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.
| Chris
Russell
31 May 2001 |
The Clamor Over Airport Noise Why is it I find it increasingly difficult to feel sorry for anyone who buys a house in the path of the glideslope of the VASI and then complains about the noise. As far as I know there have been very few new airports built in the last ten years, yet more and more people complain about noise from a long established airport. It doesn't take a genius to know that airplanes will make noise and building next to an airport will make for a noisy house. It's time for judges and juries to stop being wimps and throw these nuisance law suits out of court and get on with real cases. If you can afford a radar system to find how low a plane is over your house, you can also afford to move to a house away from the established air routes. I should also mention that I am a locomotive engineer for the Union Pacific and I hear complaints about train noise as well. Funny thing. though ... those railroad tracks have been here well over 100 years. Surely this is not the first train that went by and blew its whistle.
|
| Chuck
Rau
31 May 2001 |
The Clamor Over Airport Noise I have had a bad taste in my mouth for a long time about this. My feeling is that if you don't like the noise, then don't build near an airport. How many airports are there that were built years ago out in the middle of nowhere, and then a building boom sprouted housing and businesses near the airport? Next comes the complaints about the noise and with some smaller airports threats to close them down. My father was an airline pilot and I grew up an airport brat. I enjoy the airport and would love to live near one of our local ones. I cherish the noise of the small engines as it is music to my ears. Yes, the large municipal airports do have noise and pollution, but I sure would not live near them. Duh! It is the same as buying a house in a flood plain and then complaining when your basement floods. Do your research and don't buy in a flood plain. If you don't like the airports, then stay away from them. |
| Lynda
Carpenter
31 May 2001 |
The Clamor Over Airport Noise After hearing all this noise about noise abatements, and disgruntled neighbors of airports, it makes me wonder -- don't airplanes have mufflers? So many people are working on creating the latest technology for the cockpit, how about someone working on fixing the other end?
AVweb responds... Sure airplanes have mufflers. Mostly in Europe. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Dan
Lawson
31 May 2001 |
EGPWS Approval Hassles Thought you might know how the FAA is (or isn't) doing with approving EGPWS for use in light GA aircraft. We own a JetProp Malibu and added the Honeywell 560 EGPWS to the plane. Of course, we now can't get it approved for use and it collects dust on the shelf. They want the plane up at the ACO in New York for 'test flights' prior to even considering a sign-off. So, should we get an 'experimental' designation so that we can fly with the box installed? Or should we auger in as a CFIT and then have our estates ask the FAA why they wouldn't allow us to use the box? AVweb responds... In my experience, the FAA has never looked kindly on early adopters. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Brent
Blue M.D.
31 May 2001 |
LASIK and Altitude Several pilots have asked about a recent article concern the effect of altitude on eyes which have undergone LASIK surgery. Since I had LASIK in June, 2000, my interest was piqued. The article -- "Refractive Changes Caused by Hypoxia After Laser In Situ Keratomileusis Surgery," Nelson, ML, et. al., Ophthalmology V108, 3, 3/2201 -- compared non surgery subjects to LASIK subjects when exposed to a 0% oxygen environment for two hours. This was accomplished by having the subjects wear sealed goggles flooded with pure nitrogen at sea level. The results showed that there were no statistically significant differences between the effect on eyes which had undergone LASIK surgery and those that had not with the exception of a change is visual acuity. The LASIK group had a 0.3 diopter reduction in visual acuity at distance (myopia or nearsightedness). As the authors of the study stated "Because two hours of nitrogen exposure does not correspond to a specific altitude, the clinical significance of this shift in LASIK subjects exposed to hypoxia in mountainous environments is unknown." There is a huge difference between being at an oxygen level at 21% with a reduced partial pressure and a 0% oxygen level at a normal partial pressure (e.g. sea level). In addition, even if the effect does occur, a 0.3 diopter change is insignificant in clinical terms. Most patients could not distinguish between "lens 1 or lens 2" if the difference between them was only 0.3 diopters. Bottom line for me and what I would tell pilots in my medical practice is that the direct effect of the decreased partial pressure of oxygen on the surface of the eye due to altitude has inconsequential effects on vision after LASIK..
|
| Bill
Holmes
31 May 2001 |
The Clamor Over Airport Noise The noise problems cited in AVflash, and in particular the county's plans for the proposed Ivanpah Valley Airport near Las Vegas, calls to mind the 1989 Kevin Costner movie Field of Dreams. "Build it and they will come," whispered the voice.
