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.
| Bob
Zahner
30 Apr 2001 |
United Airlines New Bizjet Division So United Airlines is going into fractionals? I'm sure their reservations department will try to sell 9/5s of a Citation! |
| Darryl
Phillips
28 Apr 2001 |
Enforcement Survival School I hope every pilot will read "Enforcement Survival School: Tips On Protecting Your Certificate" by Eric Jaderborg and Phil Kolczynski. Then, imagine yourself a Frenchman (or woman) in 1944, with your beloved country occupied by the Nazis. In our case, the FAA is (are?) the Nazis. The Nazis have a great number of rules, many of which are absurd or contradictory. They give you no reasonable recourse if you are accused of breaking their rules. They have no consistency, and no ethics. Their punishment is brutal. Then, as a patriotic Frenchman (or woman) you come across an article by Jaderborg and Kolczynski. One is a former Nazi enforcement agent, the other makes his living dealing with the Nazis. These two individuals presume to give you a great deal of advice on how to keep the Nazis happy, and how/when/where to hire agents who are skilled at keeping Nazis happy. Personally, I'd run from them and join the nearest chapter of the French Resistance. Keeping the Nazis pacified is the last thing I want to do. Of course I don't want to find myself starring at their firing squad, but my deep-rooted desire is to rid my country of Nazis, not to keep them happy. Fellow pilots, that is where we find ourselves today. What each individual does is up to himself/herself. But one thing is certain, you cannot keep the FAA under control by pacifying them. Jaderborg and Kolczynski's fundamental error is their belief that it takes professional help (lawyers) to keep you straight with the feds. This is factually untrue. The best lawyers in the business couldn't help Bob Hoover, arguably the best pilot in the business, in a highly publicized case with TV videotape of every second of Bob's flawless performance. In case after case, all a highly paid lawyer can do is bargain and pacify the Nazis ... er ... FAA. On the other hand, there are examples of individual airmen who wouldn't give up, and won. If the lawyers were winning, I'd be all for them. We need all the help we can get against the Nazis ... er ... FAA. But how many cases have you heard of where a lawyer beat the FAA? |
| Larry
Dighera
27 Apr 2001 |
USAF Report On F-16/Cessna 172 Midair In its Final Report on the F-16/Cessna 172 midair collision that occurred Nov. 16, 2000, in Florida, the Air Force finds no fault in operating their F-16s below 10,000 feet at over 250 knots, and faults the Cessna pilot for failing to see and avoid the NORADO (no beacon code nor voice communications with ATC) F-16 closing on him at ~480 knots in Class C airspace. If this is in fact the Air Force position in this case, their impudent hubris casts a disgraceful shadow of audacious effrontery over a once proud military service. This type timorous insolence and brazenfaced arrogant disregard for its responsibility to civil aviation in peace-time skies is adequately repugnant to spark GA pilots to support a military airspace/operation reform campaign. |
| Boni
Caldeira
27 Apr 2001 |
Outsmarting the *!#@% ATC Computer Thanks for Mike Busch's wonderful article. Do you know of any website that allows you to put in your origin and destination and then assigns you a route based on the algorithm used by the Center's computer. This way one could practice "cheating" the computer. AVweb responds... Great concept, Boni, but last time I checked, the PDRs, PARs, and PDARs in the ATC computers are not made available to us civilians. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| A. B.
Ward
26 Apr 2001 |
United Airlines New Bizjet Division According to the Wall Street Journal (April 26th, page B1):
The venture is code-named "Shakespeare" and has been in preparation for two years. They're very close to signing a contract for 30 to 40 Falcon jets, manufactured by Dassault of France. They're also in negotiations with Gulfstream Aerospace for some of their products. This poses several questions that some of your readers who are employed by what-was-formerly-the-world's-largest airline might like to address:
Furthermore, all of the other fractional-ownership companies are operated under Parts 91 and non-sked 135 which do not have a mandatory retirement age, so all of the fractional-ownership companies eagerly hire retired airline pilots and the wealthy and influential clientele are very happy about that fact.
Just thought I'd ask. |
| Carl
Jordan
26 Apr 2001 |
Qantas' 1999 Accident in Bangkok AVweb wrote:
The idea of blaming an airline for failing to "teach its pilots how to land on wet runways" is somewhat absurd. Airline pilots are NOT "student pilots" who have to be "taught" how to land an airplane. Instead, they professional pilots with thousands of hours of experience who are exposed to a demonstration of different techniques which can be employed to most efficiently stop various models of aircraft. Also, blaming "the crew" for failing to use reversers is absurd. What happens in the cockpit during landing is not decided by "the crew"- it's decided by the CAPTAIN! Despite all the emphasis nowadays on CRM, and such, an airliner is still not flown "by committee!" The captain remains in command, and is the final authority with regard to decisions that are made within the cockpit. Likewise, the captain must assume RESPONSIBILITY commensurate with that AUTHORITY. If blame continues to be spread amongst the entire "crew," then it only follows that appropriate authority must also be spread amongst the entire crew. Responsibility must also be cloaked with authority. They always go hand-in-hand. Any attempt to try to fly an airplane while using "spread-out-authority" or "decision by committee" is absolutely ridiculous! Yet, this seems to be the accepted trend these days. And, in the case at hand, the captain was adhering to a Quantas Airline company policy. It would seem obvious, then, that the culprit was the company policy, and NOT the captain! It's amazing how government entities are so quick to put blame elsewhere. Here in the good 'ol US of A, at least, the FAA approves any airline's company policy (with regard to flight operations) and also approves any airline's flight training curriculum. It follows, then, that any blame that the FAA would subsequently ascribe to said policy or said training must fall into the lap of the FAA, itself! Yet, it would be a rare day, indeed, that we would hear that the FAA would blame itself for any airline's policy or training that was subsequently determined to be "faulty." It's time for the pendulum to swing. It's time to stop blaming "the crew" for operational decisions that rest solely with the captain. And, it's time for government authorities to stop isolating themselves from blame after they have previously approved policies or training curricula that are later determined to be "faulty."
|
| George
Mattingly
24 Apr 2001 |
Rousch Racing Buys Three 727s AVweb wrote:
Interesting that Rousch Racing has acquired a trio of 727s. For those who don't know, nearly all of the NASCAR venues are within a stone's throw of a GA airport. I guess Jack got tired of being stuck in line with the rest of us poor slobs who buy tickets and will now ferry his crews back and forth to the track from the nearest major facility via rotorwing. There is of course the issue of it being a long haul to Vegas or the West Coast in most of the not-so-heavy iron in the "NASCAR Air Force." The definition of "class act" was displayed by a couple of years back by a driver for another team who surveyed the line getting out of Tara Field in Georgia and announced to his flight crew "Guys - no sense being in a hurry - all of these folks are fans -- I'm gonna find a picnic table to sit on and sign autographs until all these other airplanes are outta here." Two hours and 10 minutes later he was still sitting on the picnic table when I took off. |
| Robert
Maier
24 Apr 2001 |
Cessna Shoot-Down in Peru In his 21 Apr 2001 AVmail, reader Kurt Lawson wrote:
Perhaps Mr. Lawson should refer to: Look under Columbia/Peru border and you'll find 11 reasons that you can and will be shot down. While it is a shame about the incident, pilots should already know, at a minimum, if Mr. Fighter Pilot is eyeballing you, try 121.5, the international frequency. Also, refer to the AIM for the 'set procedure' on how to handle being intercepted. |
| James
Pratt
24 Apr 2001 |
Cessna Shoot-Down in Peru All Americans should be outraged. Here we have U.S. tax dollars supporting the shooting down of a CIVILIAN REGISTERED AIRCRAFT. It is murder, plain and simple. A few years ago Congress tried to pass a law allowing the U.S. Military to shoot down suspected civilian aircraft who are suspected of being drug runners. The law died in Congress for this very reason. You can't execute a POTENTIAL law violator without a trial. If the CIA has assisted in shooting down 30 civilian planes, we need to write congress immediately to get it to stop. Where is the constitutional protection for our citizens? At the bottom of the river, that's where. |
| Richard
Pulley
23 Apr 2001 |
Pasco, Texas? I've been in Alaska 19 years and I realize there have been many changes in Texas since I left. And I thought I was pretty savvy on Texas geography, but I haven't been to Pasco yet. And then to find out Pacific Northwest-based Horizon Airlines flies there ... their only Texas destination! I'm making reservations today, 1,500 miles in a Dash 8 sounds like fun. AVweb responds... Thanks for your understanding, Richard. We DO appreciate your good humor. Believe me, with more than 125,000 readers, we've got a slightly better notion of where Pasco is today than we did yesterday. P.S. If you've got any extra snow shovels up there in Alaska, please send. The weather's fine here in the Lower 48, but suddenly we've got some digging out to do... --Glenn Pew, News Editor |
| Larry
B. Mason
23 Apr 2001 |
AIM 935 Carbon Monoxide Monitor I purchased an AIM 935 Low-Level Carbon Monoxide Monitor on June 9, 2000. It failed. I received a replacement on October 24, 2000. It failed. I contacted AIM Safe-Air Products Ltd. on January 29, 2001 for another replacement. None received. I called again on March 21, 2001. Still no replacement. I telephoned again April 23, 2001. I was told that they are out of parts to manufacture the AIM 935. Estimated shipping date: Eight weeks. I have read that the AIM 935 is a very good carbon monoxide monitor, and it may be ... WHEN IT WORKS! AVweb responds... Some months ago, AIM Safety (a Canadian company) was acquired by a U.S. firm. The new owners are thoroughly screwed up and extremely difficult to deal with. In the meantime, if you purchased your AIM 935 from Aeromedix.com, I'd strongly advise that you approach Aeromedix.com, (rather than AIM) for any warranty matters. I've had excellent longevity from quite a number of AIM 696 and 935 detectors (which are identical except for software), but I've also corresponded with several folks who have had experiences like yours (i.e., multiple failures). I suspect that the difference must like in the environment to which the units are exposed. I never leave the AIM in the airplane between flights, especially when it's parked out of doors (it doesn't like high temperatures), and I try hard to keep it away from fuel and solvent fumes that could contaminate the sensor. It is, after all, designed as a residential detector. It's interesting that when the AIM detectors "fail" prematurely, the "failure" is caused by the fact that the unit does not like the result of its daily sensor self-test and so the software shuts the unit down. The interesting part is that no other CO detector has this sensor self-test feature, and so another detector would continue in service even if its sensor had drifted far out of tolerance, and the owner would have no way of knowing that the detector was not accurate. All in all, I still believe the AIM 935 low-level CO monitor is the best choice for in-aircraft use. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Glenn
Plymate
23 Apr 2001 |
Bird Nest Alert Last Saturday I heard about some bird nest problems at our airport so thought I'd better check my twin Comanche which sits outside our house at the Independence (OR) Airpark. I don't surprise easily, but what I found really surprised me!
