums have had a positive impact on my aviation outlook, safety, and education. Thank you for your work and positive contributions to the aviation community. You may be interested in another UWB development that came across my desk yesterday. It's a letter from the GPS Industry Council to the President of Johns Hopkins University criticizing their March 8th "Final report UWB-GPS Compatibility Analysis Project." Also attached is the JHU Executive Summary, which was vigorously attacked at the RTCA's SC-159 WG-6 last week. I think JHU lost a lot of credibility by taking funding from Time Domain to produce this report. To make matters worse, in addition to their biased conclusions and executive summary (no doubt influenced by the Time Domain dollars), a very significant error was discovered in their report. As pointed out in this letter, the error is on the order of 20 dB. So where they conclude that severe impact occurs at approximately 3 meters, that distance would actually be 30 meters, correcting for their error. Unacceptable GPS degradation, in fact, occurs well beyond that distance. [TRANSLATION: UWB devices operating at proposed power levels can cause SEVERE INTERFERENCE to GPS at distances of greater than 100 feet; UNACCEPTABLE DEGRADATION of GPS performance can occur at distances well beyond that--perhaps greater than 1000 ft. Clearly, any GPS device on an aircraft, operating at the proposed power limits, could render GPS completely inoperative.] When members of the SC-159 working group pointed out this error to the JHU team, they admitted to a "discrepancy" in the power level of the devices tested. But they refused to submit any retraction, amendment or modification to the comments they submitted to the FCC. Obviously, the aviation community will have to counter this serious error in the public record. I'm writing this as a concerned aviation professional with 21 years of experience in the electronics industry. The opinions expressed here are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer.
|
| Bill
Caswell
20 Mar 2001 |
Big-Screen IFR: Garmin's GNS 530 I wanted to make sure that you know how much I appreciated Mike Busch's article on the Garmin GNS 530. It is truly a wonderful piece! I've spent many hours with the manual and the simulator and learned more from reading Mike's step-by-step than what I gleaned from the manual/simulator. Interestingly enough, the day after the AVweb article came out, I met Mike Young, the northern California regional sales manager from GARMIN at my avionics shop. I presented him with a copy of the article told him to read it. I also STRONGLY suggested that they could learn a thing or two from the article and suggested that they hire Mike Busch to write a complete Pilot's guide or a "Garmin for Dummies" book. I also passed along a copy of the email thread with all of the discussion about the improvments that Garmin could make. I'm in the process of finishing a complete redo of my Cessna 1980 421C and am putting in dual GNS 530s, so I have more than a passing interest in becoming proficient with this box. Keep up the good work! I look forward to reading more reviews/tutorials. |
| Grant
Wilson
20 Mar 2001 |
Flying to Your Floating City AVweb wrote:
Hos is a 3,900-foot runway put on a "more than" 2,640 foot deck? Is the runway centerline like a ski run slalom course?
AVweb responds... Grant, as you might imagine with an odd project such as this, numbers are flying all over the spectrum. The reports on the project alternately have the length of the city ship at: a.) one-half mile, b.) more than one-half mile, c.) one mile, and d.) length of 4,320 feet, a width of 725 feet, and a height of 340 feet. The only constant I could find was the length of the runway at 3,900 feet, but give them time, as I predict it, too, will change. Their website at http://www.freedomship.com/ has a much more information, and they will even allow you to spend several hundred thousand to secure an apartment, now, before the rush is on. What a deal. --Liz Swaine, AVweb News |
| Murray
Smith.
20 Mar 2001 |
MIR Space Station's Last 'Hoorah' AVweb wrote:
Have you heard of New Zealand? Yes we do have airplanes and the web down here, plus 3.5 million people. I was a little disappointed that we were given a wide berth in favour of our Commonwealth neighbour who is 1,500 miles to our West. Down on this part of the Planet west is usually to the left when facing North. Therefore I would assume that this would place us closer by 1500 Miles to the threshold when MIR is on final for the South Pacific. I hope MIR gives us a wide berth ... and if it doesn't, will we make the headlines of your post?. I hope I haven't offended you but it would be great to be recognised once in a while. We are a very aviation-orientated country. AOPA is very active down here and at the moment we are in battle with our Civil Aviation Authority over medical certification procedures. They are of the opinion that we are all going to collapse at the controls due to cardiovascular incapacitation. Our controllers are also under the same scrutiny. We have no record of cardiovascular incapacitation ever causing a fatal accident here in NZ. I'm not sure of the worldwide statistics relating to this type of accident. In NZ we have the highest accident rate in the world, just about every week we have a Helo wire strike accident or colliding with terra firma. Our fixed wing accident rate is atrocious mostly weather related or running out of gas. I could go on forever but I won't bore you with the details just to say that if MIR hits NZ, CAA will say that the Russian Controller suffered a cardiovascular incapacitation at the critical time. Murray Smith AVweb responds... Murray, glad to hear from someone not-quite-so-down-under. We would be most happy to cover more NZ aviation events if we had information on them. Unfortunately, since AVweb has no bureau in the ANZ region (although I have volunteered, as have others), we have to depend on stories and information sent to us by readers in those areas. To my recollection, you are one of the first New Zealanders we have heard from, but your brothers and sisters in Oz keep a fairly constant stream of news headed our way. If you and your aviation-minded friends in NZ would cc us on stories of interest and things happening or about to happen, we would be happy to consider them for publication. --Liz Swaine, AVweb News |
| Kevin
Crossley
20 Mar 2001 |
MIR Space Station's Last 'Hoorah' I recently returned to New Zealand having spent 35 years in the States, and was intrigued by the article on the Mir re-entry slated for the period starting today and ending in the next 72 hours. AVweb has not mentioned the proximity of New Zealand in its news of this event, although looking at the two sites we are monitoring shows that the reentry will take place in a line forming a gentle "s" from the top of New Zealand to the Southern Pacific Ocean to its east. Your readers may like to look at the two sites if it is not too late:
After 25 years of flying in America it is quite novel to be flying in a place where the NDB is again king. There are only about 10 ILS systems here! I am flying a deHavilland Devon out of a small airport north of Auckland, quaintly named Dairy Flat Airport owned by the North Shore Aero Club. Hope the spacecraft doesn't clobber us. |
| Bill
Holmes
19 Mar 2001 |
In Search of a Fix for Airline Delays AVweb wrote:
Translation: Technology enhancement will not increase controller complement, more runways will. With respect to solving delays with more concrete. More runways means increased scheduling, means NAS congestion, means status quo. |
| Ron
Weinstein
19 Mar 2001 |
Sunglasses for Pilots I have had a number of prescription sunglasses made over the last few years but never ones that really were to my satisfaction while flying. I wear bifocals and am wondering if you could recommend what I would tell my eye doctor when ordering new glasses (the lenses). What materials, colors and requirements should I pass along? AVweb responds... The best sunglasses I have ever found for flying are Serenghetti Drivers by Corning. Unfortunately, Corning offers them in bifocals but not progressives. Therefore, when my prescription got updated a few years ago, I took my Serenghetti Drivers to my optician and ask if he could duplicate the color and gradient tint of the Serenghetti Drivers in a progressive lens. He did so, and I've been pleased as can be with the results. Of course, this is a very personal and subjective thing, and my favorite sunglasses might not be yours. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Douglas
Hornal
19 Mar 2001 |
Northwest Mechanics Turn Down Deal When you talk about Northwest airline mechanics turning down a 26% pay raise and doubled retirement benefits you make it sound as though we are fools to turn it down. How about this , do a little research before you make off handed remarks or quote some news wire that did as much research as you did. The mechanics at Northwest have not had a raise since 1996. Are you still making the exact same wage you earned in 1996 ? I laugh when I hear the "Industry Leaders" fret over the mechanic and pilot shortage. What exactly would be the incentive for a young person to go through all the schooling and take on the responsibility ? I have worked in general aviation and with the major airlines . The pay for general aviation mechanics is disgusting and the major airlines are quickly catching up. What other industry expects a person to be knowledgeable and responsible for a 70 million dollar piece of machinery but not compensate them fairly for it. Trust me when you bring your 60 thousand dollar Mercedes to the dealer the mechanic working on it is making a lot more than the one working on your airplane. And if the airplane breaks it is a lot harder to pull over to the side of the road. Do the aviation community and yourself a favor and support your friendly A & P. |
| Patricia
Valdata
19 Mar 2001 |
Exxon Flying Tiger Heads For Rare Air So Bruce Bohannon is going up to 35,000 feet in an unpressurized aircraft? Ho-hum. Sailplane pilots have been doing the same thing for 50 years -- without any engine at all. The current world altitude record stands at 49,009 feet, and the pilot didn't wear a pressure suit for that flight. Sailplane pilots flying near the Rockies and the Sierra Nevada routinely get to 35,000 feet and higher. It may be that a piston-engine aircraft hasn't done this before, but don't make Bruce sound like a big hero for his attempt. He's just doing what hundreds of sailplane pilots have already done. And speaking of records, why didn't the NAA recognize Joann Shaw, who flew her sailplane 1,000 kilometers using only thermal lift? I believe every other 1,000-K flight in the U.S. has employed ridge or wave lift. Joann did her flight the hard way, and she deserves national recognition for it.
AVweb responds... Good questions, Pat. If memory serves, the gentleman who set the world altitude record in a sailplane with no pressure suit lost some toes to frostbite. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Steve
Smith
19 Mar 2001 |
Klyde Morris Who is this "Klyde Morris," and why is he associated with your organization? Are his cartoons supposed to be funny, or just offensive? I have been reading his comments, including his response to my questions to him, and he appears to be one of the more pompous and arrogant people I have ever encountered. Why would a good aviation news and current events web page soil their reputation by affiliating with such a sleazy character? Does he pay you? He says that he has been doing this for three decades. Isn't it time for him to be put out to pasture? I might start thinking of patronizing your sponsors when he is no longer a part of AVweb. I realize that "Klyde Morris" is the cartoon name of the "work" done by Wes Oleszewski (pronounced !?#!$&#). Anyway, for every person that takes the time to write, there are MANY that agree, but don't bother to comment. Your sponsors probably know that. Otherwise, AVweb is fantastic! Thank you for helping our aviation interests, and please keep up the great work! AVweb responds... Thanks, Steve. I always wondered how to pronounce Oleszewski. I happen to think Wes O's "Klyde Morris" cartoons are a riot, and most of the reader mail we've seen agrees. I think yours is the first I've seen that doesn't, but then we've long known that humor is a highly subjective concept. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Clint
Davis
19 Mar 2001 |
TWA Lands At Wrong Airport AVweb wrote:
A 64-year-old TWA pilot would not have landed 14 miles west of his/her destination for any reason other than an emergency. Was this an emergency? We make light of this because nobody was injured, except, perhaps, for the pilot's pride. We will see more of this as long as our "wise" government insists on substituting youth and inexperience for age, wisdom and experience. Unfortunately, the next time could very well involve fatalities. When that happens, and it will, please re-publish this letter.