AVweb responds... Who will come? The airplanes? Or the condominiums? --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Timothy
Hemp
31 May 2001 |
Comair, Resting, In Pieces Since as you admit you are not familiar with unions I would recommend you stick to reporting the news, not trying to analyze it. Your "Just go get another job" remark concerning Comair pilots was uninformed and ill-advised. AVweb responds... "Ill-advised" is an adjective that I rather suspect history will show applies to the Comair pilots' strike. I guess will just have to wait and see how it all comes out. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Terry
Mason
31 May 2001 |
Avemco's 40th Anniversary AVweb wrote:
It is all very well for Avemco to toot its own horn at being in business for 40 years, but what about the FBOs that it is putting out of business by pulling the rug out from under them? There are three, and perhaps soon a fourth, here in Vermont that I know of that cannot continue because of insurance costs. That means for those areas: no flight training; no maintenance; no fuel service. The three FBOs mentioned above are all one-man operations working on a slim margin at best. Perhaps it is a ploy by some anti-aviation lobby to close down the smaller airports. Just kidding. But what are these airports going to come to without an FBO? Any suggestions? AVweb responds... No, Terry, I suspect that it's a ploy by Avemco to remain profitable. If they could make a profit insuring such businesses, I'm sure they wouldn't have decided to exit the market. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Richard
Audette
31 May 2001 |
Comair, Resting, In Pieces Why do you end a story with this?
When a company grows and develops into a powerhouse and leaves its employees far behind should the employees just walk away? There is a very positive side to organized labor and here is where it is needed. If AVweb grows into a powerhouse and develops publications along the lines of Aviation Week/McGraw Hills type but fails to improve your salary or recognize your efforts after you have been on the staff for many years you probably would feel cheated. But would you rather stay with just compensation rather than,
As you probably know, pilots invest much time, effort and finances to land their jobs. Each time a pilot walks away from a job he has to start over at the bottom with a new company on a reserve list with many inconveniences and entry level pay, yes even at the majors. So much more to this story... Please don't paint an "inaccurate picture" of this pilot group in your press.
AVweb responds... You wrote "Each time a pilot walks away from a job he has to start over at the bottom with a new company on a reserve list with many inconveniences and entry level pay..." That seems like an ironic remark coming from a striking Comair pilot. Perhaps you and your colleagues should have given a bit more consideration to the risk-to-reward ratio before you decided to walk away from your jobs. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Jon
Goldman
31 May 2001 |
The Clamor Over Airport Noise As a fellow pilot I ask AVweb to please carefully review the www.stopthenoise.org web site and compare what you read to the report of that site by AVweb. On the site, I read things like:
Does this sound like a good attitude and goal I don't think so.. The AVweb article should examine this web site carefully and point out any incorrect or illogical statements to your readers. AVweb responds... AVweb brought attention to the www.stopthenoise.org site so that our readers could look at it and judge for themselves. Personally, I found it horrifying. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Dean
Brown
31 May 2001 |
Hoof and Mouth Disease When the United States last had "Hoof and Mouth" Disease, back in the 1920s or so, they indeed called it "Hoof and Mouth." It is a disease that only effects certain cloven-hoofed mammals. However, since then, it has only appeared overseas, and those wacky Europeans started calling it "Foot and Mouth." Now that it is back in the news, we're using their term for it. American media, who have never seen a cow that wasn't on a sesame seed bun, are too ignorant to correct the misnaming.
|
| Juergen
Boettcher
31 May 2001 |
The Clamor Over Airport Noise As you are probably aware Germany is extremely noise sensitive and has the world's strictest noise regulations for aircraft of all sizes, including commercial airliners, e.g. the 727. In order to register a GA aircraft in Germany it has to comply with reduced noise output up to 7 dB(A) below the international ICAO noise limits as defined in Chapter X. Even then there are operational limitations (e.g. no local flights less than 60 minutes during lunch periods and after 1:00 p.m. on weekends) unless the noise level is reduced to about 12 dB(A) below ICAO levels! After 2009 the requirements will become even more stringent - technology has not been developed to enable current aircraft to comply with those requirements thus far. Current requirements can only be achieved by muffler and/or prop modifications. This is the only way US pilots will be able to coexist with airport neighbors in the future. Several companies have developed muffler modifications: and prop modifications: Thousands of aircraft have been flying with these modifications in Germany and other European countries for many years without any problems. Unfortunately, to my knowledge, none of these modifications have an FAA approved STC. Gomolzig tried to achieve certification by the FAA several years ago, but the procedure turned out to be so difficult and costly that they gave up. They felt that the FAA had an embargo attitude towards a foreign company. US pilots should look at these modifications and put pressure on the FAA to grant appropriate STCs in order to secure the future of GA in the US.
|
| Dr.