I uncowled the right engine first. There was a nest pretty well along in the cavity between the number four cylinder and the rear baffle ahead of the oil cooler. A vent tube at the bottom of the cavity, leading to the fuel pump, had been stuffed with nest building material, also ... mostly moss. Uh, oh! So, I cleaned it out as best I could; then went to the left engine. An even bigger surprise! There was a fully developed nest in the same position as in the right engine compartment but this one had FOUR EGGS in it. Robin's egg blue. Apparently, birds have an incredible instinct for building nests this time of year, and airplane engine compartments make dandy homes for them. You might do your readers a favor - at least the ones who fly, or have, airplanes parked outside - and put out a bird nest alert. I don't know how much of a hazard it might be in other parts of the country but I can attest to it being VERY BAD at Independence. Photo attached.
|
| Joe
Robillard
23 Apr 2001 |
Controller Retirements AVweb wrote:
DUH! If the average person works 50 years, in ANY 5-year period, 10% of the work force will retire. You've been snookered by the clever rhetoric of the NATCA. AVweb responds... I have yet to encounter a controller whose ATC career spanned 50 years, or 40 years for that matter. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Jordi
Guillaumes
23 Apr 2001 |
Of Ag-planes, Fire Bombers And Inventions I've just read Rick Durden's column about crop-dusting and aerial application, and just want to point out the fact than in Spain (and I think in France, too) those kind of planes are routinely used as firefighters. Here in Catalonia (northeast of the Iberic Peninsula), our regional government has a fleet of Air Tractors which compliment the Canadairs owned and operated by the Spanish Air Force. In the wildfire season (from May to September, approximately), there are always two of those planes flying "CAP" so they can reach any point of the Catalan territory within minutes to stop a fire before it becomes too big. Unfortunately, sometimes the Mediterranean weather (very dry and sometimes windy) makes it difficult to those flying firefighters and the fires turn wild. We have one wing of firefighting Air Tractors in our airport (Sabadell, LELL), and those guys are indeed the most respected professionals in the field. On the other hand, I know in other Spanish regions they use Air Tractors, too, and even piston-powered Dromedairs as water-bombers. My instructor told me he was tempted to get a job as firefighter, flying Dromedairs but he decided it was too dangerous. (And it is ... there are fatalities almost each year.)
|
| Name
Withheld
23 Apr 2001 |
High Cost of Aviation Insurance Phil Boyer takes every opportunity to pontificate from his AOPA president's position that he champions the cause of general aviation, promotes general aviation, blah, blah, blah. Put your money where your pompous mouth is, Phil. If you REALLY want to do something about the high cost of commercial insurance for general aviation, direct AOPA Insurance to provide commercial policies to AOPA members that are also FBOs. It's not the larger FBOs that are having the trouble getting insurance coverage, Phil, it's the smaller operators. I have tried to discuss this matter with AOPA and AOPA Insurance in the past, and have been told that there isn't enough profit in commercial insurance to justify writing it. Give me a break, Phil. Don't you make enough money selling member's credit card numbers to other businesses? AVweb responds... Strikes me you're venting your frustrations on the wrong organization. Phil Boyer heads up the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, not the Small FBO Owners Association. FBOs and other airport business have their own lobby group -- the National Air Transportation Association (NATA) -- and it strikes me that the responsibility for finding a solution to the FBO insurance problem lies with NATA. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Douglas
Garrou
23 Apr 2001 |
Of Ag-planes, Fire Bombers And Inventions Rick Durden's excellent article on aerial application flying notes that aerial application is "one of the most stressful and dangerous kinds of aviation operations." I'm sure it's one of the most stressful, but I'm not sure it's one of the most dangerous. The most recent Nall Report shows that aerial application made up 5.6 percent of GA flying hours (in 1998, at least), while accounting for 5.8 percent of total accidents in 1999 -- roughly its "fair share" -- and only 2.8 percent of total fatal accidents. It's interesting to compare those statistics to the numbers for personal flying -- which made up 45.4 percent of flying hours, but accounted for a whopping 68 percent of total accidents, and 67.5 percent of fatal accidents. There's no doubt that aerial application is extremely demanding flying, but the accident statistics would suggest that those hours are being flown by highly qualified pilots largely equal to the task. Reading between the lines, the ag pilots also seem to be able to land damaged or malfunctioning planes without killing anybody. It's certainly dangerous work, but it's sobering to note that the ag pilots are probably safer flying aerial application than they would be dodging weekend warriors in the pattern at the local airport.
|
| Dick
Troy
23 Apr 2001 |
Cessna Shoot-Down in Peru While we're waiting to learn more about this shoot-down, it's instructive to remember this is not the first time the Peruvian Air Force has acted this way. About 15 years ago, the Peruvians attacked a USAF C-130 they determined had violated their airspace, killing a Tech Sergeant who was blown out of the aircraft. It appears that Peruvian Rules of Engagement equate "unidentified" with "hostile." That's scary. At any rate, the pilot's response appears unprofessional and incompetent. If, in fact, he strafed the crashed aircraft and its occupants, it was also dishonorable. |
| Chamberlain
Chuz
23 Apr 2001 |
Is That Your Final Answer? AVweb wrote:
I believe you made a mistake on the final question. True, he did win after answering the question on aircraft registration but that question was around $125K or so. The final question for the $1M was along the lines of:
At least they had a couple of questions I could answer <grin>. AVweb responds... Kevin Olmstead won the $2 mil with the helicopter question on 4/10/01 Bernie Cullen won the $1 mil with the N-number question 4/15/01 Source: ABC-TV --Bob Kaputa, Managing Editor |
| Kurt
Lawson
21 Apr 2001 |
Cessna Shoot-Down in Peru It is ILLEGAL by international treaty to shoot at or shoot civilian aircraft. This is according to the 1949 Chicago accord, which all member nations must of the ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) adopt. Peru is a member of ICAO. As we all know, civilian pilots ARE NOT TRAINED to be intercepted by military aircraft. There is no set radio frequency to communicate with and no set procedures. Hidden in the failed 1999 tobacco bill was funding to use the USAF reserves/guard units to intercept and possibly shoot down suspected drug airplanes. AOPA successfully lobbied and informed congress of the unneeded, unsafe, and legalities of the bill. According to the BBC, Peru has shot down 22 suspected drug planes in recent years. The shameful part is that the United States military was involved in this recent action. A U.S. aircraft was providing surveillance. Our presence in this incident brings shame and dishonor to our troops and our military. I like to be proud of our military, but this is just plain wrong . We should have no part in assisting a foreign military break international law. There should be a general court martial of the Peruvian pilot and his commanding officer. The U.S. should stand down from all drug interdiction missions until such time as Peru complies with international law. Furthermore, all civil flights to and from Peru should be suspended until Peru complies. I AM OUTRAGED, |
| Jonathan
Rudolf
21 Apr 2001 |
ATC Problems in New Zealand I just returned from a wonderful vacation in New Zealand. I don't know whether this incident made the news in the US, but it was the front-page story in the NZ papers for two days. A few days ago, the control tower at Auckland Intl Airport, which is the largest airport in the country and the one that handles the vast majority of international traffic, was left totally unstaffed for about 25 minutes. The controller on duty reached his maximum time working traffic, so he went home, while there were still several planes inbound in contact with the approach controller at the Christchurch radar facility. The planes continued "circling" until a controller delayed in road traffic arrived to work. The newspapers reported that two controllers at AKL tower had been ill, and two more developed sudden illness. The controllers claim that they are severely understaffed due to budget cuts by Airways, the corporation responsible for providing ATC services in New Zealand. I'm sure the folks at NATCA would be very interested, snce privatization of ATC continues to be proposed.
|
| Lloyd
Lawson
19 Apr 2001 |
Bumped Pax Compensation AVweb wrote:
This is not correct. You are entitled to compensation of $200 to $400 if you are INVOLUNTARILY bumped on a U.S.-originating flight. If you agree to be bumped, the compensation you receive is a matter of negotiation between the passenger and the airline. I have a date in court concerning this issue. AVweb responds... Small-claims court, I trust? --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Clint
Davis
19 Apr 2001 |
AA Treatment of Age-60+ TWA Employees It is the nature of our "Pepsi Generation" society that whenever possible, older citizens are sacrificed for the "good" of the younger ones. Highly-valuable life experiences are considered either expendable or without value. In the recent acquisition of TWA by American airlines, several age-60+ flight engineers have been discarded in the name of clearing the way for the younger crewmembers to be reincarnated into American crewmembers. The history goes like this: TWA and the Airline Pilots Association (ALPA) made a part of their collective bargaining agreement the opportunity for age-60+ pilots to down-bid to the flight engineer position. The issue of why those pilots wish to or have to work beyond 60 is not a part of this discussion. By agreement, if TWA retired all aircraft requiring flight engineers, these crewmembers were given the option of going on an unpaid leave of absence; no pay, no medical/dental, no passes or reduced rate privileges. Their incentive to take this option was returning to active status if TWA re-operated aircraft requiring flight engineers, returning to the pilot seat if the age-60 ruling were changed, OR working as flight engineer if TWA merged with or were bought out by another airline that had aircraft with the flight engineer position available. The latter, of course, is exactly what happened to TWA but these senior crewmembers have been thrown into the street by TWA, Inc. and ALPA erasing this option and dumping them! The argument is that in order for American Airlines to accept the TWA/ALPA collective bargaining agreement, certain features had to be amended or cancelled, totally disregarding the human factor or fairness. ALPA would argue, like it always does, that for the many to benefit, the few must be sacrificed. As always, ALPA is void of intelligent reasoning and/or fair and logical solutions. All of those sacrificed have paid thousands of dollars in dues into ALPA's pocket. It is unfortunate that we place such great emphasis on recycling a soda bottle but cannot recycle human life experiences. It has, and certainly will continue to, cost thousands of lives and vast amounts of wasted resources. |
| Loren
Otto
19 Apr 2001 |
Air Fares are Bargains In 1971, before deregulation of the airlines, I paid about $700 for a round-trip from Denver to Tokyo (and back). Today, you can find similar fares (or even lower), but the value of the dollar has declined considerably. A typical mid-priced automobile in 1971 cost about $3,500 -- now it's nine times as much, or about $25-30K. At that time, an average home cost about $25,000; now it's more than five times that much! I would say that air fares today are real bargains by comparison! And it is no wonder that the airlines and airplane manufacturers are squeezing their nickels and cutting workers and salaries -- because the flying public is getting "cheaper and cheaper" and a lot harder to please. |
| Tom
Beard
19 Apr 2001 |
Potential Trend? I was recently on an American Airlines flight from Dallas to New Orleans. A Sunday evening flight that ended up being delayed two hours. After the boarding procedure was completed the captain came on the PA to announce that the service crew had not yet loaded the catering items on the aircraft. He stated that the flight from Dallas to New Orleans was "only" a "short" hour and a half. We could either depart immediately, or wait 30 minutes at the gate for catering. He asked for a vote through a closed cockpit door and then said, "It sounds like you all want to go." Hell, we were "wanting to go" for two hours! What a concept: Run two hours late, save the cost of catering, and lay off the flight attendants because they have nothing to do! I wonder if American has figured out the cost savings yet? |
| Paul
Smith
19 Apr 2001 |
Bed Seats on Transatlantic Flights AVweb wrote:
I wonder if there will be more members inducted into the "mile high club" with these new seats? Maybe I can get a concession to sell the pins and certificates upon landing... <grin>
AVweb responds... I can almost guarantee that someone at Virgin Atlantic already thought of that. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Kimberly
Bradshaw
19 Apr 2001 |
Be A Pilot Price Increase AVweb wrote:
The term "a lot more expensive" certainly is dependent on value received. When we consider that a real flying lesson would cost between $75 and $120 PER HOUR in the first place, $35 was an incredible bargain!. In fact it was such an incredible bargain that the potential clients (future GA supporters) likely never received an experience from most flight schools that helped them make the decision to change their lives and "Be A Pilot"! I think it's important to deliver the same experience they would be buying if and when they decide to learn to fly. An experience that is first class and quite honestly "blows the client away" and makes them want to start the same week! With this program the keyword is LESSON. It is an introductory lesson not a flying ride. I deliver a 2.5 hour experience, with 45 minutes in the air, a first flight certificate (framed), a log book and a Fly California! t-shirt. If I delivered $35 (or $49 in value) I would likely never see them again. It's time to charge more and deliver "WOW"!