|
| Michael
Cooney
19 Mar 2001 |
UAL 767 Dual-Engine Flameout I asked the local news (?) TV stations here in Miami why they did not give any coverage to the United N666 dual engine problems, and one (CBS) replied that it did not consider it much of an incident. I was told that a flat tire or smoke (from a pack) was news. I swear! At first I thought it might be favoritism towards United but now I think they are what we always knew ... they be just DUMB! |
| Name
Withheld
18 Mar 2001 |
ADDS Hiccup Ruffles GA Feathers AVweb wrote:
Strolling around the Library of Congress legislative website (http://thomas.loc.gov), I found HR 375 which contains language similar to that which you cited. It appears the language is more restrictive by adding the words "in any case". HR 375 was introduced January 31st.
|
| Allen
D. Gault
17 Mar 2001 |
De-Certification of Older Private-Use Aircraft Last year an issue was worked by EAA to allow de-certification of older private-use aircraft that are no longer supported by their manufacturers, as Canada now allows. A restriction would probably be that the aircraft in question could only be used for personal activities, part 91... Anyway, a whole host of problems occur with a 1949 Bonanza which I own... Such as a lot of the parts are automotive, circa 1930s design.... The latest thing that cropped up was that I desired to replace my engine gages with modern electrical... No can do easily... So end result is that I have to send them off for complete overhaul at a cost slightly higher than replacement with new stuff. Basically recondition the old stuff. All of the new stuff is not TSOs... Parts not TSO'd are fuel level (uses resistance senders and requires a special made 30 ohm circuit, new stuff uses capacitance circuit with capacitance senders), Amp Meter, CHT (for some reason FAA is in love with Iron Constantan thermocouples, although TSO'd CHT units are available). Some small 1 1/2" gages are available, but only half are TSO'd... They would have worked just fine and they were electronic, no tubes back into the airplane, wires with sending units. Anyway, the little square gauges are tinker toys compared to what is now currently available and can be made to work. They are actually 6 volt gauges modified to work in the airplane from a 51 Ford. I for one would like some latitude in being able to upgrade to modern equipment without negotiating with the FAA, it can take years... The alternative is to add duplicate gages, but this can be a problem with things like oil temperature, bourdon tube and sender won't fit in same receptacle... Also a space/panel issue. The real answer seems to be de-certification. It would still be ok with me to have an A&I look it over as I do all of my own maintenance with a final check by an A&I. I also do all of the research and check with American Bonanza Society, have all maintenance manuals... Thus get the real low down prior to doing anything. Works much better that way and I have a relevant conversation with A&I. Another issue is the fuel system for the aircraft. I recently had a mishap in which the engine driven fuel pump quit on take off. The back-up was a Dukes electric fuel pump (mounted in engine compartment between the engine driven fuel pump and carb) and wobble pump. Unfortunately with only 75' of altitude, didn't have time to repressure the system.... so came down on partially extended gear. Minimum damage. A solution is to have a low psi priming system that keeps the lines full with a check valve bypass. You cannot run the Dukes electric pump and engine driven pump at the same time, it will put up too much pressure and flood the engine. But the system will tolerate a low pressure priming system, 4-5 psi, whose purpose is to keep the lines full so that a faster response will occur with either the wobble pump or electric Dukes fuel pump. The 4-5 PSI pumps are automotive type... So would never be able to get this through the FAA. It seems to me that de-certification would be the way to go. Reduce government cost, make life easier, and so forth. Canada allows it, why not in the States.. I believe Canada allows the individual owner to pretty much do as he pleases, even allows annual inspections after some sort of documentation training criteria...
AVweb responds... Allen, you're preaching to the choir. I have a '66 Debonair and just recently had my CHT and oil temp gauges rebuilt -- the same gauges were taken off the 1948 Buick assembly line and stored by Beech until they installed them in my plane when it was built... Just kidding. Maybe... As luck would have it, the newly-rebuilt CHT gauge made my JPI behave like a Vu meter at a Led Zeppelin concert. I haven't had the time to track down the fault, but I'm sure there's a ground problem somewhere. Of course, the factory CHT is there only because it's required: it's not even worth its light weight to monitor one cylinder. Meanwhile, the JPI is a far better instrument and handles all six jugs, yet it's not certified as a replacement. I'm personally not sure if decertification is the answer. It seems that some kind of formal recognition by the FAA of the advances in the instrumentation of older airplanes would be more appropriate, similar to what they at least tried to do with shoulder harnesses. Maybe ABS, CPA, EAA, etc., should put together a petition and see where it goes... --Joseph E. (Jeb) Burnside, Executive Editor When Canada first announced their de-certification initiative, I talked to several bigwigs at the FAA's Small Airplane Directorate in Kansas City about whether they thought such a policy might be possible in the U.S. The answer I got, forcefully and off-the-record, was basically "yeah, when Hell freezes over" or words to that effect. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Travis
Burns
16 Mar 2001 |
ADDS Hiccup Ruffles GA Feathers It was only a matter of time before politics would interfere with the too good to be true "ADDS" website. We pay approximately $1700 per year to subscribe to DTN aviation weather services (per terminal), and an additional $300 per year to add a limited amount of single site NEXRADs to that subscription. This seemed like a quite a deal, coming with near real-time NEXRAD images, compared to our previous cost of about $9000 to Kavouras for similar services. Then comes along ADDS. It has all the useful features of DTN/WSI/Kavouras/etc, plus loads of excellent additional features, in an easier to use medium, that be be accessed from anything connected to the internet, and it's free. Wow! The only single drawback is waiting an extra few seconds for a page to load, but converting those seconds into hours and noting the average hourly pilot wage, none of us are worth paying extra for subscription commercial weather information pending reliable availability of ADDS and DUATS. For years now, fast, reliable, worldwide internet connections have been commonplace. This has effectively eliminated the need to use commercial vendors for near real-time transmittal of weather information to the end user, information produced via the NWS/FAA and hence our taxpaying dollars already! ADDS should have been started years ago. I don't remember congress granting the private sector the inviolable right to sell Americans information at ridiculous prices whose production was already paid for through their own hard earned money? Even more ridiculous, I work for a government service, that is paying a commercial vendor, for information produced and paid for by the government?! I had hoped in the future ADDS would relieve this situation, but the recent incident proves we had better give it a while. Unfortunately, those who would be most affected by any restrictions placed on ADDS are those who need it the most, namely the weekend GA pilot with typically nothing else available but a call to flight service and The Weather Channel. What a sorry step backwards that would be for aviation safety just to keep money in the pockets of commercial vendors.
|
| L. H.
Dodge
16 Mar 2001 |
UAL 767 Dual-Engine Flameout Your reference to "666" as part of the troubled 767's N-number as "superstition" reveals either your ignorance or bias against The Holy Bible. The reference is Revelation 13:18. The man referred to in the passage is commonly known as the anti-Christ. This is God's Word, not superstition. AVweb responds... Whew! Glad we got that straightened out. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| A.s.
Warinner
15 Mar 2001 |
UAL 767 Dual-Engine Flameout The NTSB account of the UA 42 incident reads like fiction to me. A fuel imbalance of sufficient magnitude to need correction during initial climb? I look fwd to the next chapter...
|
| William
Zollinger
16 Mar 2001 |
ADDS Hiccup Ruffles GA Feathers I am thrilled. This could be a wake-up call for those who think the only difference between private ATC and ATC as it exists now will be the user fees. Already the UK and Australia as well as others have seen the crumbling around the edges. Emergency calls -- not ignored but not given the priority "our" system gives them. Etc., etc. |
| Name
Withheld
15 Mar 2001 |
767/737 Near-Collision at Ft. Lauderdale This email is in regards to the March 4 incident between a Delta Air Lines B-767 and the US Airways B-737. I work on the ramp at Fort Lauderdale International Airport (FLL) , and in the last year or two I've seen at least two go-arounds per week involving two commercial aircrafts. Some of which have come between 500 to 1000 feet of each other. I also have a commercial pilots license with instrument and multi ratings. I understand why a pilot would initiate a go-around. But, going around because there is another aircraft taking off on the same runway is something I don't usually encounter in my GA flying. Yet, I see this happen AT LEAST twice per week. I stress AT LEAST because I only work at FLL for 8 hours a day. I don't know how many go-arounds occur during the 16 hours that I am not there. I hope the FAA straighten things out with the FLL controllers before I'm asked by the airport authority and NTSB to help clear the runway of aircraft 'debris'.
|
| Ross
Richardson
15 Mar 2001 |
Kudos to AVweb There are a lot of aviation-related web sites and newsletters. I just want to say I really enjoy AVweb and the news letters and articles that you folks publish. I find them very useful and informative. You folks do a good job and keep it up.