David Crocker
31 May 2001 |
The Clamor Over Airport Noise HURRAH! At last the American public is waking up to the fact that light aircraft are unnecessarily noisy. This is entirely the fault of Cessna, Piper and the other manufacturers, who could easily and relatively cheaply fit exhaust silencers and quieter propellers on new production aircraft, but don't bother. What automobile manufacturer would make a car with no exhaust silencer? As for worries that silencers reduce performance, a properly tuned silenced exhaust system can actually increase engine power. Over here in Europe, light aircraft noise is a very big issue. Aftermarket silencers and low-noise props are available for some US aircraft models, but are manufactured in relatively small numbers and so are expensive. Combined with the cost of approval and fitting, this makes reducing the noise level of existing aircraft expensive (i.e. more than $2500 just for an exhaust silencer). But the additional cost on a new production aircraft if noise reduction were standard would be far less. I hope that the light aircraft manufacturers (which are predominantly based in the USA) will finally be forced to smarten up their act, which will eventually mean a quieter fleet of aircraft here in Europe and less pressure to close GA airfields on environmental grounds. How about getting AOPA USA to put pressure on light aircraft manufacturers to make quieter aircraft, before the anti-noise lobby becomes as strong in America as it is here?
AVweb responds... Preventing your enemy from growing stronger by capitulating to their demands seems like a rather novel strategy. That's not usually the way we do things in the U.S. Or perhaps you're suggesting that if Europeans have to put up with outrageously Draconian noise restrictions, then it's only fair that Americans should have to put up with them, too? --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Mark
Krotz
30 May 2001 |
The Clamor Over Airport Noise Regarding all the NIMBYs who are fighting airplane/airport noise: Maybe all the airlines should gather their names and ban them from flying on airlines.
|
| John
Espie
29 May 2001 |
Meigs Field Usage Fees While we're trying to keep Meigs open, it would also be nice to get the fees reduced. A couple of weekends ago, my family flew into Meigs for the day (arrived around noon and departed about 7 pm). I got a bill for over $30! It turned out to be a VERY EXPENSIVE WEEKEND ... one that won't be repeated anytime soon . AVweb responds... John, Meigs advocates have long decried the hefty fees, for the very reason you state: They keep potential customers away. The advocates say the fees have been made artificially high so that when it comes time to close the field, the city will have statistics to "prove" that is not used that much. For more on Meigs Field, you can go to the Friends of Meigs Web site, at http://www.friendsofmeigs.org/. --Mary Grady, News Editor On the other hand, John, I'll bet that the fees aren't any lower at the other Chicagoland airports (Midway and O'Hare) that you'll have to use once Meigs Field is plowed under. Also, it's a little tough for me to believe that the $30 in fees you paid was a substantial addition to the cost of taking your family to Chicago for the day. In fact, I'll wager those fees were a good deal less than what it would have cost you to transport yourself and your family from one of the outlying airports into downtown Chicago and back. I dislike fees as much as the next guy, but paying $30 to land and park your plane right in the middle of downtown sounds like a pretty good deal to me. (Now please excuse me while I hunker down and await the inevitable hate mail.) --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Dennis
Fisher
29 May 2001 |
Letter to an Airport Kid I started building model airplanes when I was 5 or 6. It's what a lot of kids did back then. Before plastic. Back when you had to carve parts out of solid blocks of balsa. You used wax paper over the plans and pins to hold the parts while they were placed and glued. Then your model was covered with tissue paper. I must have built hundreds. If you ran out of elmers glue, you made your own with flour & water. I knew what longerons, ribs, trusses, spars, and the names and the functions of all the control surfaces. That was when I was in the 3rd grade. As far as hanging out at the airport. I wish that I could remember once in my youth that a pilot took the time to talk to me about airplanes. Or give me a ride. When I was twenty, I bought a 1946 Luscombe 8A, rag-wing. It was a $1000 purchase that drove my parents crazy. I eventually spent the most fun 100 hrs or so in that airplane and will never forget what a pleasure it was to fly. I can agree with Rick Durden's "Letter to an Airport Kid" as far as maybe that's the way life ought to be. The reality is sadly far different. I came to believe over time that not all pilots see the romance or beauty of flight. Some see flying as a mode of transportation, a means to enhance their ego, or only a way to make a living. In defense of CAP, I got my first ride from an Air Force pilot in a Beech C-45. I sat at the controls of a C-47 and made turns over my home town. Later, thanks to CAP, I rode in C-130's, Super Connies, C-54's and others. I rode in a C-47 from the Canal Zone to and from Santiago, Chile. A chance of a lifetime. Sure it's a recruiting program for the Air Force. And I will agree that sometimes the military end at the leadership end gets out of hand. From another perspective, I learned far more about airplanes in CAP than I did in Air Force ROTC. My advice for young people would be to avoid any aviation career in which they have to pay for the training. If Uncle Sam paid for your pilot licenses, great. You can't beat having had the opportunity to serve your country in uniform either. My advice for young people is also to avoid any career in the maintenance of airplanes, period. I base that on the low pay, poor job security, lousy work locations, and other factors. If you have a need to be a mechanic, learn to fix automobile transmissions. You'll make more money and will be home with your family in the evenings. Maybe you can even save enough for your retirement. If you are half way good at it you might even afford to take flying lessons and maybe even buy your own airplane. If you are a mechanic and disagree with me, I invite you to speak out. I doubt many will. If you are a pilot or mechanic and love what you do, you should share your knowledge and enthusiasm with neighborhood kids, scouts, or even, (Rick Durden forbid), CAP. Alternatively, you can sit on your laurels and complain about how kids don't care about anything anymore. As far as "romance in aviation", for me it's alive and well in experimental aircraft. EAA members are a joy to be around. It's a fantastic hobby and I'm now working on and looking forward to flying my second homebuilt.