AVweb responds... We agree, Kimberly, that our headline could have been worded better. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Darryl
Phillips
18 Apr 2001 |
Dennis Tito's Space Adventure AVweb wrote:
Dennis Tito wants to ride along with the Russians on their next supply mission to the International Space Station. And NASA, our American NASA, is fighting against it. Why? What business is it of the United States government if one of our millionaire citizens wants to take a ride in a Russian spacecraft? We skydive and bungee jump and ski and even fly around the world in biplanes. Why on earth (OK, why in space) should NASA object? It's not "our" space station. Dennis Tito has trained for most of a year with the cosmonauts, yet when NASA trained the Russians at JSC they kept Tito out. What's this all about? As we approach the centennial of manned flight, we need to remember what the Wright boys did for us. Sure, they invented the airplane, but someone was going to do that. The gift handed down from Orville and Wilbur was the demonstration that it doesn't take immense amounts of government money to fly. They did it out of their hip pockets, and as a result we have general aviation. And we have an airline industry. It didn't have to happen that way, Professor Langley could have flown first - forever proving that it takes immense amounts of funding to fly. In atmospheric flight the low budget guys got there first, but in space it was the other way around. Then FAA arrived with rules that make personal space travel a practical impossibility. Even when it's just one guy from California, who wants to fly in a Russian spacecraft, our government is against it. Remember when Pan Am was selling advance tickets for spaceflight? When we thought that NASA led the way and soon we'd all be able to follow? It didn't happen, we don't have a hint of a space tourist industry today. And NASA clearly doesn't want one. Safety. NASA says the Dennis Tito flight "poses a potential safety risk." Horsefeathers! It poses a risk that more people might decide they'd like to go too. Some modern-day Wright boys might build a machine to do it, priced for the average pilot or at least priced for the bizjet crowd. NASA certainly couldn't have that. So, as the 100th anniversary of flight draws nearer, we need to remember the Wright Brothers for their greatest achievement, proving that any of us can fly. And we need to remember NASA's treatment of Dennis Tito. |
| Gary
Loff
18 Apr 2001 |
Ten-Knot Tape In its April Fools Day spoof issue, AVweb wrote:
Have you visited the dimple tape web site? I found it the other day and he makes the very same claims you are poking fun at. Someone is wrong and now it's been escalated to the point where there needs to some concrete information. The dimple tape guy is either ripping people off or AVweb owes him a big apology. A friend of mine who is a Princeton University Physicist confirms the physics and the dimple tape guy claims to have hard data to support his claims. What is the basis for your skeptisim? Have you seen his web site? AVweb responds... When AVweb executive editor Jeb Burnside concocted the bogus "Ten-Knot Tape" ad that appeared in our AVfalsch 2001 issue, the site you cite was completely unknown to any of us. The challenge of creating a good April Fools Day issue is to come up with ideas for spoof stories that, while false, are plausible and attractive and therefore easy for our readers to believe. Occasionally, we do our job too well and inadvertently stumble on an idea that someone is actually working on. That's apparently what happened in this case. Please do let us know how the dimple tape works for you. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Scott
West
18 Apr 2001 |
Ansett Grounded Again AVweb wrote:
I believe you should investigate issue a bit further before siding with CASA completely on this issue. CASA is not without error, in fact today internal CASA documents stated that CASA did not have the capability to provide the necessary safety processes it's condemning ANSETT of. You should also investigate Mick Toller ... three airmanship incidents in the past year, one just this weekend when he flew his twin Cessna on the opposite circuit, which was published, while landing at a airport. Ansett is owned by ANZ (New Zealand). ANZ made a profit last year, Qantas (ex Auz government owned) didn't. CASA timing is ridiculous. This is nothing more than a 'witchhunt' and those facts present themselves on an ever increasing basis.
|
| Todd
Walker
17 Apr 2001 |
TERPS I just happened to come across your interactive quiz #35, and after failing miserably, I tried to find this TERPS manual. Flight schools, pilot supply shops, don't carry it and most have never heard of it. Can you tell me where to find it? AVweb responds... Todd, you can find the basic TERPS document here: Change 18 to TERPS is at: Other documents of interest in this subject are can be found at: Hope this helps! --Joseph E. (Jeb) Burnside, Executive Editor |
| Mark
Madden
16 Apr 2001 |
IFR Training in IMC Rick Durden's recent column concerning the validity of actual IMC instruction for the Instrument Pilot Rating has many good points. All of the reasons cited for doing instruction in IMC are valid. Of course, the type of IMC and the stage of training must be considered, as the article pointed out. In some locations in the U.S. good training IMC is rare. Southwestern states often do not experience this type of weather. When IMC is present in these locations, it is quite often severe (e.g., ice, extreme convective activity, etc.) making it unwise for training students at the Instrument Rating level, especially with the typical training airplanes. As Rick mentioned, there isn't any substitute for experience gained in IMC under appropriate controls. One point you emphasized in Rick's article with which I must disagree is the idea that ab-initio programs only train to the bare minimums. Rick may be looking only at the number of hours completed and not the quality of training that is very much a part of these programs. The main reason these programs are able to consistently graduate students at the FAA minimums (and, in my experience, usually exceeding the required skill and knowledge levels), is due to more closely monitored training and higher quality instructor skills and experience than is typically found at most FBO-type flight schools. The ab-initio programs typically employ retired military instructor pilots and civilian-trained pilots who have chosen aviation education for a career at the college level. These instructors typically have significantly greater teaching credientials and experience than that available at the majority of FBO flight schools. Please keep in mind, there isn't any correlation between ab-initio programs and actual IMC training. No, we don't have an ab-initio program where I teach, at least not yet. However, with the absence of the large supply of military-trained pilots traditionally available to the airlines, college ab-initio programs will most likely become a primary producer of professional airline pilots in the future.
|
| Ted
Hunsberger
16 Apr 2001 |
Automatic External Defibrillators AVweb wrote:
I am a 747 systems mechanic at Northwest Airlines and a CPR and First Aid instructor. NWA was and is the first airline to put AEDs (automatic external defibrillators) an all of our aircraft. We use The Lifepack 500 from Medtronics. We also, at our expense, put them in all of our terminals and also the hangers and shops.
|
| Phil
Boyer
16 Apr 2001 |
AOPA, Sporty's, and Credit Card Info Since AVweb was copied on Tom Staggs' email to me about the transition of our chart service from AOPA to Sporty's [AVmail, 10 Apr 2001], I hope you will take the time to review the reply I have sent Mr. Staggs. AOPA took many steps prior to even considering the transfer of this information, and as you can see from my reply, handled this with the advice of not only the legal side, but our own credit card company.