|
| Claus
E. Schmidt
15 Mar 2001 |
ADDS Hiccup Ruffles GA Feathers First of all my compliments for your excellent e-zine. I have not found that many useful and thoroughly researched articles in all the "rags" combined. After reading the article about the ADDS hiccups I would like to make some comments/suggestions on this subject. The greed of the commercial weather providers is understandable but ill fated. I think it has to made clear to them (as well as the US senators) how difficult it would be to generate substantial revenues from aviation related weather products. Here are some reasons. * The pilot population is a rather small market, which needs special products the common citizen does not even understand let alone use. Special development for a small user group results in high prices. * After having paid for the Jepp' subscription few pilots are keen to plunk down another bundle for a wx subscription especially since they will call an official wx briefing anyway just cover themselves. There should be data on this from the success (or lack of) the existing weather peddlers (Kavouras, etc.) * It is safe to assume that when a pilot does his/her flight planning he/she will not be receptive for banner ads or other ways to make a weather site pay. So, the weather.com philosophy will not work either. Do you have any idea how we could serve an eye opener to the marketing wizards who dream of getting rich by putting up a web site fed with data from satellites launched with tax dollars? Maybe a survey among your readers? |
| Dave
Stout
15 Mar 2001 |
UAL 767 Dual-Engine Flameout I found AVweb's editorial comment regarding "the need for fuel in the tanks" at the end of your story on the United 767 engine incident to be in very poor taste. After reading the NTSB's preliminary report I found nothing to suggest that a fuel tank may have been empty. Your presumptious and ill-informed conclusion was entirely flippant and not worthy of an organization that professes to be a member of the aviation press. I think we would all be better served if you would just report the facts and avoid making cute comments that cast aspersions on the abilities of fellow aviators. Let's leave the investigating and ultimate judgement up to the FAA and NTSB. AVweb responds... We strongly believe in leaving accident investigation to the fine, talented folks at the NTSB. Flippancy, on the other hand, is strictly our bailiwick. If you'd like "just the facts" I recommend the New York Times. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Leo
Angevine
15 Mar 2001 |
UAL 767 Dual-Engine Flameout I am commenting on the B-767 fuel system, so that you might understand its operation. I have several thousand hours in the 767 and was one of the first pilots trained on the airplane back in 1983. First, it is not possible to "transfer" fuel on a UAL 767. It is possible to correct balance problems by turning off pumps in the low cap. tanks and drawing fuel from the high cap. tank. There are three tank systems on the 767, one in each wing and a center body tank. When all tanks contain fuel, procedure is to have the boost pumps on in all tanks until the center tanks have been depleted, then turn off the boost pumps in the center tank. The center tank boost pumps operate at a higher volume and thus empty first. Sometimes when the center tanks get to a low capacity one of the wing tanks begins to supply and that can lead to an imbalance. The pilots would correct that by opening a cross feed valve (not a transfer) & turning off the boost pumps in the low tank It has been demonstrated that an engine can suction draw fuel from its associated wing tank with boost pumps off up to the aircraft certified ceiling. Now, I have no idea what caused this dual engine roll back. (note there was NO engine failure, only loss of power) What I do know is that it wouldn't be due to trying to feed from an empty tank. On a flight of this planned duration both wing tanks would still be full. I hope this info is useful. AVweb responds... Leo Angevine is long-time friend and ex-UAL 767 captain, now happily retired on his farm in western Pennsylvania and flying a Bellanca Scout these days. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Richard
Hand
15 Mar 2001 |
Magellan 315A I am the owner of a Magellan sky blazer XL GPS. It's heavy, uses up batteries faster than you can put them in and just provides the basics. Recently I ordered an up date from Magellan and to my surprise the update needed DOS to upload the data. I couldn’t find anyone with win95 or earlier so I called Magellan. tech services told me that the 315a was the latest thing they had and I could send my Sky blazer in they would give me a 315A. I read your article and thought this was the best thing since cracker jacks. It arrived and what a blow. To make a long story I'll tell you the same thing I told Magellan when I demanded my old unit back. You should be ashamed of yourself promoting a piece of crap like the 315A. AVweb responds... Richard, I'm astonished at your message in which you chastised me for "promoting a piece of crap like the 315A." Astonished because my recollection of the 315A (which I haven't looked at for several years) was that it was a pretty useless device, at least for aviation purposes. So I went back to see what I wrote and sure enough, it was unquestionably the most negative review I've ever written on a piece of avionics. The heart of my article was a long laundry list of features that aviators need and expect in a GPS navigator that the 315A DOESN'T support: no SUA, no remote antenna, no yoke mount, no HSI screen, no runway diagrams, no VNAV, no ground mapping, etc. The "recommendation" section of my review says that the 315A is unsuitable as a primary GPS navigator for pilots, but could be worth considering for a pilot who is looking for an el-cheapo emergency backup in case his panel-mounted GPS croaks. I cannot conceive that anyone who read my review from start to finish could come to any other conclusion than that I was disappointed with the 315A. The hardware had a lot of potential, but the software was indeed "crap" for aviation purposes. That's what I said in 1999. In the intervening two years, my opinion has changed a bit. Since that article was written, Magellan has pulled out of the aviation market completely, abandoned support of many of its aviation products (as you found), and developed a well-deserved reputation for having the worst customer support in the GPS industry. Consequently, nowadays I flatly recommend avoiding all Magellan products, period. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Patrick
Puckett
15 Mar 2001 |
Extra 400 How come you didn't mention the Extra 400 in Dave Higdon's plastic plane series, or any others for that fact? It's only the worlds fastest, roomiest, strongest, best-built piston production aircraft in the world. After I flew one, and did some things that would totally wreck anything else out there, I became a buyer. Guess what??? There is not one thing that I could find that you have to baby on this plane. Want to descend?, yank the throttle off, and point the nose down. Want to pull a 4G turn?, just do it. Like cruising fast, I saw 237 kts. true in level flight, and the list goes on. You try that in anything else in this class, and it will be good-night nurse. Now you, and all the other aviation writers have been touting for years about how you want GA to start using modern technology, and start building something truly outstanding, and here is one in full production, (not one that is 2- to -5 years down the road), staring you right smack in the kisser, and for whatever reason you apparently can't see it. I started flying in 1968, and this is front page news. What gives???
AVweb responds... Patrick, the Extra 400 had not received its U.S. certification at the time Dave Higdon wrote that series of articles. Dave did express interest in doing a follow-up piece on the Extra 400, but has not yet managed to put together the necessary logistics to schedule a test flight and photo session in the airplane. As you might imagine, flight time in the airplane is a bit hard to come by at the moment. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Rolf H.
Scholz
15 Mar 2001 |
Big-Screen IFR: Garmin's GNS 530 Mike Busch's review of the Garmin GNS 530 is absolutely superb ! I have never read a description of a complex electronic device that is so clear and easy to follow. I wish all the makers of electronic hardware (VCRs, GPS receivers, etc.) would write instructional manuals that are as thorough and interesting to read as Mike's article. This should be the standard how to write such instructions, and having the pictures of the actual display on the left side of the text describing the action is absolutely brilliant. Thanks very much for a very well done review; this is really helpful to us non-electronic people!
AVweb responds... With close to 150 graphics, the article was a LOT of work to put together. It set an all-time record for any one AVweb article, and could never have been done in a print publication for space reasons. But the feedback from readers like you has been so positive that I'm sure this isn't the last time I'll use this approach. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| C. Neil
Cosentino
1 Jan 2000 |
V-22 Osprey Safety Record The MV-22 can never be a combat assault aircraft even if it had a perfect safety record. The aircraft is the direct opposite of stealth. If there was a cover-up, it had to be in the combat survivability evaluation of the aircraft in a combat environment. We would like to see more information about how the "pilot on the street" can contact and provide their input to the decision to select this aircraft for a comabt assault role. No way is the way to go. Combat rescue, yes ... black mission aircraft, okay ... but putting Marines on the beach in day light with a bunch of the aircraft with any kind of heavy defenses or radar-controlled fire is insane.
|
| Chris
Dennis
12 Mar 2001 |
UAL 767 Dual-Engine Flameout Regarding the UAL 767 dual-engine flameout departing Maui: The aircraft nose number was 6766 not 6666. We do not have an aircraft in the 767 inventory with a number 6666. The tail number on the incident aircraft would be N766UA.
AVweb responds... Thanks Captain, but a peek in the FAA aircraft database turned up:
Apparently UAL does indeed have that aircraft. Thanks for writing. --Bob Kaputa, Managing Editor |
| Jim
Braa
12 Mar 2001 |
Kudos to AVweb Hey, just a quick note to express my appreciation for your very informative newsletter. I'm a wannabe pilot who builds 747s here in Everett, Wa. Many times I sit down at my computer to check my email and find myself an hour or more later rushing off to work as once again I've become engrossed in the stories and information I receive twice weekly. Keep up the fine work!
|
| Name
Withheld
12 Mar 2001 |
Who's Fixing Your Airplane? First, the waiver. I am a Safety Inspector for the FAA but this is my personal opinion and not that of the Federal Aviation Administration. Additionally, I request that you do not print my name. I agree with Mr. Ron Dozanie [AVmail, 08 Mar 2001] on issues surrounding authorization for the A&P exams. The standards are very simple in 14CFR65.71 and FAA order 8300.10 Chapter 23 (http://www.faa.gov/aviation.htm). Order 8300.10 basically states that a person must have the required months of experience, a basic knowledge with basic skills, and should not be expected to be highly proficient with the minimum required months of experience. There are also conditions for crediting part- time experience and work from the military and experience on building experimental aircraft. So, why are the standards different from office to office and inspector to inspector? For me, the complexity in evaluating experience arises from several different areas with most notably, the past experience of the Safety Inspector. An applicant must realize that inspectors come from very varied backgrounds. Some only have experience on large aircraft, some only have experience on small aircraft, and some only have experience on military aircraft. Very few inspectors remain that have the "master level" of widely varied experience, like those from World War 2 and the Vietnam eras, which give them the basis to determine if an applicant has experience and knowledge of the majority of an aircraft. While one inspector may seem to be lax with the rules it may be that he has a military background in the specific military Specialty Code and knows what the applicant has actually done on the job. That inspector will be quite comfortable in signing an authorization with very little apparent evaluation of the application. On the other hand, many of us only have the paperwork that the applicant has presented for us to evaluate and a list of approved Specialty Codes that was printed in 1993. We further have to determine if the applicant actually got his hands greasy or if he only had a desk job. To complicate this problem even further, we see many fraudulent and false applications which makes us wary of placing our signature on the application. For dealing with "things the way they are" I suggest a proactive approach for all applicants. Take the time to get all of your training and experience in writing. Take the time to get letters from superiors and other rated mechanics to verify your experience. Take the time to have all letters verifiable (with contact phone numbers). Take the time to build a log book of your experience from day one which lists what you did, the day it was performed, and a name who can verify your activity. For the future, 14CFR142 has a provision under Subpart F 142.81 for "all other approved courses". This section was left in the rule for development of any type of training surrounding aircraft whether for ground handling, baggage handling, servicing, maintenance, etc. I would think that someone would approach the FAA with a proposal to develop a system of approved incremental training credits and courses which would eventually qualify a person for an A&P certificate without having to go through the many months of costly life interrupting continuous training. For example, a person could be trained on specific systems or units and regulations and be on the job in a week or so versus months in the traditional training system. After receiving enough individual training credits over a period of months or years the person could receive full certification. Finally, if your application is denied by an inspector then ask what you need to qualify. If you believe that you have not been fairly treated then calmly ask for an appointment to talk to the supervisor and/or manager of the office. At all costs, please don't go "shopping" elsewhere for an authorization.
|
| Mike J.
Merek
11 Mar 2001 |
Kudos to AVweb Just want to send you this short note to let you know how much I enjoy your newsletter. Twice a week I look foward to reading your great work. The humor, format, and your abilty to "tell it as it is" are refreshing to aviation professionals as we all have "been there and done that". And if we have not yet, the information that you provide may keep us out of trouble! OR DEAD! Please do not change a thing.
|
| Jay
McMillen
11 Mar 2001 |
F-16/Skyhawk Midair in Florida It was interesting to read the results of the Air Force investigation in to the F-16 midair at SRQ. One thing that appears to have been left out is Miami Center in attempting to hand off the F-16 to TPA Approach did not have the correct UHF freq. posted at the Center Sector. The ensuing delay to find the correct frequency for TPA must have been frustrating for the F-16 pilots as their last assigned altitude was 13,000 feet, (TPA owns 12,000 and below) and their entry point was some 11,000 feet below them with no means to get ATC clearance for lower. I can see where the F-16 pilot would chose to cancel his IFR clearance and start descending rather than continue to wait for the Center to eventually get the correct UHF freq. Had the correct TPA UHF freq. been posted at the Center sector than perhaps the F-16 would have been in contact with TPA approach. I also understand that on Sunday, March 4, during heavy rain, a USair B-737 was cleared to position and hold on 27R at FLL. Shortly after a Delta B-757 flew over the USair jet still in position and landed on 27R. It is said the pilot of the USair jet then used less than standard phraseology in requesting takeoff clearance. AVweb responds... Let's be careful out there! --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Tom
Neale
10 Mar 2001 |
Amelia Reid I just returned from Amelia Reid's funeral in San Jose. Under a spectacularly clear blue sky we gathered to say farewell. It was a fitting tribute to a wonderful and legendary woman. The chapel was standing room only. Over 300 people attended, including several prominent California aviators such as Sean D. Tucker, Rod Machado, Eddie Andreni and Alan Silver. The service was conducted by Brother Tom Bracco, a Jesuit Brother and one of Amelia's students. Many people got up to share stories about Amelia. They covered the range from teaching out of a trailer in the '60s, to knowing you were flying well when Amelia closed her eyes or fell asleep in the back of the Decathalon or Citabria to the many hand printed signs that could always be found in her hangar and office. Amelia amassed over 55,000 hours. She taught thousands of students. She touched many, many lives. Today, we all laughed and we all cried and we will all miss Amelia dearly. But we are, each and every one of us, better for having known her. Amelia Carman Reid. Fly free.