|
| John
Lawson
29 May 2001 |
Hilton Head Tower AVweb wrote:
First of all, it won't be a Federal control tower ... it'll be a contract tower. We'll be using our airport improvement program (AIP) funds (already allocated to us, as you've noted) under a pilot program established in AIR-21 that allows two airports in the U.S. to construct towers using AIP. It'll a 75% AIP - 25% local split (as compared to the normal 90% - 10% split on other AIP-eligible projects). Yes, up till now towers and their equipment were NOT eligible for funding through AIP ... odd, but that's the way it's been. The interest in the pilot program has been such that legislation has now been introduced to make tower construction and equipment AIP eligible for any airport that has the entitlement funds and can justify building one. This legistional would be highly beneficial to airports that already operate their own towers (contract or otherwise), as it would allow them to use their entitlement funds to upgrade the equipment in their towers. As for the "critics..." How many? I only read of one, and evidently he didn't take into consideration that the folks in the Town have been making a case for a tower since 1986, when a Town task force came up with 23 recommendations for improving the airport ... all of which have been accomplished, except for the tower. With that kind of consistent support, and with a benefit-cost ratio of 1.88 (1.0 minimum needed for the Federal contract tower program), it would seem that the political support we received for the pilot program was well-justified. Furthermore, the critic (note the singular) argued in the local paper that the short length of the runway (4,300 feet) was reason enough to not build the tower, and that no airports in the U.S. with runways that short (or shorter) had towers. A quick search of the AOPA airport database revealed at least 18 airports with runways down to 2,443 feet in length that have towers (10 of those airports have contract towers). I don't know how the length of the runway could possibly be a logical factor in determining the need for a tower; the factors in the benefit-cost ratio for the contract tower program include the number of aircraft operations, the types of aircraft based at the airport, and the number of commercial airline passengers that use the airport, and that's the way it should be.
|
| Debra
Adams
29 May 2001 |
Wittman Tailwind Crash Near Houston AVweb wrote:
Your coverage of the Wittman crash was, at best, inaccurate. Mr. Adams is my husband. The details you were inaccurate about include these: Dr. Patricia Robertson was not only an astronaut and a medical doctor, she was a CFI with over 2000 hours of flight time. Her ratings included flying Pitts aircraft. She and her husband are Pitts owners are have just started building a Wittman W-10. Mr. Roy M.P. Adams is a pilot with about 200 logged hours of flight time. He purchased the Wittman in November of last year. Dr. Robertson was giving him CFI to qualify him in the Wittman Tailwind. The plane had dual controls, so Dr. Robertson was NOT a passenger but was, in fact, the pilot in control. The Wittman struck it's right wing, not left and then cartwheeled. Dr. Robertson's memorial services will be held Tuesday, May 29 at Ellington Field in Houston. Mr. Adams is in extremely critical condition at Memorial Hermann Hospital burn unit in Houston. When you report something as a fact, please make sure it's accurate. Mr. Adams is very well known in the Houston aviation industry, in person and by reputation. He is facing a horrible ordeal when he awakens and finds he is so severely injured. He will feel horribly responsible, regardless of what happened. He not only is a pilot, but he is an A&P and I.A. Please report only the facts that you can verify. AVweb responds... Mrs. Adams, as is the case with any journalistic endeavor, AVweb reported this story based on the best information we had available to us at our deadline. In this case, the only information we had (other than some anecdotal reports from Houston-area pilots) was the FAA preliminary report, which served as the basis of our story. (Our story clearly identified the report as "preliminary.") Typically, the more detailed and authoritative NTSB preliminary report is not available for at least 7 to 10 days after the accident, and the NTSB factual report is typically not available for many months thereafter. The FAA preliminary report provided no information about who was pilot-in-command, or even any indication that this was an instructional flight. In writing up the story on the basis of this very sketchy information, AVweb's newswriter made the reasonable (but perhaps incorrect) inference that the aircraft owner, seated in the aircraft seat normally occupied by the pilot flying, was in fact acting as pilot-in-command. This was based on the admittedly non-authoritative anecdotal reports we received. It remains to be seen whom the NTSB determines was acting as pilot-in-command of the accident flight, but based on the additional information you provided in your email, I agree it does seem likely that Dr. Robertson will be deemed to have been acting as PIC based on her experience and the apparently instructional nature of the flight. I wish we had that information at press time, but unfortunately we did not. I'm sorry if we erred in our reporting of Dr. Robertson's status during the flight. Thanks for taking the time to write. I'm sure the entire AVweb editorial team joins me in wishing your husband Roy the most rapid possible recovery from his injuries. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Brent