|
| Baird
Montgomery
16 Apr 2001 |
Aviation Consumer Web Site Did you know that if you are a current subscriber to Aviation Consumer you are still not allowed to fully access their web site? Why? They are holding current subscriber accounts hostage until they RE-SUBSCRIBE! I find this corporate policy absolutely outrageous and inexcusable. Theirs is the only website I know that refuses to allow current subscribers to access content to their site. If this policy remains in force, I certainly will NOT re-subscribe. Plus, in my opinion, they should consider changing their name from "Aviation Consumer" to "Aviation Ripoff." |
| Joe
Dattoli
16 Apr 2001 |
Space Race AVweb wrote:
"That dark day in 1961"? How could you write such a thing? The day Yuri Gagarin orbited the Earth was the most important day in the history of Mankind. And you want to draw political lines around it? SHAME!! |
| Richard
Brice
13 Apr 2001 |
Stepped-On Readbacks The NTSB thought of improving Safety, they miss understand the significance of the ATC Clearance readback. I was also an FAA Air Carrier Inspector for many years. Several times I caught Air Traffic Control in adjusting the recorded tape so it would not show their error. The most Classic Case was here at Denver, Colorado. This was back when Western Airlines was operating, before the merger with Delta. I was the DUTY at the particular time, meaning we Air Carrier Inspectors would stand a DUTY of one week at a time (volunteer situation) to intercept incidents during off duty hours. As I recall, it was on a Friday evening about seven O'clock that I received the call from FAA Communications that two Western Airline Flights had been involved in not following a Clearance. I called the Western Airlines Operations desk here at Denver to find out who the Captains of the Flights were. They gave me the names of the Captains. One Captain by the name of Gene Oliver Jr., I knew personally, the other Captain I did not know. At the time I called WAL Ops. both flights had already departed on their next scheduled leg. I told WAL Ops. to have both Captains call me when they landed at the next stop. Gene Oliver Jr. knew me, so he called. The other Captain ignored the request. Gene Oliver Jr. said that he arrived at Bison Intersection and was Cleared to HOLD. Shortly thereafter he received a Clearance to descend to 14.0. He read back the Clearance and descended. When his Flight reached 14.0 he called the Center and advised WAL xxx was at 14.0. The Center advised him he should be at 23.0 and wanted to know why he was at 14.0. Gene Oliver Jr. advised me that when he landed he called the ARTC at Longmont, Colorado and asked them what had happened? Gene Oliver Jr. advised me that the Center Supervisor told him that they had listened to the recording and they could hear two transmissions but could not decipher it. The next Monday I went to the Center at Longmont (with my hand held recorder) and told them I wanted to listen to the Tape of the incident. The Center Chief assigned a Controller to me and to go to a cubical to listen to the tape. When the Controller brought out the tape, it was in an aluminum canister. On the canister was a piece of masking tape which had the note "tone on tape." I asked what that was for. The Controller told me that anytime a loud tone comes over the air they have to document it because the Controller is liable to claim a disability from the cause. I said "Bull Shit, I've never heard of such a thing." The Controller started the tape and everything was exactly as Gene Oliver Jr. had told me, i.e., Bison Intersection, the Holding, etc. Then came the Clearance for the WAL Flight to descend and as soon as the Controller finished the Clearance, this is when the TONE started. The TONE kept up until Gene Oliver Jr. came on the air and reported 14.0 It was obvious that the tape had been tampered with. I had it on my recorder and the fact is I still have the tape. I then told the Controller I wanted to listen to all the phone line transmissions during this period of time. The Controller got WHITE. He went and got the recording but told me there was something wrong it would not work. Again I said, "Bull Shit, get me a Technician." The Technicians who maintain the equipment in the Center are not Center employees, they are Airways Facility Employee's. The Tech. came in and looked at the Tape and the Recorder and said, "there is nothing wrong with the equipment. I then asked him, "can these tapes be altered?" His response was "No, but we can put a TONE on them." This is when the ARTC Controller took off. I listened to the phone conversations and recorded them (I still have the tape). The conversation with Gene Oliver Jr. was exactly as he had told me, which was they had listened to the tape and could hear two people talking at the same time. Well, I knew I had a case of fraud, hind sight, I should have called the FBI but instead I went to the FAA people over me. The first person I went to was the ACDO Chief. Apparently it scared him so bad that he did not want to get involved so he told me to take it to the Rocky Mountain Region FS-1, who was a guy by the name of Dick Deveroe. This Dick Deveroe hit the roof. He said, "Everytime something goes wrong, you're right in the middle of it." You may recall the Hugh Downs and Barbara Walters show many years back where they questioned an X Inspector by the name of Harry Langdon about a BLUE RIBBON INSPECTION he had conducted on the Old Continental Airlines. They asked Harry if the Blue Ribbon was Satisfactory or unsatisfactory. He told them the report he turned in was UNSAT. Well, come to find out this Dick Deveroe, who was now in the Western Region FS-1 had changed the report to make it Satisfactory. As I recall, Deveroe was terminated. The rumor was that Deveroe had a relative working for CAL. Continental during this period of time was under John Lorenzo. You may recall he was involved with several Airlines that he took through bankruptcy. I understand he is living in Spain at present, I have heard that it would not be safe for him in the States. The BOTTOM LINE for the readback of a Clearance is to confirm the Clearance. If something is wrong with the readback the Controller is to advise. If a readback is garbled, for Safety of Flight, the Controller should get it cleared up at this instant, not ignore it.
AVweb responds... Unfortunately, the FAA's recent "interpretive rule" concerning pilot readbacks and the even more recent appeals court decision in FAA v. Merrell mean that a flawed pilot readback that is left uncorrected by the controller provides no assurance that the pilot won't be cited for a violation. Relevant articles on AVweb include: --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Doug
McArthur
13 Apr 2001 |
QOTW on Flight Planning........ In your latest QOTW about flight planning was the following comment:
Could someone please direct me on where this software is that interactively takes internet weather into consideration? AVweb responds... Doug, all three leading flight planning packages for Windows -- Jeppesen's FlightStar, Delta Technology's Destination Direct, and RMS's FliteSoft -- fetch both textual and graphic weather info from both DUATS providers via the Internet. All three parse winds aloft data from the DUATS briefing and incorporate it into the flight planning calculations. Both FlightStar and FliteSoft overlay graphic weather info and winds aloft data on their map displays. (Destination Direct does not do this yet, but I imagine it's coming soon -- these three products are extremely competitive and when one introduces a nifty feature, the others are never far behind.) --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Name
Withheld
13 Apr 2001 |
Emergency Evacuations AVweb wrote:
Regarding when to evacuate and when not to evacuate I think the issue is a little more clear cut than you imply. How do you tell "routine" smoke/fire from the "real" thing? Experience, systems knowledge, and judgement. For example most Cargo smoke detectors that I'm aware of are photo votaic cells that are succeptable to dust and other airborne contaminates. These contamintes can fool the sensor in to thinking that there is really a fire when no fire exists. So what to do? Follow the checklist of course but use your own judgement. Lets look at the airplane I fly as an example. The Canadair Regional Jet (CRJ) has an aft cargo compartment with both fire detection and supression. The supression is in the form of two Halon bottle one of which floods the compartment quickly to supress and fire the other of which will meter Halon into the compartment for 45mins to keep it supressed. So what happens if I get a cargo smoke light? Well the memory items call for me to shut off the venilation fan and discharge both bottles. Next is going to be an emergency landing at the nearest suitable airport. What comes next is where my judgement and experience comes into play. With the cargo smoke indications still lit normally I would be expected to perform an emergency evac right after landing which means opening the overwing exits and letting people "escape" that way. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out then when granny trys to crawl off my wing she's likely to injure herself in the process. So instead what I'll be doing is looking for secondary indications of a fire. Is the back wall of the cabin warm? Is there any smoke coming from that area? Did anyone smell smoke or anything unusual? If the answers to these questions are no then what I'll be doing instead of a full blown emergency evac is an "orderly deplaning". I'll land, clear the runway, stop in a safe area on the taxiway and slowly and calmly have everyone deplane through the main cabin door (which in our case doubles as an airstair). Doing so won't clear the airplane as fast as a full blown evac but the odds of anyone getting hurt are quite slim. Another recent real world example occurred during an approach in gusty winds and heavy rain at Newark. Coming down the ILS both the Captian and I noticed a distinct burning odor in the cockpit that smelled electrical in nature. Since we were already on the approach and cleared for it we simply continued the approach and kept our speed higher than normal to expedite getting down. As we landed and cleared the runway it became apparent that we not only had a smell but there seemed to be some smoke along with it too. Now at this point what we had was a burning odor and haze in the cockpit but not (based on the absence of a call from the F/A) in the cabin. We elected at that point to simply get to the gate ASAP rather than dump a plane load of people out into the wind and rain in the middle of one of the nations busiest airports. Within a min of clearing the runway we were able to determine that the problem was coming from an overheating A/C pack and by securing the pack the smoke and smell quickly dissappeared. Again this is a situation where strict adhearance to the checklist would have required a full blown emergency evac on the runway. But by using our judgement we were able to avoid an evacuation and any possible injury to our passangers. This is a serious and important subject and I for one am glad to see the FAA taking a look at it. Hopefully it will result in better official guidance in how to handle these situations. Because right now when I deviate from a checklist I'm putting my neck on the chopping block even if my call turns out to be right. If you publish this please do not publish my name. |
| Barry
Brannan
12 Apr 2001 |
Emergency Evacuations When I finally upgraded to captain with a U.S. major after 19 years as a copilot/engineer, one of the questions I asked along the way was "how do you make the decision on when to evacuate?" I never got an answer, so it is strickly a judgement call with absolutely no guidelines. I find myself reading about or watching evacuations on TV and wondering if I would have called for one in that situation. Of course, years ago we had a 727 waiting for a gate to open up at ORD and the APU caught on fire. The cockpit crew learned that there was an evacuation going on when they saw passengers walking outside the airplane. The flight attendants started the evac. There was some additional training given reguarding cockpit/cabin communications. |
| Name
Withheld
12 Apr 2001 |
High Cost of Aviation Insurance I operate the FBO at a small airport on the East Coast. I too have had to endure the repressive increase in insurance costs over the past couple of years. I was insured through Avemco, and had only nuisance claims for 5 years in business while running a flight school at a large towered airport, and for the 2 years here. Because of my clean record with regard to claims, I always qualified for a reduced rate due to the premium to loss ratio. However, my insurance costs have more than doubled over the last 2 years since Avemco quit writing commercial insurance. Why? Read on. While I am insured by W. Brown, I spoke to a representative of USAIG that is a personal acquaintenance. He told me that the insurance companies still writing commercial policies realize that they can name their own price, due to the lack of competition. Said we, the commercial operators, had been getting a "free ride" for so long that it was now time to get even. He said that I was lucky to not have been targeted for a 300% or more premuim increase BECAUSE THEY CAN GET IT. So long as there is no competition to speak of, they are free to charge whatever they please. While I am not going to reveal my source, this is an individual I have known for many years and I believe that his insight is a disturbing reality of the mind-set held by USAIG and other insurance companies at this point in time. And if you don't (or can't) pay the premium, tough. This is price gouging at best, if not out-and-out rate fixing. USAIG, and the other insurance companies also have a minimum premuim that must be met; that is, they intend to write a $10,000 policy or greater or it's not worth the time to write the policy. Many small operators and repair facilities don't have the revenue stream to justify this expense. And unlike other expenses that generate revenue, this expense has no income associated with it. Calling other individuals I have known over the years associated with the insurance industry, this attitude is shared by all of the insurance companies writing commercial insurance, to the best of my research. Don't complain about it, either, as complaining may get you non-renewed next year. Thank you sir, can I have another? Please don't publish my comments with my name attached for that reason. I cannot afford the retaliation that WOULD HAPPEN. There is a reason why public utilities are regulated against price gouging. How about if the electric company or water company were to have this unfettered ability to charge whatever they want BECAUSE THEY CAN. Don't like it, huh? Drink bottled water. Buy your own generator. HA HA HA. The automobile insurance industry could not do this to drivers, because the backlash against them would be overpowering. Even bad drivers have the ability to get insurance because the regulatory agencies in the states prevent discriminatory underwriting. Medical insurance companies are trying to do the same thing, and it has taken Congressional action to stop it. Been sick, huh? No insurance for you. We only insure healthy people. However, our small fraternity of aviation businesses has no regulatory agency with teeth to stop it, because it affects such a small group. I really tire of the propoganda espoused by Phil Boyer that he, and AOPA, are the champions of general aviation. Horsefeathers, for want of the use of a more appropriate utterance I'm thinking. Phil Boyer is his own champion, and his position at AOPA has definately gone to his head. He is so far removed from REAL general aviation he wouldn't know a Cessna 152 if it bit him in his self-righteous posterior. The only reason I belong to AOPA is because the membership came free with my Air Power loan from (at the time) Maryland National Bank when I financed the aircraft I use in my flight school. He sucked at hosting Wide World of Flying, and he sucks at AOPA. I hope I'm not coming across too bitter about this. Your web publication is great, and I enjoy reading it as much as I can, given the amount of time I have to spend working to pay the insurance premuim. Thanks for your time.