AVweb responds... Thanks so much for sharing that, Tom! --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Greg
MacMillin
10 Mar 2001 |
Big-Screen IFR: Garmin's GNS 530 Loved Mike Busch's article on the GNS530. My partner and I have a '79 turbo Lance that we bought last year. It had original avionics that didn't really work so we had the opportunity to do the panel over. We put in a GNS530 in July as well as a WX900 storm scope and a new Garmin audio panel. No HSI, maybe next year. Couldn't afford to fly the darned thing afterwards, but the panel looks great!!! We also have the Altimatic IIIC autopilot that does a great job and interfaces well with the 530. All kidding aside, I love the unit but one thing bugs me. Before we bought the Lance I was flying Mooneys with a Northstar M3 GPS. It didn't have moving map and all the neat things the 530 has, but I could enter a victor airway as part of a route in flight plan mode. Unless I am missing something, if I am on V1 for 500 miles, with the GNS530 flight plan function I need to define each VOR/intersection that comprises the airway. Am I missing something???? AVweb responds... No, you're not missing something, Rick. One of my pet peeves is that no GPS currently in production (at least that I'm aware of) contains airway information in its database, although that would be trivial to do and would require very little space. My other related pet peeve is that the GPS databases do not contain airway MEAs or approach segment minimum altitudes, which also would be easy to do and wouldn't require much additional memory. If these items were added to the databases, a box like the GNS 530 would finally offer a truly paperless cockpit environment, something I've been lusting after for decades. Why aren't they offered? Since there's no technical reason, I can only speculate that the FAA had problems certifying such features. If anyone knows why, I'd sure like to know. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Scott
Krueger
10 Mar 2001 |
Big-Screen IFR: Garmin's GNS 530 Excellent article by Mike Busch, but we could use a follow-up article after you hear from the many users of both the 530 and/or the 430 so that a more detailed picture could be presented. For example, in my opinion, adding an expensive HSI is extraneous with either Garmin because of other options such as the modifying the 430 map display to show Waypoint, Bearing, Track and Distance while utilizing a DG is quite adequate. A complex HSI is not necessary because many autopilots can receive ARINC 429 steering directions directly from the Garmins. If the GPS is supplied with heading and air data, a winds aloft direction arrow and speed will automatically be displayed in the corner of the map. Rocky Mountain Instrument's Micro-Encoder can inexpensively (about $1200) provide this information. Thus, Garmin could take winds aloft information into holding pattern adjustments -- however, the calculations go awry when the compass is disturbed by turning the aircraft. An additional benefit is that all computations which require entry of air data are accomplished automatically, such as density altitude. The Garmins can also make use of fuel data in various formats. Ask your friendly avionics shop to let you read the installation manual so that you can review the plug pin descriptions and see what interesting equipment can be interfaced to these magical boxes. When you get to the end of the manual, you will note the controls that are available in a special mode -- controls such as sidetone volume or display brightness. Finally, there is an interesting blind spot in using a software driven box like the Garmin. Garmin updates their 4x0 and 5x0 boxes thru their authorized avionics shops via a pluggable flash card. This process take just a few seconds (at the avionics shop) and the version is displayed when the Garmin is started. Currently, the only way to find out the latest available software level is to call the shop regularly. In September 2000 I sent an e-mail noting this problem and suggesting that they provide information about when updates are available and a summary of the changes made by the update. Their avionics product manager, Bill Stone, instantly replied "We are currently working to provide copies of Service Bulletins and software update descriptions on our website, and hope to have this information on-line within the next couple of weeks." In February 2001 I sent another request indicating I had not seen anything yet. I have not heard back from them as of this date. My 430 was installed in August 2000 at software level 2.16 and was updated to 2.19 a few weeks later. A recent talk with JA Avionics indicated that level 2.21 was available. This can be a safety issue since one of the fixes in 2.19 was to a problem in a complex approach process (hearsay, since I haven't seen the Service bulletin text). Perhaps we can urge Garmin to make this information available at their web site as they do for many of their other GPS products. I am installing the S-Tec GPSS to get the 430 steering commands to the S-Tec 50 Autopilot. After 13,000 NM behind the 430, I want to eliminate having to twist the bug knob on my DG.
AVweb responds... Great info there, Scott! For those unfamiliar, GPSS is a relatively new digital interface that permits direct interfacing of an S-Tec autopilot to a GPS via an ARINC 429 serial connection without the need for an HSI or DG interface. My guess is that all autopilot manufacturers will ultimately adopt this sort of interface. For those of us who still fly with older-generation autopilots (like me), the Sandel SN3308 provides the necessary conversion from digital GPS data to analog autopilot commands (albeit at a significant price). --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Edward
Velasquez
10 Mar 2001 |
Airworthiness Directives I haven't seen a recent discussion regarding ADs and the manner by which the aircraft and related product manufactures seemingly encourage the release of an AD against their respective products as a means to mitigate potential product liability. It has been my experience over the past 25 years in aviation, that the aircraft owners always seems to take it in the shorts when an AD is released against their aircraft. What I find extraordinary is that there never seems to have been a unified effort by this extraordinary body of high achievers and independent thinkers, to effect a change to this most curious buyer/seller relationship. Perhaps Mr. Barnum was correct. On the other hand, for the most part the automotive industry foots the bill when recalls are announced. I presume it has something to do with the number of folks that own automobiles, and the influence projected by their sheer force of numbers to the automotive manufactures and to the Congress. In any event the subject of Airworthiness Directives is bound to spark more than a casual dialectic interaction on AVweb. I would like to see it as a question to the readers. I hope your sponsors don't object. Thanks for a terrific site, keep up the good work. AVweb responds... Although it's five years old, I did write an editorial on this subject: "Who Benefits From Airworthiness Directives?" --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Kevin
Moore
9 Mar 2001 |
Big-Screen IFR: Garmin's GNS 530 Absolutely outstanding article by Mike Busch, one of the most useful I've ever read. I'm planning an avionics upgrade at Avionicswest, and your article may alter my plans in an interesting way. (I'm sure Tom Rogers at Avionics West Inc. will be pleased). If any of your staff or contributors regularly fly with UPSAT equipment, a similar article would also be of considerable interest to AVweb readers I'm sure. AVweb responds... Thanks, Kevin. I've been flying with a UPSAT GX50 for a couple of years (now demoted to my #2 GPS), but I've never had the pleasure to trying their MX20 FMS. My sense is that the MX20 would be an excellent setup for someone who flies mostly VFR, while the GNS 530 is heavily slanted to the needs of the hard IFR crowd (like me). --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Steve
Silverman
9 Mar 2001 |
Big-Screen IFR: Garmin's GNS 530 Great article by Mike Busch on the Garmin 530. Mike highlighted virtually all of its important features. However, there seems to be something missing, unless it's hiding somewhere in the manual. You can customize the nav parameters on the NAV-1 and NAV-2 page from a nice long list, but you cannot easily take a peak at one of them that is not in the NAV-1 or NAV-2 pages. An easy way to do this would be to put the current values in the MENU selection for all of the parameters that you can pick from. In other words, a plain text page with the names and current values of ALL of them. This could also be an additional NAV page. If they would put altitudes into the database, I could automatically program the target altitudes in the AltAlert, but there seems to be some real problem with getting altitudes into the databases. Approach plates have them, but for some reason they are not in the non-precision approach sequences in the GPSs. Go figure!
AVweb responds... Steve, I don't think you're missing anything. One reader made what I think is a really good suggestion for the 530 (although it wouldn't work for the 430), and that was to permit the "VOR radial" display box on the left side of the screen (visible on all GNS 530 display pages) to be user-programmable to cycle through a user-defined list of "favorite fields" much in the way that II Morrow/UPSAT GPS's do. Right now, the GNS 530 allows that area of the display to be customizable with any one field (I generally display my required rate-of-descent so I can keep an eye on my VNAV situation), but it wouldn't take much to allow the customization to be extended to a list of selected fields that would be cycled in that area, and a timer value for how long to display each field before moving onto the next one. Unfortunately, this wouldn't work with the GNS 430 because the 430 doesn't have the VOR Radial display. Your suggestion would work with both 400- and 500-series boxes. The lack of MEAs, approach-segment minimum altitudes, etc. is also a real disappointment. So far as I can tell, none of the GPS manufacturers offer such a capability, and I'm presuming the FAA must have been unwilling to allow this during certification. If airway information (including MEAs) and approach minimum altitudes were included in the database, the GNS 430/530 would provide a truly paperless cockpit. Another disappointment is the lack of fly-up/fly-down information driven by VNAV, and the fact that VNAV is automatically cancelled whenever the GNS 530/430 is flying an approach. I presume this was driven by certification issues (the FAA being deathly afraid that folks will start making up their own "precision" approach procedures), although the (uncertified) Garmin GPSMAP 195 and 295 both have a splendid "glideslope-like" display driven by VNAV. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Dan
Larsen
8 Mar 2001 |
Uncontrolled Airport, Uncooperative Pilot Rick Durden's response to Russell Jones in "Uncontrolled Airport, Uncooperative Pilot" [AVmail, 06 Mar 2001] was pretty much a column in itself. In fact, it should be a column. Although I've only got 200 hrs, the hardest thing to explain to any pilot is the difference between the FAR's and the AIM. The difference, as anybody knows, is that the FAR's are regulatory and the AIM is merely a suggestion. The AIM is not binding for a reason, and that is because the powers that have decided that it is not always the prudent or necessary thing to do. I learned this lesson a couple of times during my primary training. The first time was during my night training at GAI. The winds were favoring RW 32 at GAI (the default runway). Runway 32 is right traffic, runway 14 is left traffic. We were downwind for runway 32, and all of a sudden, out of nowhere, a bizjet reports "two-mile base, runway 14." I gave my instructor the "what the hell does he think he is doing?" look and received a response that I haven't forgotten: "There is no requirement to use runway 32 all of the time the wind is calm. Runway 14 has a VASI, and the bizjet has every right to use it if the pilot so chooses." The lesson that stuck with me is that I need to be prepared for pilots who do not always do what I would do or think everybody should do. That's a lesson that needs to be taught to a few more pilots, and perhaps the subject of another Durden column: Your way isn't the only way, and if it is safe and/or prudent to fly contrary to the AIM or the way a pilot thinks it should be done, there is nothing that legally prevents him from doing so as long as it is not unsafe.