Blue MD
29 May 2001 |
Wittman Tailwind Crash Near Houston I read the AVflash announcement about Dr. Patricia Hilliard Robertson today. I met her while giving a lecture at a NASA/University of Texas medical conference several years ago and she stood out as one of the "best and brightest" even before she was accepted to the astronaut program. She was truly a rising star for NASA as well as the Aerospace Medicine section, and her enthusiasm and intellect will be missed.
|
| C.
Gould
29 May 2001 |
Houston's Ellington Field In 1984, the city of Houston paid the federal government $5 million -- a bargain -- and acquired title to the closed Ellington Field Air Force Base near Clear Lake and the Johnson Space Center. Since then, the city's Aviation Department has struggled to turn Ellington into a facsimile of the city's other two airports -- Bush Intercontinental and Hobby. That is, one that makes money. Over the years, the Aviation Department invested more than $65 million at Ellington -- so far with no return. Last year Ellington lost $1 million. Those aren't city tax dollars, by the way. The city's airports operate primarily on fees paid by airlines and concessionaires at the airports, plus small federal grants, which come from taxes paid by airline passengers. That's not to say Ellington doesn't have a use. Continental Express has an operation there, flying passengers to Bush Intercontinental. Almost all who take that flight are flying somewhere else on Continental. The Ellington-Bush segment usually comes free with purchase of the long-distance ticket. And parking is free at Ellington . The airport is also used by the Texas Air National Guard, Army Reserve units, the Coast Guard, the Space Center, the largest flying club in Texas, and United Parcel Service. Usually when the president of the United States visits Houston, he stops at Ellington. Regular passengers should be grateful for that. When George W. Bush recently visited here and landed at Bush -- named for his daddy -- security surrounding his arrival and departure delayed flights. Ellington has so few flights, the presidential presence isn't a problem. The Aviation Department has done many things to make Ellington more attractive to business. It has demolished the aging Air Force structures at the airport. It has also catered to private plane owners by building 30 small hangars, with 60 more under construction, to satisfy a waiting list of 125 airplanes. Ellington has large tracts of land available for development. But it's restricted in one sense. Immediately to the south are a number of subdivisions whose residents would not take kindly to some kinds of industrial development. Still, Ellington hasn't reached the critical mass to turn it into a moneymaker. It came close in 1987 when the Grumman Corp., which had a major contract with NASA, decided to build a big complex at Ellington. But Grumman lost the contract, and its plans for Ellington collapsed. More recently, the Aviation Department had a tentative development deal with the Hillwood Group, which developed the highly successful Alliance Airport in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. But in the end, the Hillwood Group decided not to go forward. The city has commissioned studies, looking for a way to turn Ellington into a winner. So far they have come up short. Now the Aviation Department is embarked on yet another study of Ellington. It expects to take a contract for the study to City Council in late June and have a master plan for the airport in 18 months. Why should this development plan be different from the others? Airport officials say several changes should be helpful. Two years ago, the city declared Ellington an enterprise zone, which gives significant tax breaks to companies that locate there. A bill has passed the Texas Legislature and is now sitting on the governor's desk, allowing the airport system to cut through much of the red tape if it wants to sell land at Ellington to developers. The building of Beltway 8 immediately to the north of Ellington has added to the already excellent highway and rail access to the airport. So, what's Ellington's future? We're probably going to have to wait until the master plan is completed. Airport officials see some sort of private-public partnership to develop the airport. Probably the best thing that could happen is that a private operator with plenty of development smarts would lease all or part of Ellington. The city's Aviation Department does an excellent job of running Hobby and Bush airports. But Ellington is a very different situation, calling for a completely different set of skills. Those skills are much more available in the private sector than in government. |
| David
Wightman
28 May 2001 |
Canadian Airspace AVweb wrote:
Twice now I have seen reference in AVflash to the FAA announcing "increased use of Canadian airspace" as if it's the FAA's airspace to use as it sees fit. I would have thought you might acknowledge the cooperation of the Canadian government in helping to alleviate the U.S. airspace mismanagement problem.