AVweb responds... I actually suspect that Phil Boyer would recognize a Cessna 152, since it looks quite similar to the Cessna 172 that he and his wife Lois own. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| P. I.
Cameron
12 Apr 2001 |
Ansett Grounded Again AVweb wrote:
I am no fan of Ansett, but come on. It is really strange how Ansett has these problems (real problems they are) surface within a week before Christmas and Easter. The news of this could have come out at anytime. And as I write this it is getting a lot worse for them. I hear CASA has just come down hard on them. Just a side note, is it more than a coincidence that these stories have been seen in the Fairfax newspapers in Australia. I have not seen Ansett's problems surface in the other papers. With that in mind, I understand the boss of Impulse Airlines (one of the newcomers to mainline service) is married to a member of the Fairfax family. These problems are being promoted for gain by the opposition, it is dirty tricks at its best. I guess when it is all boiled down, what goes around comes around ... remember 1989? |
| Raymond
Bloch
12 Apr 2001 |
QOTW on Flight Planning You quoted one of the respondents to last week's QOTW on flight planning as saying: "A flight log is as silly as a commute log for driving to work; one wrong signal phase and it's trash. Flight logs had some use before GPS to time between checkpoints for actual vs. planned ground speed." I would like to be in the right seat when the person who relies entirely on his/her GPS has a total avionics failure, especially when IFR. A flight log is as necessary in flight as a life jacket is over water. AVweb responds... You bet it is, Ray! And with today's wonderful PC flight planning software plus other great offerings on the Web, there's no excuse not to carry a detailed hardcopy of a printed flight long. When I'm traveling, I don't usually have a printer with me, so I just use my laptop to FAX my flight log to the hotel front desk, where I pick it up when I'm checking out and heading for the airport. Alternatively, I use the laptop to FAX it to the FBO and pick it up when I settle my fuel bill. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Bill
Caefer
12 Apr 2001 |
Boeing's New Headquarters Hey, I had a great idea. Since Chicago is one of the cities trying to woo Boeing, why don't we start a campaign to get Boeing to help save Meigs field. We could have Boeing say that they wouldn't even consider moving to such a non-aviation-friendly city. Or one shortsighted enough to close such an important airport. You get the idea.
AVweb responds... Anyone from the Boeing Flying Club listening? --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Andrew
M. Boardman
10 Apr 2001 |
AD on Cessna 172RG Landing Gear AVweb wrote:
You used too many words. Specifically, you should have dropped the last two words of your headline:
Of course, when the FAA gets involved, it's not just Cessna pilots, either! AVweb responds... Damn! Why didn't we think of that? --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Charles
Freeman
10 Apr 2001 |
Carbon Monixide Detectors I have some questions concerning Mike Busch's revised article on CO detectors. I have a pre-98 model AIM 696 detector and a C182RG that suffers the problem of CO coming in through the esssentially open wheel wells. I have found that as long as I have either the heater or a fresh air source open to supply slight positive pressure in the cabin, the CO level lives at 0-11 PPM; frequently the latter. If I shut off all ventilation air sources, however, it will easily climb to 100 PPM. If I read the article correctly then with the new AIM 935 low-level CO detector alarming at 5 PPM it would be alarming all the time. Your reference table in this article states that 35 ppm CO shows no discernable symptoms after 8 hours of exposure ... so what is your justification to then go on to state "I consider CO concentrations of 10 PPM or more in the cockpit to be something worth worrying about, and concentrations of 35 PPM to be grounds for landing at the next reasonable opportunity to determine the cause of the CO contamination." This problem is endemic to the C182RG design. I first learned about it at a Cessna Pilot Association course, which is what coaxed me to purchase your detector in the first place. At any rate, these alarm levels sound too sensitive for medicine as I know it and for my experience (500+ hours) in this airplane. I'm happy with my older AIM 696, but it only has two years left to run. I wish I could get another pre-98 696! From the official medical references you use rather than Busch's hyperbole, though, it sounds like the new 696 is still adequate protection for safe operation. AVweb responds... Charlie, the AIM 935 low-level CO detector does NOT alarm at 5 ppm. It goes into low (slow) warning mode above 10 ppm, and into high (fast) alarm mode above 35 ppm. If your normal CO level is between 0 and 11 ppm, you'll seldom if ever hear an alarm from the 935. The medical references that indicate no descernable symptoms after 8 hours of exposure to 35 ppm of CO are (1) concerned only with physical symptoms, not with cognitive impairment, and (2) based on the subject being at or near sea level. When dealing with CO in the cockpit, we're intensely concerned with cognitive impairment of the flight crew. Furthermore, the crew is operating at a physiological altitude far above sea level, and the effects of CO poisoning and altitude hypoxia are additive. That's why I believe that conventional guidelines for CO safety are not nearly conservative enough for use in the in-flight environment. The old (pre UL2034-1998) AIM 696s were good units fir aircraft use. The 935 is better IMHO, unless you have an aircraft that simply cannot be brought below 10 ppm by proper attention to detail (which is rare). The new 696s and all other UL2034-1998-compliant detectors are semi-useless for aircraft use in my opinion, because unfortunately they will not alarm below 70 ppm, and at that level only after prolonged exposure. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Jim
Skydell
10 Apr 2001 |
Pulse Oximeter I purchased a Nonin pulse oximeter from Aeromedix.com about one year ago and use it while flying my sailplane. Based on my oxygen saturation levels as shown by the pulse ox, I have completely changed how I use supplemental oxygen. I found that I desaturate into the low 90s at 9,000 feet, so I now use oxygen at that altitude. I do a fair amount of glider flying above 20,000 ft., and it is very useful to titrate oxygen flows based on actual oxygen sats, rather than just depending on the recommended flow rate of my oxygen system flow meter. I find that I need close to double the flows recommended by the altitude scale of the flow meter. And I have a normal heart, and never smoked.
AVweb responds... A lot of us have had similar experiences, Jim. The pulse ox shows that the old rules-of-thumb about use of supplemental oxygen aloft may not be nearly conservative enough to prevent hypoxic impairment. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Tom
Staggs
10 Apr 2001 |
AOPA, Sporty's, and Credit Card Info Below is a message I wrote to Phil Boyer, the president of AOPA. Please feel free to send him your thoughts as well.
|
| Steve
Johnson
9 Apr 2001 |
Animal Farm? So I note that a few high-profile pilots such as Harrison Ford and Tom Cruise are not in your copy of the FAA Airman database, although they once were in that database (the things we do on the Internet when bored...) Is this something AVweb does, or a new special service of the FAA, in a sort of "some pigs are more equal than others" sentiment? And does it apply just to the Airmen database, or to the Aircraft Registration database as well? AVweb responds... It's not AVweb, Steve. It's the FAA's new, congressionally-mandated, long-overdue "opt out" policy in compliance with the Privacy Act. The Privacy Act protects only personal information, not personal property. Public interest demands that aircraft registration data be available to the public (for title searches, etc.) So one cannot "opt out" of the aircraft database. You can, however, transfer aircraft ownership to corporate name, and in some states (e.g., Nevada), set up the corporation in a fashion that the identity of the shareholders is not public. So privacy is still alive and well. But it does take some effort. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Mike
Glasgow
09 Apr 2001 |
Lighter-Than-Air Prejudice? Seems to me AVweb shows some bias toward aviation which doesn't have some form of rigid wing involved. A recent comment about some skydiving altitude record attempts (which will involve a climb to altitude in a lighter-than-air craft), along with today's comments about Fossett's record attempts seem to show bias against some of the facets of sport aviation. Are you forgetting man's first successful flight was in a lighter-than-air craft? Man was leaving the ground (quite successfully, I might add) for quite a few years before Orville and Wilbur did the deed at Kitty Hawk. There are quite a few airmen who wouldn't be alive now were it not for the fact a parachute saved them from a broken airplane. I think you might need to re-consider where the roots of aviation originated. I see no difference between the comments made recently in AVweb against lighter-than-air, and parachuting, and the comments against GA by people not in favor of GA. When you start condemning a part of your community, you are one step closer to losing a part of that community. Because you don't participate in a particular facet of Aviation is not a good reason to condemn it. After all, why should I care if the Austin area is losing its GA airports? I don't fly there. My aircraft of preference does not have rigid wings. Why should I care if there are no GA airports in the Austin area? I care because someone may be denied the privilege of flight if Austin loses all of its GA airports. (I picked Austin as an example, because it has made the news a lot lately) Incidentally, I was rated in single and multi engine airplanes before I started skydiving twenty plus years ago, and before adding a commercial lighter-than-air rating eleven years ago. I also hold a parachute riggers rating and a repairman's certificate for an amateur built aircraft. AVweb responds... Mike, we do NOT have a bias against lighter-than-air flight. If we're guilty of bias, it's against record attempts that strike us as having no real purpose. Whether a record attempt has a purpose is in the eye of the beholder, of course. In my eye, Lindbergh crossing the Atlantic and Yeager attempting to fly faster than Mach 1.0 both had a purpose ... because transoceantic and supersonic flight both stood to benefit mankind, On the other hand, Fossett attempting to fly a free balloon around the world and Bohannon trying to break his previous piston-engine time-to-climb record don't ... because I can't visualize any broader social benefit deriving from either of those feats. But maybe that's just me. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| John
Brooks
8 Apr 2001 |
Controller Retirements A recent letter by Bob Smith [AVmail, 05 Apr 2001] accurately described the controller's enticement to remain just three more years. The FAA managers face an additional disincentive for controllers to remain. This controller workforce is not the typical "Career Oriented" type, it is just a job and nothing more. During the early 80s we hired anyone who passed the initial exam and had three years general work experience. We are now riding the edge of the 20-year bubble for retirement. The retirement package is too generous for them to continue to endure the FAA style of management that has been gradually decaying for nearly 20 years. I will be eligible in the year 2004, and like many of my co-workers, I am counting the days (literally) until I can leave. And if that wasn't enough, privatizing will cause a stampede out the door!