AVweb responds... Your CFI taught you wisely, Dan. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Jonathan
R. Birge
9 Mar 2001 |
Another Proposal to Privatize ATC I'd like to respond to those who support privatizing the ATC system, who invariably cite the standard capitalist arguments: we would supposedly end up getting more for our money due to the increased efficiency and responsiveness of a profit-motivated company. In general, I subscribe to the principles of smaller government and less central intervention, though in this case I think those principles are grossly misapplied. The pro-privatization crowd are missing two huge points. First, the major force of efficiency in a free-market is not profit but competition. I have yet to see any good proposals for how to create a private ATC system where competition occurs other than in the initial bidding process. I'm not even sure there is a way to do so with something like air traffic control. Since weather will always exist, you'll have a captive audience with only one option. That's not going to give the private company much motivation for efficiency. Second, under every privatization proposal, the FAA will still set the rules and have the final say. That, in my mind, will essentially mitigate any benefit of having a private sector ATC. Exactly HOW is a private ATC company going to innovate when every change will still have to be shuffled through the FAA? Innovation is really the only way to create significant efficiency and cost savings. Privatization is just an uninspired reaction by politicians to obvious problems with our national aviation infrastructure. But if you want to fix it, you have to fix the parts that are actually broken: Start building more airports and expand existing ones. Reduce the heavy handed over-regulation of the FAA so that innovation can actually occur in the industry. And pass some REAL tort reform so that the parasitic legal and liability insurance industries stop accounting for so much wasted money and no longer impede what little innovation the FAA allows. Do all that and I'll be more than happy to pay for a flight plan or two. AVweb responds... Gosh, Jonathan, I wish I'd said that! --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Don
Bohannon
9 Mar 2001 |
Big-Screen IFR: Garmin's GNS 530 What a great article Mike Busch wrote on the GNS 530, but he's breaking my budget. I did the panel refit on my T210, including a Sandel, by Cincinnati Avionics when Dennis Wolter of AirMod did my interior, but opted to keep my King stuff (KNS 80, KR87 and KY196) and my marvelus M3 GPS. BUT I may not be able to stand it after reading Mike's article. Looks like a 530 at least, is in my future. Its like the guys at Aero Sport say about the Extra 300 -- if you don't want one, then you better not fly one! The Sandel SN3308 is as great as Mike said . It truly seems that the Sandel and Garmin folks worked up a terrific combo. Mike's article with accompanying graphics makes a complicated real world flight make sense and really highlights the situational awareness advantage of the combo. Like Mike, I likely will keep my ADF for the Braves games, UGA football, and of course, Rush. AVweb responds... Now if I could only figure out how to get a commission from Garmin... ;-) --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| George
Morin
09 Mar 2001 |
Big-Screen IFR: Garmin's GNS 530 Mike Busch did an outstanding job demonstrating the GNS 530. I always questioned whether this unit was geared to VFR pilots with the highway displays etc, but you made it clear this is an IFR tool! Thanks again for a very comprehensive article.
|
| Paul
Marx
9 Mar 2001 |
Big-Screen IFR: Garmin's GNS 530 Excellent article on Garmin 530. I especially liked the comparison to the 430. I resolved the problem of having to flip flop pages on the 430 by adding a second 430 since my panel in my 1984 Saratoga didn't have enough room for a 530 and the plane had one 430 in it when I bought it. Now I keep on on the map display and the other on the default Nav page. Does the 430 automatically change from GPS mode to VOR when ILS is intercepted? I don't see that in the user manual anywhere and I always do it manually.. AVweb responds... The 430 does indeed switch automatically from GPS to VLOC mode as you intercept the localizer, just like the 530. For this function to work, three conditions are necessary:
Hope this helps. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Chris
Schuermann
08 Mar 2001 |
Big-Screen IFR: Garmin's GNS 530 Stunningly great review of the Garmin 530 by Mike Busch -- thanks! Not long ago I installed a 530 in my Turbo Viking -- connected to a Century IV with FD. Even my wife (who always has a sectional in her lap) loves the Garmin! Great article even if Mike does listen to kooky Dr Laura :-) AVweb responds... But only when I'm in a really kooky mood. ;-) --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Richard
Lentz
8 Mar 2001 |
Boeing Field Earthquake Damage Your coverage and the Klyde Morris episodes about our earthquake have really been great - and the cartoons are pretty accurate! The towers at SeaTac and Boeing were both damaged -- "trashed" at SeaTac - and at BFI the controllers will soon move from the fire station into their improved temporary tower. It's been planted atop some shipping containers to give them a better view, complete with scaffold stairs and porta-potties. Same thing at SeaTac. Controllers are brave souls indeed! Although I'm a Boeing engineer I've been working closely with the BFI airport office and the runway damage here is awesome. Some cracks are 5-6 inches wide, 3 feet deep and hundreds of feet long. During the quake the soft soil underneath liquified along the old riverbed (filled back in the 1920's) and caused numerous sinkholes, sags and voids along the runway. Mud and silt is everywhere. It's even more amazing that we're recovering so fast, thanks to enormous efforts by everybody involved. The NOTAM process has probably been the most difficult since status changes very quickly. We presently have only 4700 feet on the "long" runway but repairs are underway to restore more length and raise the weight limits to get large airplanes in and out. North landings have only 3900 feet but our 737's don't have any problem. Some corporate operators are probably envious since many of the smaller jets actually need more runway than we do! |
| Elliott
Walsh
8 Mar 2001 |
Charlotte Airspace Jeb Burnside's inaugural column "Desired Track: Playing By The Rules" was absolutely, positively right on the money. Something bizarre going on in the management of CLT. It's as though the rules are written to compel small craft to remain VFR, rather that avail themselves of the IFR system. I have long resided in Boone, N.C., (5A3),and have had frequent occasion to fly to a field south of SAV. My most expeditious route is a straight south shot overlying EHO (Shelby), which skirts the Class B airspace. If IFR, regardless of GPS or RNAV filing, or the apparent degree of traffic at 6am on a Sunday, I am goin' to SPA whether I like it or not. ironically enough, it matters not if CLT is your destination. The controllers there seem to believe that a 25 mile DME arc around the eastern side of CLT VORTAC is the correct way to bring a single engine Comanche from Boone (to the west) into CLT for approach to the north runways. I wouldn't squawk about this if it was happening at the dreaded "push" hours in the weekday mornings and afternoons, but it has been visited on me on sunny slow Sunday mornings, with less traffic in the air than you're likely to hear at CAE, with all its military traffic. I have pilot buddies that gripe long and loud about the bloated size and self-importance of the CLT class B airspace, and its prickly management, calling it the "wannabe" Class B airspace. For my part, I always try to understand the reasons that ATC does the things that they do, and to sympathize with the needs of the system, but too often with CLT, I have been left wondering just what the underlying reasons are. |
| Ronald
Dolzanie
8 Mar 2001 |
Who's Fixing Your Airplane? AVweb wrote:
I couldn't agree more with the president of PAMA. I would also like to give you another reason for the Aviation Technician shortage. I have been in the United States Air Force for 19 years. Trained as an Aircraft Electrical Systems Technician with cross utilization training into engines, hydraulic, and avionics systems. With the well rounded experience I gained in the Air Force on aircraft systems I was able to get my A&P Certificate. Since my certification I have worked with a lot of highly qualified and knowledgeable individuals in my units. I have, on several occasions written letters of experience and letters of recommendation for people to take to the local FSDO in hopes that they will get the Authorization to Test tickets from the FAA and eventually get certified as an A&P Mechanic. Unfortunately, most of these highly skilled mechanics can't get past the first step because most FSDO's rely entirely on a list of Air Force Specialty Codes (AFSC's) to determine if an individual is qualified to take the written test. This code only tells you what specialized aircraft system they were initially and formally trained for, and says nothing to the years of experience on all aspects of aircraft maintenance gained through On the Job Training (OJT). All OJT is documented to prove you are knowledgeable on that particular aircraft system. I have had mechanics come back to me and tell me that they did not get authorization to test because the guy at the FSDO would not even look at his OJT records or letters of recommendation. He simply asked what AFSC he was and made a determination based on that. After several unsuccessful attempts they become discouraged and give up. So, after several years of aircraft maintenance experience they finally decide that the trouble is not worth it and go to work as an auto mechanic or something else outside of aviation. The Air Force is a great place to recruit highly experienced Aviation Technicians, yet it is going untapped due to the road blocks that are currently in place. I understand where the rule came from that just used a persons AFSC. It stems from the old Air Force that only allowed a person to work on the system they were primarily trained on. In today's down-sized military not only is cross training encouraged but, in most cases it is mandatory. Then there is the few people that will go that extra mile to learn everything about aircraft maintenance that they possibly can, as I did so many years ago. I am not asking the FAA to blindly allow all people in any aviation career field to be allowed to test. All I would like is for them to look at all the documentation before they make a decision. The aviation industry is losing a lot of qualified mechanics because of the road blocks to certification. These roadblocks for military aviation mechanics as well as the pay and liability issues highlighted by Mr. Finnegan are the reason the shortage exists and will continue unless something is done. I have personally chosen the route of pilot rather than maintainer. Lost another one!!!
|
| Adrian
Hall
8 Mar 2001 |
Big-Screen IFR: Garmin's GNS 530 I thought Mike Busch's article was a great service to the community. Good work! I have dual 430s and have been considering the 530/Sandel upgrade for some time now. I was comforted to have the positive reinforcement about the systems' interaction. My only reservation at this point is that I've heard that "alot" of Sandel users have gone back to mechanical HSIs because they can't tolerate the "glare problem". Any observations ? (I'm fortunate to live in sunny Southern Arizona.) Also, if I elect to make the change to Sandel I'll have a left over KCS-55A. As a general concept, how hard would it be to slip this into the slot currently occupied by my #2 NAV head ?? AVweb responds... I've been flying with the Sandel SN3308 for well over two years now, including a bunch of transcontinental trips and two trips to the Caribbean. I've never once encountered a situation in which the Sandel was unreadable due to glare. At worst, some of the small alphanumerics are a bit difficult to read under worst-case lighting conditions, but those aren't even available on a mechanical HSI. All the "mechanical HSI stuff" like deviation "needles" and flags and compass rose and heading bug and course arrow (etc.) remain easily readable even under the most adverse conditions. No problem swinging your KCS-55A over as a backup HSI. I've seen lots of installations in which the SN3308 replaced the KCS-55A, which was reinstalled as a copilot instrument. The Sandel can accept its heading input from the KCS-55A's bootstrap output. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Mike
Truffer
8 Mar 2001 |
130,000-Foot Skydive Attempt AVweb wrote:
Friendly suggestion: You'll improve your credibility with your readers if you'll make an effort to learn a little more about parachuting before editorializing about it. Jumping from 130,000 feet isn't really that big of deal, nor is it that risky. Doing it right (safely) does require a lot of money. (Kittinger's jump was part of a USAF program; our tax dollars at work.) Millner isn't a "nut case" any more than Charles Lindbergh was or Steve Fossett is. (We can tell you more about these two if you don't know.) Mike Truffer AVweb responds... I understand your sensitivities, but I don't see an attack on the art of parachuting in our story. No person has ever survived a manned balloon flight to 130,000 feet and the last person to clear 123,000 died as the result of a similar subsequent attempt. Regardless, it seems fair to say that doing ANYTHING at 130,000 feet is (at least) risky. I agree that the risk factor may be cut back significantly through the application of scads of cash. However, as you pointed out, it seems unlikely that those who intend to make a go of it will be able to reach the same levels of funding as those provided by the U.S. government and it seems logical that their corresponding levels of safety will drop, accordingly. Given the above (and with tongue planted firmly in cheek), to make a privately funded attempt from 130,000 feet may be a little nutty. Actually, even if excessive funding is attained, surely one has to be a tiny bit deranged to spend it all, along with the time and effort, to achieve something that may be little more than a personal achievement ... as opposed to, say, feeding starving people or curing cancer. On the other hand, maybe you're right -- maybe that's just me. Lindbergh's transatlantic crossing paved the way for the hundreds of flights that now make similar trips daily. It's not obvious to me what a 130,000-foot freefall would pave the way for. As for Fossett ... well, he's just Fossett isn't he? --Glenn Pew, Newswriter |
| Harper
Poling
8 Mar 2001 |
Big-Screen IFR: Garmin's GNS 530 I Have had a Garmin GNS 430 in my C-172 almost two years and it is a great unit. However, it has a dark side. The com transfer button stopped working and the only way I could get it repaired was to send it back to the factory. Shades of Narco. The warranty is only one year so my local shop wanted $650 for S&H and factory repair. The unit will be out of service for about a month. I did call the factory on my own and did get a partial credit on the $650.