|
| Fred
Ferguson
28 May 2001 |
Hoof and Mouth Disease AVweb wrote:
I believe you should have said hoof-and-mouth disease, as last time I checked animals don't have feet. AVweb responds... Aha! So THAT'S why they walk so funny... --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Tommy
Bohlin
27 May 2001 |
Chip Detectors I understand that some (most?) turboprop engines as well as some radials are equipped with chip detectors, devices that can detect if metal chips are being produced inside the engine. I was wondering if these detectors are available for flat piston engines and would they make a difference. Even in a single-engine airplane most systems are or can be duplicated except for, well, the engine. Although the vast majority of engine failures are fuel-related, it is something proper maintenance and operation can prevent. But what do you do if the thing breaks up mechanically? I have myself experienced an engine failure that was due to a faulty piston pin and that eventually caused the engine to freeze up completely. It resulted in a forced landing on a farm field with nothing else broken, but another day another place and I might not have been so lucky. What fraction of impending engine failures could a chip detector help to find? How much time would it typically buy? It seems like such a simple device and should not be very costly to produce or install.
AVweb responds... Tommy, chip detectors are indeed available for aircraft piston engines. For example, Aviation Development Corporation (http://www.aviationdevelopment.com/) offers STC/PMA chip detectors for most TCM and Lycoming engines, including models that mount at the oil drain plug hole and others that mount at the oil filter. ADC also offers an oil filter kit with an integral chip detector. Chip detectors include a magnet that traps ferrous metal, and a pair of electrical contacts designed to be shorted together when sufficient ferrous metal accumulates on the magnet, thereby closing a circuit and illuminating a warning light in the cockpit. Obviously, non-ferrous metal is not nearly as likely to be detected. Chip detectors are typically used in geared engines (including the turboprop and large radials you mentioned, as well as helicopter drive-train gearboxes) to detect impending gear-train failure. They are much less common in direct-drive engines, presumably because most catastrophic failures in direct-drive engines are not generally detectable in this fashion. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Jake
Kadish
25 May 2001 |
Letter to an Airport Kid My comment on Rick Durden's fabulous letter is that airport "kids" can be any age. Flying has always been a dream for me, but once I started pushing thirty with a steady career, I figured that watching and dreaming would be my only real involvement. Well, hanging around at the airport got me talking to a variety of pilots - some young whiz kids, some older veterans - who all had very different situations and backgrounds, but a common desire to pass on their love for aviation. I have now got my Commercial ticket, instrument rating and I'm going for CFI in the summer. Thanks to the pilots who took the time to spot my interest and give me the encouragement I needed, I have made a dream come true. I only hope that as a CFI, I will be able to spot the "kid" in someone else and repay the favor down the line. |
| Charles
Henry
24 May 2001 |
Glenn Greenhalgh Canoe accident AVweb wrote:
In the wake of the Carnahan lawsuits, I wonder if the grieving family of Glenn Greenhalgh has sought to sue the canoe manufacturer, the paddle manufacturer, the company that performed routine maintenance on the canoe, the government because it cares for the riverbank, and God for creating water in the first place. It is sad to lose another aviation proponent, but the irony struck me rather hard.
|
| Geoff
Skilton
25 May 2001 |
Qantas and Air New Zealand In the 24-May-01 NewsWire, AVweb wrote:
You state that "Qantas operates Air New Zealand," but this is incorrect. Qantas and Air New Zealand operate in opposition, flying internally in both Australia and New Zealand, and internationally. Qantas does however perform turn arounds and pre flight inspections for Air New Zealand aircraft in Australia, as Air New Zealand does for Qantas aircraft in New Zealand. The engineers who inspected and OK'ed this aeroplane were Qantas engineers. It's good to see news from this part of the world in your website. It would be great to see more articles about southern hemisphere airlines. |
| Barry
Scott
24 May 2001 |
Qantas and Air New Zealand Qantas does maintenance on Air New Zealand's aircraft in Sydney, but as far as the rest of their relationship goes, they are fierce competitors. |
| Chris
Cameron
24 May 2001 |
Qantas and Air New Zealand Just to let you know, your statement Qantas, which operates Air New Zealand" is incorrect. The two airlines are intense competitors in the Australasian and Pacific arenas and are members of opposing aliances (one world and star respectively). The linkage is that (for whatever bizarre reason) Qantas has the CONTRACT to perform engineering inspections and maintenance for Air New Zealand aircraft while they are at Australian airports. Historically Air New Zealand has done the same for Qantas (and other airlines) in New Zealand.