|
| Bob
Smith
05 Apr 2001 |
Controller Retirements It won't take as long as five years to see what will happen to the FAA with controller retirements. An FAA controller's retirement is based on the average of the "high three years' salary" After the raises last year there will be very few retirements until those that a eligible to retire get three years of the new higher pay. As soon as that happens, there will be a huge sucking sound as we all leave by the end of 2003. MDT Tower is a good example: Of the 33 employees, 11 (that's 33%) will probably retire in the next three years. |
| Adam
Firrone
7 Apr 2001 |
Unscheduled Stops in Alaska AVweb wrote:
The article, and its companion article immediately preceding, were most amusing, by the way. Let me offer this addendum: Several weeks ago another Northwest aircraft diverted to Alaska, whilst on its way to Japan. On 12 March, 2001, flight NWA 007, SEA-NRT departed SEA alright, but after several hours, when the pilot asked over the intercom, "is there a doctor aboard...," we knew what would happen. An hour or so later, the pilot announced that we were 360 miles west of ANC, and that we were diverting there to offload a sick passenger. We spent about 1.5 hours on the ground, letting the paramedics take custody of the ailing older woman, and refueling. We were not allowed off the a/c during all of this. My seatmate was less than amused, having left ANC 12 hours earlier to travel to Asia. Our plane was also carrying two Special Winter Olympics (the big worldwide Olympics) teams, which had just finished competing in this years events, which were held in ANC. Needless to say, we missed all of our connections in Tokyo, but Northwest was kind enough to arrange all connecting flights for the next morning on several different carriers, as well as the hotel for the evening (Radisson). By the way, it felt as cold as Alaska that next morning in Tokyo. So, Northwest seems to be visiting Alaska more and more, and if this trend continues, perhaps they will add ANC to the published schedule for the long overseas flights. Incidentally, the older woman that suffered the medical emergency had spent an hour during initial boarding talking to a couple flight attendants, and had a flight attendant hovering near her for most of the flight until she left, and she was given oxygen from a portable bottle. It seems to us that she went onto the aircraft knowing that she would not make it. I have no idea how she turned out. |
| Dean
Wilt
6 Apr 2001 |
High Cost of Aviation Insurance We are a small airport in north Missouri (K89) and we have always been able to support a one-man repair shop and a small flight school with a Cessna 150 for rent. The FBO has built a business that just keeps his head above water by doing all of the above. He has never had an insurance claim in the past 20 years. Two years ago the shop insurance was $787. Last year, it rose to $3,700. This year, it was quoted at $8,700. The shop is now closed. The ability of the FBO to give instruction and rent his 150 met with a similar fate. I'm sure you are aware that this is happening all over the U.S . and I have read some of the articles on AVweb explaining why, The question is, what is going to happen to all the airports like K89 that the government has sunk all this money into? AVweb responds... I suppose they'll make ideal sites for housing tracts and shopping centers. <sigh> --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Steve
Scharpf
6 Apr 2001 |
April Fool's Day Issue I was bemused by the "Medical Self-Certification Update" section of your April Fool's Day Edition. More so because I just recently completed the AME course held by the FAA in Oklahoma City (I'm a physician), where I learned that the FAA is actually considering doing just what you joked about in the article. That is, recreational pilots (you know, those "Sunday Driver" pilots whose license allows them to fly only within a certain distance of their home airport) may soon be able to update their medical by doing nothing more than indicating "No medical problems" in their log book. Maybe you gave them the idea??? AVweb responds... No, Steve, we didn't give the FAA the idea. The FAA has favored medical self-certification for recreational pilots for years and actually included such a provision in their 1996 proposed rewrite of Part 61, but the DOT shot down the idea because they were afraid what would happen in the popular press got a hold of it. I'm unaware of any change in position by the DOT on this. If such a change ever made it to final rule, it would be a great boon to holders of the Recreational Pilot certificate -- all five of them. <g> (Actually, it would give the "Rec" pilot certificate a reason for being, something it largely lacks now.) --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Ken
Kessler
06 Apr 2001 |
EP-3E Down in People's Republic of China The large slow four-engine EP-3 surveillance plane is flying at a constant rate. A high-performance fighter approaches from the rear on the port side. The fighter slows to maintain the speed of the EP-3. At this time the fighter is slow and clean which generates wingtip vortices and an extreme low pressure over the top surface of his wing. He then moves forward beneath the wing of the EP-3. At about the time that he can look directly at the flight crew of the EP-3, his generated low pressure hits the lower side of the EP-3 wing. This results in an uncontrolled drop of the port wing of the EP-3, putting the outboard propeller into the fighter's tail. The resultant track of propeller blades would be forward, and could account for the loss of the nose. The resultant track of the fighter's parts would probably be radially, or to the rear. This scenario would account for the observation that the EP-3 "veered" into the fighter. It also would generate the severe left spiral that would take some time to control. Although the Chinese pilot knew how to fly, he obviously didn't understand the theory. Due to this lack of understanding, he committed suicide. Mark my name and this date on the wall somewhere, and when all this gets sorted out, remember that I said it first. AVweb responds... Marked on the wall, Ken. I'd find it extraordinarily surprising if PRC fighter pilots are not quite well-trained in interception procedures and the aerodynamics of close formation flight, just as U.S. fighter pilots are. Further, a jet fighter that was slowed to keep pace with the EP-3 turboprop would almost certainly be slow and dirty, not slow and clean. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Phil
Bertram
6 Apr 2001 |
Another Fee for Mexico Pilots This is a follow-up on my earlier message [AVmail, 29-Mar-2001]. It took me awhile but I finally tracked down some information. There is no permit required for corporate aircraft flying in Mexico except if they a conducting business in Mexico. The new Commandante at San Felipe was giving me a permit for conducting business within Mexico. Which is not the situation in most cases, mine included. My friend operates Baja Airventures, a tour operation in Baja, and went through San Felipe twice last week. He talked with Martha -- the new airport Commandante -- about the permit and she said no policy change has been made on tourist flights in Mexico in corporate aircraft. The standard notarized permission to fly in Mexico from the corporate owner of the aircraft is still all that is required. (In my case, a notarized letter from myself as Corporation President, allowing me to fly the corporate aircraft in Mexico.) This is a case of misinterpretation on both sides. As I said before, the new Commandante is friendly, approachable, and committed to keeping her airport accessible to everyone. AVweb responds... Thanks for the update, Phil. Your note confirms the situation concerning flying corporate-owned aircraft for personal use in Mexico as I understood it. Such operations require that the PIC carry a notarized letter of authorization from the corporate owner of the aircraft, but are exempt from the fees charged to business-use flights. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| George
Horn
6 Apr 2001 |
Yipes! No Green Light!!! I really enjoyed Mike Busch's article on landing gear troubles and how to deal with them. (Yipes! No Green Light!!!). As a professional pilot of 30+ years experience, I can attest to witnessing several of the scenarios Mike describes in that article. In an attempt to be helpful, however, I'd like to take issue with one of Mike's recommendations. He wrote:
If we are to keep safety as the paramount criteria of our operations, I feel that it might serve a pilot better to remind him that he should pick the best runway under the circumstances, (i.e., wind direction, familiarity, length, accessibility to emerg. equip. crews, away from close-by hangars/disruptive wind eddies, etc.) and let the airlines be damned. If an airport manager takes it upon himself to destroy my airplane in his haste to not inconvenience the airlines, then I'd prefer to let the airport authority and the insurance company lawyers hammer that out while I shop for a replacement airplane, rather than while I convalesce in a hospital recovering from burns. (or worse). I have freely distributed your excellent article to all my friends and students and co-workers. Keep up the great writing. AVweb responds... George, it goes without saying that the safety of the occupants is always the prime consideration, and minimizing damage to the aircraft (during a gear-up landing or while clearing the runway afterwards) should never be used to rationalize a decision that is less than the safest possible for the occupants. I had hoped this was the overriding theme of my article. I couldn't agree with you more that the pilot is responsible for the safety of the occupants, and the insurance company is responsible for dealing with any aircraft damage. I tried to hammer this home in the closing paragraph of my article:
--Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Doug
Schmitt
5 Apr 2001 |
Gulfstream Crash in Aspen, Colo. So much has been written and said about the NOTAM and whether the ill-fated flight crew had the information and why the "tower" did not have it. I haven't seen anything written or said about ARTCC or TRACON. Did these facilities not know the aircraft was destined for an instrument approach? Approach Control issues clearances for an approach, not the "tower." Of course, in their panicked rush to point a finger with poor judgement and false sense of authority, the mainstream media often refers to every FAA facility remotely connected with a flight as the "tower." I trust you would distinguish the difference in jurisdiction and control and offer clarification. One of the most disturbing comments I heard the morning after the crash came from a local New York City television anchorwoman who, after viewing a very early report of the crash into the popular haven for the rich and famous, said solemnly to her co-anchor, "Well, at least no one important was on board. We'll have sports and weather in a moment." How incredibly insensitive and obscene. But such is the media, particularly when it comes to stories such as this.
AVweb responds... Doug, to the best of my knowledge, it is not the responsibility of ANY facility -- tower, TRACON or ARTCC -- to tell pilots whether or not they are authorized to execute an instrument approach procedure, nor whether a requested operation is in violation of a local noise curfew. ATC has no way of knowing whether a requesting aircraft is authorized to execute a particular procedure under a particular set of conditions. The controller doesn't know whether the aircraft is operating under Part 91, 135 or 121; whether the aircraft is Category C or D; whether the aircraft has special authorization for the procedure; etc. ATC's responsibility is to keep aircraft separated from other aircraft and sequenced in an efficient fashion ... period. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| W. J.