AVweb responds... Garmin does have a one-year warranty. It's almost impossible for a local shop to spend the money required to get set up to repair GNS 430s and 530s. They should be repaired at the factory. I think your comparison with Narco is unfair. The Garmin GNS 430 and a Narco DME have nothing in common. With all the software and special testing needed to diagnose and fix a GNS 430, there's just no reasonable way a dealer could repair the product in the field. Garmin charges a flat-rate $600 to overhaul an out-of-warranty GNS 430, and that covers fixing anything and everything that is wrong with the unit, and includes installation of any new software updates that are available. This price includes two-day return shipping, but overnight shipping is available for another $25 should the customer so desire. Since your shop had to remove your 430, ship it out to Garmin (insured), and reinstall it when it came back, it probably justifies the extra $50 you were quoted. Our experience on turnaround of units sent to Garmin for factory repair is normally five to seven working days, I can't imagine them taking 30 days. --Tom Rogers (Avionics West Inc.), Avionics Editor |
| Mike
Radomsky
8 Mar 2001 |
Big-Screen IFR: Garmin's GNS 530 Mike Busch's article on Garmin's 530 was terrific, fabulous, wonderful, and a whole lot of other similar adjectives. Those of us who drive Cirrus SR20 and 22s (and those who are waiting patiently for their machines to be delivered) can't get enough of anything related to our favorite airplane -- and this article is certainly related, especially with the addition of the 530/4xx comparison. I know that many of us have devoured Mike's article. I posted info on it on the unofficial SR20 forum (http://forum.sr20.org/forum/sr20/), and I've been thanked by several people for doing so. The thanks should go to Mike. It's a pretty decent forum, too, with well-rounded contributors who have lots of worthwhile things to say about GA in general, and the SR20 in particular. And they're not shy. By the way, does Mike know that he has a namesake who works for Cirrus Design? The gentleman who heads up Customer Service at Cirrus is also named Mike Busch -- and a fine job he does, too.
AVweb responds... Thanks for the kind words, Mike. And yes, I ran into "the other Mike Busch" at AOPA Expo a couple of years ago, where both Cirrus Design and AVweb were exhibitors. We stared at each other's nearly identical nametags for a few seconds and then both burst out laughing. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Charlie
Radford
8 Mar 2001 |
130,000-Foot Skydive Attempt AVweb just received the latest in a series of news releases from someone intent on jumping from a gondola at 130,000 feet -- and letting gravity pull them through Mach 1. The latest nut-case (er... nah, that sounds about right) to grab our attention is Rodd Millner, of Australia. This guy is a nut-case ... but people who race over-powered warbirds around pylons at 400 mph are your heros. Interesting perspective on your part? AVweb responds... Charlie, I don't believe you're correct in your suggestion that AVweb puts down skydivers while elevating pylon racers. We've been known to fling humorous barbs at all manner of high-risk aviating. At the same time, we staunchly support the notion that all aviators should be entitled to do their own risk/reward calculations -- so long they're not carrying passengers. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| David
Goldsmith
8 Mar 2001 |
Wheel-Well Stowaways When AVweb recently repeated a reference to the stowaways from Cuba on a BA jet last Christmas Eve, you said London Heathrow. I thought it would be nitpicking to point out that it was in fact London Gatwick. However, the Jonathan Foulds letter [AVmail, 6 Mar 2001] is now mushrooming the mistake further and making it look like both LGW and LHR had stowaways arriving and departing. The facts are that a BA B777 had two wheel well stowaways on a flight from Havana to Gatwick last December 24th. P.C. Plod of the Sussex police maintained for two days that there were two unconnected incidents after two bodies were found, one on December 24th and one next day. Anyone like me (in South Florida) hearing about a flight from Cuba would have said "Whoa, not connected?"... and I'm no Sherlock Holmes. If you search www.telegraph.co.uk for "refugees Cuba jet" the final story will come up in the Dec 28th edition. It was concluded that the second body fell out of the same aircraft after it had overnighted at Gatwick. Perhaps your (usual) witty comment after the Foulds letter could add a few words to nip in the bud a growing myth? AVweb responds... My pleasure, Sherlock. You call, we haul. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Joseph
Mazza
7 Mar 2001 |
Big-Screen IFR: Garmin's GNS 530 Absolutely wonderful article! Bravo. One question, though. Mike Busch's article seemed to use the "Track Up" display mode exclusively. Is that to have the 530 and the Sandel match up? Or do you just prefer it? I prefer the "North Up" mode with moving maps. AVweb responds... Joe, track-up vs north-up is a matter of personal preference, and is a great way to get a raging argument going among any group of pilots. Of course, the Sandel SN3308 map is heading-up, which doesn't exactly match any of the orientation options on the Garmin, but is closest to track-up. I've always preferred heading-up/track-up. When I was a student pilot in the early 1960s, my instructor taught me to navigate by rotating my sectional chart to a heading-up position, in order to make what I saw on the map easier to correlate with what I was seeing out the window. Nearly 40 years later, I still do the same thing -- even with IFR charts. (Over the years, I've gotten pretty proficient at reading the chart text legends upside down and sideways. <g>) And, of course, I do the same with moving map displays (which are generally nice enough to have upright text labels even with a track-up display). A few years ago, I flew with a moving map display (Magellan EC-10X) that had no track-up mode. Drove me right up the wall! <g> The default nav page on the GNS 530 (the HSI page) is locked into track-up mode -- wouldn't make any sense any other way, given the compass rose arc that is part of the display. The NAV-2 map page can be configured as track-up, north-up, or desired-track-up. I just leaned over to Jeb Burnside, another experienced GNS 530 pilot, and asked him how he configures his 530. He said that he configures NAV-2 as north-up, making it easy for him to flip-flop between the two display modes (track-up on NAV-1, north-up on NAV-2). Jeb also says that he holds VFR charts heading-up but IFR charts north-up (so he can read the text more easily). Two experienced instrument pilots -- two different approaches. On the Garmin 430, the NAV-1 screen has no map, so you need to decide which way your only map page (NAV-2) is to be configured. Like I said, it's a matter of personal preference. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Bill
Sprague
5 Mar 2001 |
Big-Screen IFR: Garmin's GNS 530 Thanks for Mike Busch's GNS 530 review. With Cessna's focus on Honeywell/Bendix/King I don't get much chance to see what the other guys are doing. For the last two weeks I've been flying a new T206 with the newest King version of big screen color. In our case it is the KMD 550 Multi Function Display, KLN 94 color GPS and a pair of KX 155A's. They are hooked up to an HSI and auto pilot. So far I can't find any procedure or significant feature one brand does that the other does not. There are some differences in the way they do it. I can't figure out who is "best" between Garmin, Bendix/King and UPS but I'm more excited about IFR flying than ever. This stuff is amazing the way it synthesizes navigational data into pilot style information and sends it to the pilot's busy brain! It appears to me that the contest may become which is easier to use at staying safe and helping us make decisions rather than who has the most "advanced" piece of gear. In other words, can this stuff help improve GA aircraft usage and lower the accident rate at the same time. Or, does it keep our heads in the cockpit smashing buttons and tempting us into more challenging weather situations. One thing I noticed in Mike's GNS 530 graphics is that holding patterns and procedure turns are symmetrical. If the wind is blowing and we are doing standard rate turns at various ground speeds the actual ground track can't be symmetrical. How does Garmin handle that? You mentioned making the decision to leave a DME box out of your airplane. In the new KLN 94 they have included DME transmitters in the intersection database where they are not located with some other VOR type fix. They are identified by having the first letter be an "I", like IBFI for the airport KBFI. In other words, there is no longer any need for the DME whether the fixes are named or not. Thanks again for the article.
AVweb responds... Bill, the depicted holding patterns are not meant to be flown "to scale" as charted. They are depicted for orientation purposes only. They do depict the ground track fairly accurately under no-wind conditions, but naturally the GPS has no way of knowing the winds aloft or distorting the charted pattern to adjust for wind effects. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Michael
Peare
05 Mar 2001 |
Oops, Wrong Target AVweb wrote:
This reminds me of an alleged incident at Redhill Aerodrome during the war... A Spitfire taxied in and shut down, the pilot then plonked his helmet onto the stick whereupon the guns fired and shot the tower controller dead! One afternoon a display pilot brought a Spitfire in for the weekends airshow... I was going about my business teaching tailwheel to people at the time. The Spitfire cannot spend much time running on the ground without boiling over but Phil in the tower gave the pilot lots of taxi instructions because he could not decide where to park the aeroplane. The Spits pilot was getting a bit anxious, and then I said "If only history could be repeated!". Phil came back "thanks Mike....". |
| Judith
Cadmus
5 Mar 2001 |
Big-Screen IFR: Garmin's GNS 530 I just read Mike Busch's excellent GNS530 presentation on the AVweb. I am a CFII, and I conduct a course on GNS430/530 operations -- I know from experience the time and effort it took Mike to put together such a presentation. I'm sure that many present and prospective 430 and 530 owners will greatly benefit from it.