AVweb responds... Oops, sorry. What I meant to say was, "Ansett operates Air New Zealand," but I'm not sure that's quite right either. The airlines downunder (Ansett, Qantas, ANZ, etc) are inter-related in complex ways that are hard for us northern-hemisphere types to keep straight. I've already put in a request for an editorial fact-finding trip to your part of the world, to make sure we get a better handle on the subtleties of aviation there. (Unfortunately, Mike Busch tells me that his Cessna 310 can't carry quite enough fuel for the trip.) --Mary Grady, News Editor |
| Bill
Christie
24 May 2001 |
Senate Shift Could Affect GA's Future AVweb wrote:
As much as I enjoy your articles from the news (probably for the cynical sense of humor), I believe you are dreaming if you think that replacing McCain with Daschle is a net plus! As much as I disagree with McCain on the user-fee issue, it is a microscopic part of my concern compared to having the democrats set the agenda in the Senate. You may see a thin edge of silver in this cloud, but I would be issuing continued convective sigmets now!
AVweb responds... We didn't say "net plus" or anything of the sort. What we did say was that Tom Daschle (a pilot) would be replacing Trent Lott (a non-pilot) as Senate Majority Leader, and that Ernest Hollings (a user-fee opponent) would be replacing John McCain (a user-fee advocate) as chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee. Those are factual observations, not editorial opinions. If you're looking for editorial opinion on whether the Senate majority shift is a "net plus" or a "net minus," may I suggest the editorial pages of the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal (which presumably are 180 degrees out of phase in their assessment). --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Arthur
Penrose
24 May 2001 |
Solutions to Aviation Gridlock Just a comment on AVweb's continuing examination of the reason for delays in the ATC system. Airlines not equipped to fly extended over-water routes contribute to the huge delays... My flight on Delta Express from Orlando to Newark on May 22nd was re-routed north to Detroit, over Cleveland, and then into the New York area due to a line of thunderstorms from Jacksonville to Pittsburgh. A two hour flight became a five hour marathon, all due to the fact that the B-737 was not equipped to simply join the Atlantic Routes and proceed up the east coast. Call Delta Airlines and their Delta Express subsidiary, and find out how many of these B737's from Florida can fly overwater if necessary to avoid joining the Chicago traffic into Newark.. I will bet that the answer will be zero.. Many of the other airlines have the same limitation, a quick check with a pilot friend at American Airlines had the same problem on a B757 out of Miami recently. Airline management can bitch all they want about the ATC system, but until their aircraft are equipped to handle a simple re-route overwater on the east coast the blame is all on them. The announcement when we landed should have been "We apologize for the delay due to the fact our management is too cheap to install rafts on this aircraft".
|
| James
Sander
24 May 2001 |
Letter to an Airport Kid I really enjoyed Rick Durden's article. I spent WWII selling newspapers at Marimar Naval/Marine Air Base and spent hours watching the aircraft and fully realizing how I wanted to spend my life. In 1954 I was accepted in to the Aviation Cadet Program and in May of '55 I was a brand new brown bar with my silver pilot wings. I retired 29 years later with 6,500 hours, half in fighter/trainers and half in bombers. The Vietnam war sprung me from SAC and back into fighters/attack birds. Rick's story brought back memories of me watching and wishing.
|
| William
Holme
24 May 2001 |
Solutions to Aviation Gridlock AVweb wrote:
Absolutely, how else do we counter the NAS gridlock, an inevitable result of still "more runways and airport facilities." C'mon guys, we are chasing our tails. A third alternative for the traveler is sorely needed. How about high-speed inter- and intrastate rail travel?