R. Hamilton
06 Apr 2001 |
CASA Steps Up For Safety AVweb wrote:
A number of claims were made about safety levels in Australia compared to elsewhere. The statements prompted AOPA of Australia to produce a specific report addressing the claims made. The report has been forwarded to the NTSB for separate verification of the claims. AOPA of Australia is absolutely confident that the contents of the report will stand any scrutiny, as only publicly available data was use, from NTSB, ATSB, Boeing, UK CAA and other publicly available official sources. What the study makes clear is just how good the US overall safety record is, compared to ANY other country that published believable statistics. Using ONLY conventionally accepted measures of accidents per 100,000 hours, Australian GA is about 50% worse than US. Furthermore, we cannot show the steady across the board reductions so evident in US results. Even the Australian ATSB publicly acknowledge that we have made little progress in improving our air safety outcomes in the same period. During the period CASA has made these claims, including the National Press Club transcripts, the biggest aviation insurer in Australian , the AAUP, the Australian Aviation Underwriting Pool, and the ASFA, the Air Safety Foundation of Australia have all published views agreeing with AOPA of Australia, and thereby disagreeing with the statements by CASA. By comparison with European countries with any GA at all, Australia looks much better. The significant western European members of ECAC/JAA have accidents rates three to four times the US rate. If you look at the AOPA of Australia report, the excellent US outcomes are very evident, and the very serious shortcomings of the CASA statements are very obvious.
|
| Lloyd
Prince
5 Apr 2001 |
Flying in Big Metal Tubes is No Fun AVweb wrote:
What the report fails to tell the public, is that a major portion of the delays in 2000 were as a result of the ripple effect that LaGuardia's traffic problem had on the entire national network. At AirTran, we as flight crews would arrive for our first flight in the morning and find a ground delay program in effect of 45 min delay, increasing to up to 4 hrs by the afternoon. That's at 0600!! Then the FAA cancelled a major portion of the new slots this January. In the past few weeks, I've flown several trips to LGA. It is like night and day! No ground stop program, we get in and out in our 35-40 min turn time and it has been an absolute pleasure to face New York customers again. I realize that AirTran Airways doesn't count for a major, but I am sure that what we are experiencing is a good statistical sample of what the others probably are experiencing also.
|
| Ted
Saylor
5 Apr 2001 |
April Fool's Day Issue Instead of a Cummins diesel, you really should have suggested the ill-fated GM car diesel of the 1980s instead. I'm sure you would have lit the emails with burned owners of THAT beast. At least the Cummins is reliable, and it should be ... it weighs 1,200 pounds. AVweb responds... That was the point of the joke, Ted. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Name
Withheld
5 Apr 2001 |
Controller Retirements While the FAA may not be worried about controllers being eligible for retirement since "two-thirds ofthe controllers do not retire in the first seven years of eligibility," they are using fuzzy math. This may not have been true in the 1980s and the early 1990s, but then those eligible were grandfathered from the age 55 rule. The newer controllers MUST retire the month they hit age 56. Let's do the math...
I guess there are a lot more of the early hired controllers than the late hired ones if the FAA is correct. The only problem is, there are not that many of us! The FAA is blindly plunging into the abyss, whooping it up, like Slim Pickens in "Dr. Strangelove". I am an Air Traffic Control Specialist at Fort Worth Center. Please do not publish my name, as this note might be rgarded as "bringing disrepute upon the Government" and cause some problems. Thank you. |
| Brett
Colling
06 Apr 2001 |
Microsoft FlightSim Pilots AVweb wrote:
Which prompted me to write with one of those "Did You Know" pieces. Old Sectional charts also find their way into the hands of about 50,000 "pilots" and "controllers" worldwide who fly MS Flight Simulator online with full Air Traffic Control Linked globally via a series of Air Traffic Servers, there are pilots flying anything from a C172 to Concorde talking to Oceanic, Centre, Approach, Tower and Ground controllers. The airspace, procedure and navaid environments are created using Jeppesen and international air traffic organisation data. By recycling old charts and approach plates, everyone is using almost-current information and data. You find the amazing situation of a 13 year old B777 pilot from PA following a precise and difficult STAR into KIAD, intercepting the ILS and shooting the approach to minima. He's just been handed off by Centre (a 32yo ATPL commuter airline F/O living in London) and is in voice contact with his Approach Controller who's a 68 year old retired B747 captain living in Australia. The Approach Controller has another 7 aircraft under his control. They're linked together by two freeware programs called Squawkbox (for pilots) and ProController (for ATC) and are all members of SATCO http://www.satco.org/ the organisation which keeps all the elements coordinated. What certainly started out as a game is not a game any longer. Even though in mainstream aviation circles it would still be regarded slightly dismissively as such, there is a breed of new aviators with skills and "experience" that would surprise them. The sophistication of the whole system and the precision it demands are no less than in the real world and it may be breeding a whole new generation of aviators. A flight instructor in Palmerston North, New Zealand tells AVflash that he can tell within the first 500ft off the ground that his new 16yo student has been "flying" already. "They understand flight dynamics, they have an instrument scan already ingrained, they know the numbers, they talk confidently with the tower, they know the airspace .. and they can fly!" he says, "ask for straight and level followed by a gentle turn to 090 and you get it without loss of orientation or altitude, all on the first introductory flight" The thing that really upset this instructor was to find that his new student had 15hrs practicing holding pattern entries and crosswind holding patterns under his belt. The instructor was 21, still building hours, currently at 480, and hadn't been able to afford the IFR time to do that yet. Move over Captain Experienced, there's a 14yo wants your seat ... NOW!
|
| Patrick
Duncan
05 Apr 2001 |
Fueling Awareness I wish to take this opportunity to sincerely thank AVweb for selecting and using my questions on "Fueling" as the Question of the Week a couple of weeks previous. I was most interested but not surprised in the many responses received about negative "fueling" experiences. It is also disturbing to hear that some pilots have never had fueling instruction during their pilot training. Mis-fueling and improper fuel management are still a leading cause of GA accidents/incidents. AOPA Safety Foundation has just completed a new seminar on 'Fueling Awareness" that will be presented in an upcoming AOPA seminar "tour" conducted in conjunction with the FAA Aviation Safety Program. Hopefully this will help awaken the 'uneducated' on the criticality of proper fueling and fueling safety. Maybe AVweb can help promote awareness of the upcoming AOPA Fueling seminar series. Seminar schedule information can be obtained from Robin Sharitz, AOPA Safety Foundation at: Robin.Sharitz@aopa.org.
|
| John
Robertson
2 Apr 2001 |
April Fool's Day Issue This humor might be amusing to some, but you caused me acute embarrassment when I passed on your information about Beech piston engine aircraft. I previously had considerable confidence in the integrity of your stories, this is now shaken. These pranks have no place in the aviation environment. AVweb responds... John, apparently you skipped the first sentence of our April Fool's Day issue:
And I suppose you also didn't read the last sentence:
Something to think about next time you read an approach plate. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Dale A.
McComb
04 Apr 2001 |
April Fool's Day Issue AVfalsch wrote:
Any contact names and numbers at Cummins for more info on this? AVweb responds... Sure: 1-800-IT-WAS-A-JOKE-IN-THE-APRIL-FOOLS-EDITION. You don't win anything, but thanks for playing! --Bob Kaputa, Managing Editor |
| Joe E.
Wallace
03 Apr 2001 |
April Fool's Day Issue You just made my day!!!! It has been truly Monday and just read this one and am still ROFL. Thanks so much! |
| Jim
Posner
03 Apr 2001 |
Baby on the Runway! Great discussion by John Deakin about a sensitive subject: go-arounds. I like the quick "Five Cs" mental checklist:
But, whatever works for you!
|
| Judy
Glasel
2 Apr 2001 |
April Fool's Day Issue Loved the AVfalsch issue!!! Thanks for putting a bunch of good laughs into my morning. |
| Scott
Short
2 Apr 2001 |
FAA "Diamond Award" for Maintenance Training AVweb wrote:
Regional Airline Operators, like my employer Trans States Airlines (TSA), appreciate the positive communication to your readers of the hard efforts made by regional airline employees and the employers in achieving such recognition. The labor spent by AVweb to compile the data, write, edit and confirm source does not go unnoticed by regional operators. Last year I wrote you and others on your staff about TRANS STATES AIRLINES also receiving this highest award for the second year in a row. As for an airline receiving such a reward for THREE YEARS IN A ROW (as an article in AVweb), TRANS STATES AIRLINES professional aviation maintenance staff and their employer has accomplished such a task. In fact, TRANS STATES AIRLINES has received this prestigious award for THREE CONSECUTIVE YEARS (1998, 1999 and now 2000). By TSA earning this award for the next TWO years will bestow upon our aviation staff and TSA the highest of highest FAA awards for advance training.
AVweb responds... Congratulations on this achievement, Scott! --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Carl
Laskiewicz
2 Apr 2001 |
April Fool's Day Issue Enjoyed your April fools edition, but you left out an important new intersection in your "Airspace Changes -- What's in a Name?" story. Not far from DIMPL, over the West Palm Beach Election Board Headquarters, is the CHADS intersection. AVweb responds... Now cut that out, Carl! --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Fritz
Stout
02 Apr 2001 |
Incheon International AVweb wrote:
56,000,000 square meters times the number of square feet in a square meter (about 10.7584) equals 602,470,400 square feet, divided by the number of square feet in a square mile (27,878,400) equals approximately 21.61 square miles, not 34,720 square miles. Upon further reading of the article about Incheon International airport, I think that whoever came up with these numbers must have been having a rough day. 27,000,000 passengers per year is 73,972+ per day 1.7 metric tons of cargo per year is about .00466 metric tons per day (a little over 10 pounds per day!) I'm assuming the 1.7 figure was meant to be 1.7 Million tons per year. But I can't account for how check-in counters that handle 6,400 pax per day could end up handling 27,000,000 pax per year. Sorry to be so picky, AVweb responds... Oh yeah. I was supposed to check that, wasn't I? I'm afraid this simply reinforces my belief that it's about time we stopped humoring the rest of the world by letting them continue to use the metric system. --Glenn Pew, Newswriter Hey, it was the day after April Fools! --Jennifer Whitley, Research and Proofreading We got the name of the airport right, and we didn't put it in New Zealand. --Bob Kaputa, Managing Editor ...and we didn't misspell "Qantas." --Joseph E. (Jeb) Burnside, Executive Editor What a team! --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Carl J.
Poplawsky
03 Apr 2001 |
Phoenix Regional AVweb wrote:
What is Phoenix Regional?! AVweb responds... Carl, Phoenix Regional is a new airport being constructed 25 miles south of the metro area and will be open in 2002, say Copperstate officials. They are excited because the new aerodrome will have space to allow permanent exhibits, showers and the like. --Liz Swaine, AVweb News |
| Name
Withheld
2 Apr 2001 |
April Fool's Day Issue Dear AVweb, this is serious shit! I don't deem it wise to continue this activity. There are many people as myself who speed-read, process and forward your information as Gospel basing critical business decisions on same. We have no time for April Fools jokes, even if Cummings feels they won't effect the gross weight with their STC package. I'm not impressed, and I no longer trust you guys! Have fun doing something else, this is business! Now, regarding confidentiality, I would like my name to remain private, if you can be trusted that far? AVweb responds... Just this once. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Chuck
Hyer
02 Apr 2001 |
AD2001-06-14 on Cessna 172R/S Mixture While reviewing the most recent AD 2001-06-14 from the FAA on the 172 R & S models, I noticed that the "action" column states:
Any comments from the A&P's of the world?