AVweb responds... Thanks for the very kind words, Judy. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Hank
Levine
05 Mar 2001 |
TCM Airmelt Crankshaft AD As I'm sure you know, the A.D. on non-VAR cranks affected thousands of us. It has been pointed out to me that there has been as many crank failures that were manufactured with the VAR process as the non VAR process that covered about 30 years. I have always felt that Continental found a way to sell more product, get legal wiggle room, and get the Feds to be the bad guys and us to pay for it. Is there any way to get the real stats to date? I personally feel that the real cause for most of these failures were unreported prop strikes. Most repair stations still feel that this was a bogus A.D. Yes, you are correct -- I was affected by it. Thanks: H.Levine AVweb responds... Hank, I wrote an editorial about this very subject five years ago, and I agree with you wholeheartedly that it was a bogus A.D. I don't blame TCM for pushing for it, but I do blame the FAA for knuckling under to the pressure. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Fred
Mahan
5 Mar 2001 |
Big-Screen IFR: Garmin's GNS 530 For those who don't want to pony up for a 530 -- doesn't the 430 do everything the 530 does, albeit with a smaller screen? AVweb responds... Yes and no, Fred. The units are extremely similar in functionality and user interface, but there are a few very important differences. By popular request, I've added a section to my GNS 530 review that compares the 530 and 430 in detail, including a side-by-side comparison of nav displays. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Art
Bianconi
05 Mar 2001 |
Boeing Field Earthquake Damage AVweb wrote:
I helped one engineering firm under contract to the US Government to build a AWAC military field for the Saudi's. The thresholds of their runway were reported to have been built 25 feet thick to withstand the impact of heavy bombers (B-52's) and super transports (Galaxy C-5A's) Building on desert sand may be one reason why the thickness was as much as was reported. To suggest that an 18 inch thick runway can support the impact of a 747 landing at gross weight at 160 mph is inconsistent with my experience. A 747 may not be as big or carry as much but their landings are far, far more frequent. 18 feet thick is perhaps more like it, at least at the thresholds. |
| John
Dittmer
05 Mar 2001 |
Big-Screen IFR: Garmin's GNS 530 I enjoy reading AVflash every week and especially Mike Busch's sensible articles. We at ZD Publishing, Inc. also think very highly of the 530 with only two features short of being as good as it can be. As you mentioned, the manufacturer's manual is quite intimidating so we made our pilot-friendly, task-oriented manual especially for the beginner and/or casual user. Please view our web site at www.zdpublishing.com to view other available manuals from us. AVweb responds... Thanks for the heads-up, John. I've ordered a copy of ZD's GNS 530 tutorial. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Jonathan
Foulds
6 Mar 2001 |
Wheel-Well Stowaways I read with dismay the article about stowaways being found, some alive and, some not, on aircraft departing such major airports as London Gatwick, and London Heathrow. It seems then that all a terrorist need do is circumvent the entire security screening process, and forget the ticket counter and boarding pass. Just go on as a stowaway, you don't need to deal with all that paperwork, and you don't get questioned about your carry on baggage! Why do we need all these X-ray machines, sniffers, luggage searches, and security check points if a guy, without a passport, ticket, or boarding pass can simply waltz up to the wheel well of a 767 on a major international airport, and simply "hop on." Does this sound like a major security breach to anyone? AVweb responds... Doesn't bother me a bit, Jonathan. To my way of thinking, anyone willing to risk taking an airline trip in a state of hypoxic unconsciousness, severe frostbite and an overwhelming probability of not surviving should at the very least be entitled to bypass airport security. I mean, it's not like someone passed out and frozen stiff in a wheel well is likely to hassle the paying passengers. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Russell
Jone
06 Mar 2001 |
Uncontrolled Airport, Uncooperative Pilot There is a pilot at our local airport who more often than not will depart or land downwind because it is more convenient. We have tried to discuss this with him, but he believes that it is not a problem -- "and besides, it is an uncontrolled airport, so I can do what I want." I would appreciate some suggestions regarding improving his attitude. I doubt that he will have an accident doing this, but he might become part of an accident when he does this and runs into someone who is landing, taking off, or taxing onto the runway and failed to see him landing or departing. AVweb responds... I don't think there's a "Dear Abby" for pilots, but perhaps there should be one...but the FAA would probably shoot him or her after a few months for not toeing their line on safety interpretations. Each time I've read your note I came to a different conclusion. At first I kept thinking of the accident involving a very wealthy Citation owner who based it at a little airport in southern Missouri. He would take off or land so as to minimize the taxi distance to his hangar, traffic and wind permitting. He eventually bought it one foggy morning when he fired up, taxied out and launched before the gyros had time to spin up. I then thought about the time I spent flying spray planes where time was money and I landed downwind, crosswind, on taxiways and on the infield of the airport. I'd like to think I kept a good watch out for traffic, but, I'm sure not perfect and even though the airport was small and rural, there's a good chance I caused some go-arounds. I don't know, I didn't have an aircraft band radio in the airplane but no one ever came up and yelled at me. (I was only 19 and people sure yelled at me for other things. <g>) The next series of thoughts I had were based on rogue pilots. Those who simply don't give a damn about anyone else and are going to do things their own way. Downwind takeoffs and landings, for them, are a symptom of a far more severe, underlying problem that has to be attacked by a very good flight instructor, usually in combination with an airport manager and sometimes even the FAA. Those folks make up a very small proportion of the pilot population, and I am extremely hesitant to label a pilot as a rogue without a lot of information. I'm also very hesitant to believe any label applied to a pilot by anyone who is not a flight instructor or at least a high time pilot with significant experience evaluating pilots in operational situations. The third series of thoughts (don't you love this waffling) revolved around a situation I faced at an airport about 150 miles from here. A very experienced flight instructor was unconventional, or as the Brits put it, eccentric. From time to time, when there was no traffic and no one parked there, he would land on the ramp, timing a power off approach to roll the wheels right on the edge of the asphalt and, without touching the brakes, coast to where he wanted to park. He sometimes took off or landed downwind because he felt it was good practice and wanted to make sure he could do it if he ever had to after an engine failure. (It caused me to remember the very famous Gosport school for the RAF in WWI, in which the instructors were NEVER allowed to land into the wind.) He was just plain good, but very different. This instructor managed to upset the airport manager because the manager was an incredibly rigid 500 hour private pilot who was certain he knew everything and felt this instructor was dangerous. He banned the instructor from the airport. The users took sides. There were two fights in hangars, one requiring hospitalization, one civil lawsuit and one criminal action brought. With all of the above as background, I can't tell from your note where your pilot fits. On a light wind day I sometimes takeoff downwind if it suits me and I know no one else is around and I broadcast my intentions as I know how confusing it can be to other pilots who don't expect an airplane going in that direction. I have taken off from a taxiway in a STOL airplane in the last year. I know I will do so again a few times this year. I routinely have my flight review candidates make a downwind takeoff or landing on a short runway because I want them to really see why the practice can kill them. If the pilot you reference is experienced and isn't compromising safety from the point of view of other very experienced pilots, it's no big deal. The problem is sometimes anal retentive types who can't stand to see anyone color outside of the lines or not enter the traffic pattern on exactly a 45 degree angle. If, however, you are a CFI or have had at least three or four hundred hours experience evaluating pilots in instructional situations, and you feel this guy is just plain unsafe, there are steps you can take. The airport manager can publish (probably has) the traffic pattern for the airport and state that takeoffs and landings, to the extent practicable, will be made on the runway most/more closely aligned into the wind and that when the wind is calm a specific runway is preferred. Most states require that pilots comply with the published rules for their airports. If they fail to do so, the airport manager can throw them off. It's a very radical step. The aviation community is small enough as it is and a lot of problems we have are because we over react to small stuff, which this may be. Too often a pilot is simply doing something that is unconventional and upsets the more inflexible types or those who want to control a situation. The control types take action and cause grief where they should have been willing to live and let live. I see it happen a couple of times a year when Civil Air Patrol pilots try to "organize" the activities on an airport and have to be told to back off. What is the max wind velocity under which the guy will takeoff or land downwind? How long is the runway? What kind of airplane? What is his experience level? Who are the ones concerned with his behavior? Are there any pilots who have flown professionally and are CFIs with at least 400 hours of dual given who are concerned about the guy's practices? Who gave the guy his last flight review? When is he due for his next one? Does the instructor who gives him his flight reviews know about the downwind stuff? Have you discussed the matter with the safety czar at your local FSDO? (Safety Program Manager) (That's a step I'm very, very hesitant to take unless I feel in my heart of hearts that the guy is going to kill someone.) The above is a lot, but the issue is very complex. I've seen pilots who had bad judgment and had to be confronted about their actions. I've seen pilots who were just a bit different but who upset the powers that be and an ugly fight started because the powers had to have things their way. Both are bad news for an airport. --Rick Durden, Columnist ("The Pilot's Lounge") |
| John
Godfrey
6 Mar 2001 |
Big-Screen IFR: Garmin's GNS 530 I installed a 530 in my P210 6 months ago and my reaction has been exactly as Mike Busch's -- it is just fantastic. I have found one of the most amazing features of the Garmin product to be the simulator. In my first few flights with the 530 I got befuddled a couple of times so when I got home I took the simulator to the exact same "place" where I got confused and then sat there with the book until I figured it out. Thankfully, this has been a less frequent occurrence as I have gotten accustomed to the 530. AVweb responds... I couldn't agree with you more about Garmin's PC simulators for the GNS 430 and GNS 530, John. It's hard to imagine how long it would take to master complex radios like these without a sim. Other GPS manufacturers would do very well to take note. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Tom
Gilmore
6 Mar 2001 |
Big-Screen IFR: Garmin's GNS 530 Mike Busch did a great job on the GNS 530 review! Anyone using or buying one should read it. AVweb responds... Thanks for the kind words, Tom! --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Julian
Omerberg
5 Mar 2001 |
How Do You Put AVweb Together? Having read and enjoyed the publication of AVweb for some time, I am sometimes baffled how you put together such a fine news effort. I understand somewhat about the miracles in computers, but you have editors in several locations, contributors also in different locations, so how in heck is this all collated and put together so beautifully? I think it would be an interesting addition to your feature articles if sometime you could write an article on how this fine "newspaper" is put together ... who and where is the decision made as to how everything is put together in such a superb and eminently readable fashion. AVweb responds... Julian, AVweb's twice-weekly publication cycle is truly an extraordinary electronic collaboration involving a large number of contributors who interface with each other strictly via the Internet. We like to think that it's a leading-edge model of electronic teamwork that represents the way many companies will operate in the future, but is quite unusual today. Your suggestion of publishing an article that describes how the cycle works -- who does what to whom, and when -- is a terrific idea. Let me see if I can sell it to the troops. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Chris
Welsh
05 Mar 2001 |
Big-Screen IFR: Garmin's GNS 530 Appreciated Mike Busch's superb review of the 530. It would be very valuable to your readership to fly the same trip with the competing Apollo GPS, moving map, and Nav/Com's, and report back. I am evaluating a 430 + 530 stack vs. the Apollo stack. Your review is the most detailed I have seen, and the kind of comparison I would like to see. One more question - are all of the functions of the 530 in the 430 as well? AVweb responds... The problem is (1) with panel-mounted IFR-certified gear, I can't just call UPSAT and ask for a loaner to go fly with; and (2) unlike Garmin, UPSAT does not offer a PC-based simulator. So doing that sort of comparison would be rather difficult. Lots of av-mags assign a writer to go up for a one-hour flight in the manufacturer's demo airplane and then write a review article. The result is invariably a superficial review, and I don't believe in doing stuff like that. I won't review any item unless I have flown with it for at least ten hours, and for something truly complex like the GNS 530 it has to be a good deal longer than that. Concerning the 430/530 comparison, I've had lots of questions about this, and have now added a new section to the 530 review article to compare the units in detail. In a nutshell, the 430 has most of the features of the 530 except for the primary navigation page and a few other minor differences. The 430 display is not only much smaller (half the area, 40% of the pixels), but also uses a different display technology (DSTN rather than TFT) that doesn't provide nearly as good contrast and readability in bright light as the 530 display. I'm glad I held out for the 530, though I do think the 430 makes the ideal #2 radio in a 530 installation. (I've seen a number of dual-530 installations, but to me this seems like a waste of money and panel space.) --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Troy
DeGroot
5 Mar 2001 |
Austin airport closure AVweb wrote:
I grew up in Austin and that's news to me. Robert Mueller was obviously a downtown airport but I don't know of another one. What airport were you referring to? AVweb responds... Terry. the other was Austin Executive, which closed within weeks of Mueller, leaving GA with few options. --Liz Swaine, Newswriter |
| John K.
Croisant
1 Mar 2001 |
Politicians Try to Stall Airline Mergers AVweb wrote:
Does anyone out there remember the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978? This was passed under the guise of increasing competition. Now what are they doing? There are several thousand employees that paid for that Act with their jobs and livelihoods, even though the politicians promised job protection for all job loss due to the ADA of '78. DO NOT BELIEVE THEIR LIES! The public has paid dearly from the day following bankruptcy when competing airlines upped the fares that the day before had been below cost. The remaining airlines made enough token hirings to satisfy the authorities. Captains for many years at bankrupt carriers were told they were not qualified to be airline flight crew members. So much for your FAA ticket and the employee protections guaranteed by the U.S. Congress. By all means, bank on the promises made by the folks on the banks of the Potomac!!! |
| Richard
P. Siano
01 Mar 2001 |
Another Proposal to Privatize ATC I would like to add my opinion on the subject of ATC privatization. I am in favor of it. It has been my experience (I am age 63) that when a good or service is available from the private sector, it is always cheaper and better than the government supplies. When I offer this opinion I like to use the example of shoes. Now, most people consider shoes as being absolutely essential in going about our every day life. As a result of permitting the privatization of the shoe manufacturing industry, there is, for all practical purposes, an almost unlimited choice and supply of shoes of every color, shape, purpose and cost. Imagine if the government was our only source of shoes. I would be willing to bet there would only be available to men and women a choice between brown and black ugly shoes which would only last three months before becoming unusable. And they would cost $200 per pair ... and only available in odd months. When private industry confronts increased demand, it normally tools up to supply it ... but when government confronts increased demand, it normally will attempt to restrict demand as it has in the case of ATC by limiting slot availability at some airports and creating ground delays at others. I understand why many people oppose the privatization of ATC including AOPA's opposition as being based upon the high probability that users fees would just be tacked on to the taxes presently being paid to support ATC. In other words, our costs for using the ATC system would be increased dramatically. If privatization happened and the taxes on fuel and aircraft sales were eliminated and user fees instituted, I believe we would end up with a much more efficient and less costly ATC system.
AVweb responds... I doubt you'd get much argument that private enterprise could operate the ATC system more efficiently and less expensively than government. The real issue is whether the system would then change to serve the needs of those users most able to pay at the expense of those least able to pay. .--Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Brian
Lee Mott
2 Mar 2001 |
NTSB Decisions in Airman Enforcement Cases During the past year and a half, a professional instructor and examiner, has been the focus of an investigation concerning alleged violations and wrongdoing. The instructor had his certificates revoked during the investigation. I do not know any of the specifics about the NTSB final findings, except that this gentleman has been thru several court hearings, each time the NTSB judge must have found him not guilty of any of the claims by the FAA. I do not know if the case is over. I am also a professional Instructor Pilot, as well as an FAA Designated Examiner, and just like this other individual, I am self employed operating my own Pilot Training business. My question is, how do I find out about the results of his case, so I can make sure that I do not make the same mistakes, or how I should conduct myself to prevent any FAA action. I pride myself on safety, and doing the best possible job that I can do. I have never been involved in an accident, incident, or violation. I believe that I have an excellent reputation with the FAA and the general aviation public. However, I am concerned about the fact that the FAA has gone after this other gentleman, who makes his living the same way I do. I just want to get all the facts so that doesn't happen to me. AVweb responds... The NTSB publishes its recent decisions in airman enforcement cases on the Internet: The final decisions, opinions and orders of the National Transportation Safety Board with regard to an airman, mechanic or mariner's appeal of action on his or her certificate are found in National Transportation Safety Board Decisions. A searchable index is available on-line; complete text for decisions issued since mid-1992 is also available in the Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). see http://www.ntsb.gov/o_n_o/query.asp. If you know the specifics on the case, you can obtain the printed decision of the NTSB Administrative Law Judge from the NTSB or the parties themselves. One might think that you, as a pilot and instructor, could learn a lot of lessons from reading these decisions. Typically, however, they wind up being most useful for the lawyers and for purposes of recognizing mistakes that have been made in responding to FAA investigations. It is really difficult to use these cases to improve your safe flying practices. The enforcement cases are very fact-specific -- that is, they are peculiar to the particular operation and regulations violated by a particular airman. You might find some parallels between one flight instructor case and another, but after you have read a number of them, I think you'll see what I mean. --Phillip J. Kolczynski, Aviation Law Editor |
| Ronald
Wheeler
2 Mar 2001 |
Naked Truth About Known Icing Eric Jaderborg's "The Naked Truth About Known Icing Conditions" seems at first glance to be a logical and studious presentation of irrefutable facts regarding flight into known icing conditions. However, upon closer examination, Mr. Jaderborg fails to persuade with his argument simply because he assumes something to be true and correct which is not necessarily so. He accepts the decisions of the Administrator and the NTSB as the final and correct interpretation of the regulations as they apply to the flying public. Although we have to be aware of these decisions, they are not necessarily accepted universally; i.e., by all of us out here who have to live in the real world of flying. Therefore, Mr. Jaderborg appears to be begging the question by assuming a particular point; that is, The NTSB decisions are correct. Decisions by certain tribunals always come under question; ask Al Gore, now a private citizen, about the Supreme Court's decision regarding his bid for the Presidency. I am more reminded by this article of Chicken Little running around shouting that the "sky is falling," perhaps in this case, "the planes are falling." There are so many over-the-top statements in this piece that there isn't room enough to address them. If this an attempt to resolve all of those issues which were raised in Mr. Puddy's AVweb article "An Icing Encounter--Pic Judgment And Prosecutorial Discretion," now known to me as the "Chris Watkins Affair," it fails miserably. It appears that Mr. Jaderborg, a former FAA Inspector, has not been retired long enough to have regained enough oxygen to shake off that heady atmosphere enjoyed within the confines of the FAA offices. His myopic view persists with regard to this issue of icing. In the AVweb mail section, under the thread Icing Encounter, I surmised that Eric and I might have some things in common, and probably could swap some old war stories on a nice afternoon. I have changed my mind, we have nothing in common, at least as it pertains to this issue.
AVweb responds... "The Naked Truth..." only appears to be a development of my response to R. Scott Puddy’s article on the Watkins case because of the sequence in which it appeared on AVweb. Actually, the article is independently derived from research that I began on the icing issue several years ago. My article was completed well before Mr. Puddy’s article was published, and is not related to our exchange on that matter, except insofar as some of the issues coincide. Contrary to what you claim, Mr. Wheeler, I do not accept the decisions of both the Administrator and the NTSB on the matter. One of the fundamental premises of my article is that the FAA and the NTSB are on a collision course with respect to "known icing conditions." I think I made it clear, in fact, that I believe that the FAA is talking out of both sides of its mouth on the issue, to the detriment of individual airmen who have to make decisions in the real world. While it may seem that my view of this issue is the product of too many hours spent in the rarified atmosphere of a FSDO office, it is actually the product of my whole experience and background, just as your views on any subject would be the product of yours. My conclusions are more conservative than yours, perhaps, but not without room for maneuver. As I wrote in the message stream that is now posted behind the article, my purpose in writing it was to articulate four things: (1) What I believe the NTSB’s philosophy is, (2) where I think they’re going (speculation, but not without foundation), (3) why I think the FAA’s philosophy is inconsistent and flawed, and (4) what standard I think an individual airman should apply to his own conduct. The first three are based on factual research. The fourth is a clearly-labeled editorial opinion available to anyone who’d care to consider it. You are free, of course, to throw it out and derive your own. However, whether or not you agree with the NTSB -- or me -- does not change the fact that it will be their philosophy that wins the day if your decision is ever questioned in court. Actually, as I pointed out in my Afterword, it’s worse than that: With the Merrill Decision, we are on the verge of a chaos of contradictions, with the FAA empowered to change its philosophy in any context it chooses, and enforce that change without regard to precedent. As far as "exchanging war stories" is concerned, Mr. Wheeler, the love of lively hangar talk comes from the love of flying -- something we both share whether you realize it or not. If we only exchanged views with people who agreed with us, it wouldn’t be much of a conversation. --Eric Jaderborg |
| David
Reinhart
1 Mar 2001 |
Another Proposal to Privatize ATC I know the vast majority of pilots in the United States are opposed to privatizing air traffic control, and I know it's a lot of fun and good therapy to vent your feelings in AVMail. Many of the observations are intelligent, insightful, and you do a fine job of publishing them. BUT -- you knew there was a "but," didn't you? -- I'd like to remind people that comments in AVMail are preaching to the choir. Please, all you concerned people out there, send those comments to your state congressional delegation, local newspapers and everywhere else you can think of. If you aren't already a member, at least give some consideration to joining AOPA or some other organization dedicated to preserving our opportunities to fly, and kick in a few extra bucks for the PAC. Nobody else is going to hear us if all we do is complain and moan among ourselves. AVweb responds... Well said, David! --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Ed
Wischmeyer
01 Mar 2001 |
Aviation Safety Reporting Program Who ever heard of ASRP? I worked there for three years, and it was always ASRS, the last "S" for "System." Check the ASRS Web site at http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/. By the way, this very valuable service is chronically underfunded and continually threatened by those in the FAA who believe that the only way to improve safety is to punish everybody who makes an error. AVweb responds... Ed, I think the way it works is that NASA calls it "ASRS" but the FAA calls it "ASRP." It's definitely "ASRP" in the FAA's Advisory Circular. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Henry
Hartman
01 Mar 2001 |
Northern Lights Jet Crashes in Louisiana AVweb wrote:
I was quite interested in this story, since I happen to know some folks who work for one of the teams sponsors. After mentioning the report to these folks, they explained to me that the pilot involved in the incident was not an official member of the NL team, just a "wanna-be" who had a similar plane and had it painted to look like his idols' birds. The sponsors people went on to say that this fellow even went around claiming to be a founder and/or part owner of the team, and attempted to secure sponsorships. Would AVweb please set the record straight? I have usually felt that the reports sent out were accurate and believable, and would like to hear "all sides" of the story before I get more confused. AVweb responds... Our most current information is that Mr. Jeansonne at one time held a financial stake in the Northern Lights aerobatic team, but we've received conflicting reports as to whether he held a stake in the team at the time of his death. Mr. Jeansonne did not perform with the team, and the accident aircraft was apparently not one of the team's aircraft. --Liz Swaine, News Writer |