AVweb responds... A few thousand letters from A&Ps to the address published in the AD for public comments might be appropriate here. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Fred
Geller
2 Apr 2001 |
Gulfstream Crash in Aspen, Colo. You stated the facts incorrectly when you wrote that the instrument landing procedure was not authorized, per the new NOTAM, on the night of the crash. On the night of the crash the NOTAM read that circle-to-land was not authorized. After the crash, the NOTAM was revised to read that the VOR approach was not authorized at night. Of all the articles that I have read so far, there is no indication that the plane had started or completed a circle-to-land. AVweb responds... See following AVmail item from Michael Malcom. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Michael
Malcolm
2 Apr 2001 |
Gulfstream Crash in Aspen, Colo. AVweb wrote:
You left out a material fact that has been reported elsewhere: The NOTAM was very obscure because what it actually told pilots was that circling approaches were prohibited at night. I know because I received the NOTAM in Wichita before flying to Aspen the day before the crash. (My approach that day was also a miss because the weather was very similar to the time of the crash.) I'll bet that most pilots took that NOTAM to mean that you couldn't circle around to land on runway 33, and didn't realize that the only approach into Aspen is a circling approach. That is, the FAA effectively prohibited night instrument approaches through this NOTAM, but pilots had to use additional facts plus deductive reasoning in order to come to that conclusion. A side note: I expect we will eventually see a jet crash at Aspen while scud running up the valley now that the instrument approach is prohibited at night.
AVweb responds... Hmmm... AVweb reader Fred Geller read the NOTAM and concluded it prohibited circle-to-land, while reader Michael Malcom read the same NOTAM and concluded it prohibited circling approaches (which is the only kind there is at Aspen). If anyone needs proof that the NOTAM was unclear and confusing, there you have it. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Dan
Sienkiewicz
02 Apr 2001 |
Gulfstream Crash in Aspen, Colo. I thought AVweb readers might be interesting in this email from my cousin in Boulder, Colo. regarding the G-III that crashed in Aspen last week:
|
| Kevin
Donovan
02 Apr 2001 |
April Fool's Day Issue OK, don't go down any dark alleys. I'll be waiting. I like being pun-inshed as much as the next pilot but these were low! Phool Ng Yu, Capt. Antoneel. These were below and beyond the cause of duty into being downright PAINFUL. My only real gripe is that I didn't think of them first. Oddly enough for once I didn't see any adverse reaction to the AVfools issue. But the week is still young. I am sure they will crawl out of the woodwork. One last note, you failed in offending everyone equally since I wasn't ... and no, you won't get me next time. I laughed all the way through it. Keep up the good work and I am looking forward to AVfools 2K+2! |
| Matt
Paxton
2 Apr 2001 |
IFR Training in IMC Rick Durden's article on IFR training in actual conditions hit home with me. I lost a friend a year ago in a classic loss of control accident in IMC. Actual conditions were not bad -- clear above 5,000 and bases around 2,500 and good vis. On an IFR flight plan, he descended from VFR conditions on top into the soup and within 10 minutes had spiraled his 172 into a mountain top. I knew he had gotten no actual experience druing his training, because he told me a week before he died that his flight school had a policy prohibiting their instructors from taking instrument students into IMC. During our conversation, we agreed to fly with each other sometime in the next weeks and act as safety pilot for each other while we shot some approaches, did holds and practiced partial panel. We never got the chance to to that. The NTSB final report indicated that my friend had a whopping 0.4 hours of actual time logged! In addition, he had not logged any hood time within 3 months of the accident. I am an absolute believer in exposing pilots to actual conditions during training, at the appropriate time. Great article -- I hope all aspiring instrument pilots read and heed. |
| Glenn
Wheeler
2 Apr 2001 |
Gulfstream Crash in Aspen, Colo. In the wake of the Gulfstream crash in Aspen, many people fail to realize that a G3 can't legally shoot the VOR approach into Aspen. (during the day or at night) the G3 falls into Category D minimums and Aspen only has Cat C minimums only. A G4 falls into Category C and therefore can shoot the approach due to the fact that it can circle with full flaps (lower ref speeds, lower stall speeds) and a G3 can't. How do you get around that you ask?? Call the airport in sight (or possibly the road that runs parallel to the final approach course) so you can get the "visual approach". People have been doing this type of visual approach for years and they have been getting away with it. I'm amazed, from everything that I have been reading, no one has brought up the fact that a G3 can't shoot the VOR approach into Aspen at any time, only a visual approach. From the press accounts, it sounds like he had shot the approach twice. Also, on approach to Aspen, there is an illusion because of the 2.0+% downsloping runway. The illusion makes you feel high. Hummm, lets push the nose over close to the ground. Then we realize we're slow and close to the ground, push the power levers up and nothing ... because we're at high altitude the power takes forever to spool up. And the rest is history.
|
| Name
Withheld
1 Apr 2001 |
April Fool's Day Issue It's that time of year again. Last year, I laughed my ass off at your April Fool's edition. But even funnier were the emails to the editor, complaining about the abuse of power and lack of sensibility of the AVweb editorial staff. So far, I'm halfway through this year's edition of AvFalsch, but what I'm really drooling over are the notes you're probably anticipating. You can bet I'll be reading Avmail for the next two weeks or so, looking for a real good laugh. Please withhold my email address! I get enough junk email as it is! P.S. Where can I sign up to join SPLAT and BARFBAG? |
| Shane
Kelley
1 Apr 2001 |
April Fool's Day Issue Once again, job well done!!! I had almost forgotten that it was April Fools Day as I was attending the big NASCAR race here in Fort Worth. What a wonderful surprise to come home and read the annual "AVfalsch" edition. Keep up the good work!!!! |
| Stan
Fetter
01 Apr 2001 |
April Fool's Day Issue I really enjoyed the April Fools edition. You had me going for a minute there though, with the Narco item. To say they've been headed for the tank for the last ten years is a gross understatement. Right now, a moving map based on a flashlight and a piece of paper is probably about their speed and I really wouldn't be surprised. Probably would sell for about seven grand, and when the proprietary batteries go dead the whole thing has to go back to the factory. Six weeks and a couple of hundred bucks later, it'll come back with new batteries in backwards and missing the bulb. I was disappointed, though, with the AVjunk item. I thought that was going to be aircraft salvage. Having spent 20 years in the auto wrecking industry, I was looking forward to that. (Long story, you probably don't want to go there.) Now I run traffic planes, so I see the cars as they get started towards the junkyards. |
| Dennis
Whitehead
1 Apr 2001 |
April Fool's Day Issue AVweb wrote:
If BLWIT is to the left of Carthage Tenn, then STOLN should be located over the Secretary of State's office in Tallahassee, Fla.
AVweb responds... I think there's already a STOLN intersection over Chappaqua, N.Y. (Ooooh, Mike, you're a bad boy ... go stand in the corner.) --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Don
Colbath
1 Apr 2001 |
April Fool's Day Issue I was ready to buy some of your Ten Knot Tape until I read that it had been used on the Gulfstream that made the "Hole in One" on the golf course off the end of the runway at Aspen last week. Great issue! AVweb responds... You have a sick sense of humor, Don. (Want a job?) --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Chris
Mihok
01 Apr 2001 |
April Fool's Day Issue What a great gag! You had me rooting for the BARFBAG folks. If only it were true. I love your email updates and appreciate your fine sense of humor.
|
| Charles
Haupt
01 Apr 2001 |
April Fool's Day Issue Excellent job. Got my Sunday morning off to a smiling start. |
| G.
Zitpa
01 Apr 2001 |
April Fool's Day Issue AVweb wrote:
March 32nd, daylight changing time. I did it, and free-flight works great between Flight Level 031 and 043, but at lower altitude the separation is really bumpy. ATC kept referring to me as "Scarecoop." Oh well, something to do with radio transmission.
|
| Daniel
Colburn
1 Apr 2001 |
Gulfstream Crash in Aspen, Colo. I see in the news that the head of the NTSB investigation team at Aspen, one Mr. Al Dickinson, has gone for personal publicity by giving the news media and lawyers just what they want and need: an "official" quote. Mr. Dickinson should be walking the street today. There is NO WAY that the American public can possibly understand the NOTAM system, and going off half-cocked on this matter should be a firing offense. He has left a spokesperson from Washington dangling, twisting slowly in the wind trying to further explain just what was meant. Mr. Dickenson gets an 'F' for judgement.
|
| Steve
Thoma
01 Apr 2001 |
April Fool's Day Issue AVweb wrote:
Even though it's meant to be a joke, the MP3 audio panel is actually a good idea. I have a rather large library of MP3s. Is PS Engineering listening??? AVweb responds... I agree, Steve. I cooked up this particular gag myself, and would buy the product in a heartbeat if PS Engineering or some other company brought it to market. Hopefully someone is listening. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Paul
Barnett
1 Apr 2001 |
April Fool's Day Issue I think that audio panel with integral MP3 player is a pretty good idea: compact size, no moving parts! Are you going to demand royalties from PS Engineering when they come to the same conclusion? :-) AVweb responds... All I ask is to be a beta-tester for the product! --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Dave
MacCarter
1 Apr 2001 |
IFR Training in IMC I read Rick Durden's article about training in actual IFR conditions with interest. I obtained an instrument rating 22 years ago after entering IMC while VFR and scaring myself to near death (but by virtue of sheer luck not literally killing myself as so frequently happens). Only twice since 1977 when I got the rating have I had occasion to enter actual IMC. I own and fly a Cessna 182 with adequate instruments but the instructors I have encountered here in Wyoming are scared feceless of flying in actual conditions in singles. Scared may be a bit of an exaggeration, but very reluctant is not. Consequently, I have never really utilized my rating although I frequently do file IFR in VMC just for convenience. I wish there was some standard to be applied to this matter as I believe overcoming the fear of the inside of a cloud is almost as important as recognizing vertigo, failed instruments (a la Governor of Missouri) and the host of other skills which must be mastered. Fear born of lack of exposure to actual conditions can be paralyzing and bring on panic, which will kill as fast as anything. I see periodically where IFR-rated pilots pile one in in IMC and I would bet that some of these were underexposed to actual conditions. Keep up the good work.
|
There
were plenty of clues telling me there might be a problem. Bird poop all
over the props; plenty of droppings on the apron, and bird poop in the
cowling inlets ... but only in the left inlets.