AVweb responds... First, you need public demand for rail service. Last I heard, Amtrak was on the brink of bankruptcy. So even with airline delays getting out of hand and airline service at an all-time low, apparently things aren't yet bad enough to persuade most folks to consider going by rail. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Charles
Minkler
24 May 2001 |
Zoning Around Airports More airports for airlines and GA are badly needed. None should be built without housing restrictions before building. Larger airports should have a golf course at one end of the approach and a cemetery at the other end. The only complaints would be from the golfers... |
| John
Danforth
24 May 2001 |
Runway Incursions I have been thinking about the best way to propose this idea for some time now. Why do all of the proposed solutions to the runway incursion problem have to be high tech? High tech systems might help, but they do not address the underlying problem. It will help if controllers know exactly where all the planes are, but they cannot be expected to give progressive taxi instructions to all planes. The problem with runway incursions stems from pilots not knowing exactly where they are on the airport. Part of the problem is that airport diagrams, when available, aren't very good for navigation on the airport, but this is not the main cause for confusion on the ground. The single most important reason why pilots lose track of their position on airports is because of the marking system in place. Even with frequent refresher study, I still find myself mentally double checking my position because of the way the airport markings are designed. The problem is that the marking system doesn't make intuitive sense (maybe it really is only me, but I suspect not). I propose this: Install taxiway and runway intersection markers that read the same way street signs do. There it is. It really is that simple. The way it is now, you can be sitting at an intersection, and not really be able to tell what intersection you are on. If there were street - sign type markers at every intersection, arranged in the usual way, runway incursions and confusion on the ground would be reduced dramatically. To those that would argue against changing anything, I would submit that these street signs could be added to the present system without changing anything else, heck they could be kept white or green and purchased from the same suppliers. The benefit would be the same. I submit to you all that this simple proposal would be not only the least expensive solution, but also one of the most effective. AVweb responds... John, I'm not sure exactly what you mean by airport signs "that read the same way as street signs do," but it seems to me that the new system of standardized airport signage introduced during the 90s by the FAA is very clear and unambiguous, and vastly superior to the hodgepodge of street signage I see when driving my car (which varies dramatically from one place to the next, and in many places is quite sparse). In my judgment, lack of easy-to-understand signage is not a major cause of runway incursions any more. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| K.
McMullen
23 May 2001 |
45-Degree Pattern Entry I don't know if all the CFIs and the FAA authors of the AIM have ever figured out that the classic 45-degree entry to the pattern requires a violation of the FARs:
So ALL turns in the vicinity of the airport must be in the direction prescribed. To make the 45 entry requires a 45 degree turn against the prescribed direction. Just some fodder for the bar bets. AVweb responds... Now you know why I never make bar bets less than eight hours before departure time. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Marc
Wolf
22 May 2001 |
Letter to an Airport Kid I really enjoyed Rick Durden's airport kid article. Rick and I must be close to the same age, as I, too, was that airport kid 32 years ago, at 15 years old. I held three part time jobs to pay for my flying lessons, but I soloed at 16, got my Private on my 17th birthday, added an instrument and commercial ticket by 18, and my CFI shortly thereafter. I instructed and flew Part 135 through college, but at 22 years old when I graduated, even with almost 3000 hours and my ATP "letter" (checkride passed, bring the letter to the FSDO when you turn 23 for your ticket!) the airlines weren't hiring, and I was a little burnt out with flying anyway, so I became a cop. But I kept flying, part-time instructing mostly, throughout the years, and bought a Cherokee Six 9 years ago, which my family and I have flown all over the U.S. And three years ago, after over 20 years of working the streets as a cop, detective, undercover, etc, I came full circle when I got assigned to our Dept's Aviation Unit. Now I fly both helicopters and fixed-wing for the Dept, and am their fixed-wing unit CFI. We just sold our Cessna 414 that I'd flown for the last 3 years, and will be getting a King Air soon. I have often seen the "airport kid" in my travels, but was always hesitant to chat and/or offer them a ride. Worried about doing so without parental permission, being accused of kidnapping or molestation. Have 25 years as a cop made me too paranoid? Anyway, I liked the article, it really struck a chord with me.
|
| Paul
Burke
22 May 2001 |
Letter to an Airport Kid How I found Rick Durden's article "Letter to an Airport Kid" was a circuitous route through the net, thinking it would be just some short article that would be a nice read. What I found was a statement of a mans soul and his connection with something far greater than aircraft and flying. It would have been very easy to keep rolling by that boy, his apparent look and "status" could have sent (and probably has sent) a message of boredom. More so, and from my police officers eyes, perhaps a vandal waiting to strike. But I have never given in to that, and neither did you. Looking beyond, you connected with someone in a time and space that was set for you both. In doing so, you changed your own life and that of someone you will most likely never see again. I hope not. I won't burden you with the story, but when I was a young State Trooper in Alaska, a similar event happened. The "arena" may have been different, but the results were similar. Unfortunately, this young man was charged with a crime, and it would have been easy to dismiss he and his like with ease, but I couldn't. It was the same look in his eyes that you saw on the boy with the bike. Because of that, I spoke to him about lots of things, mostly what could happen in his future if he began to trust someone. Almost 20 years passed ... I had long forgotten our meeting and in fact, I didn't speak about it to anyone (What was I, a social worker or a cop). At my retirement many accolades were given to me, my friends and co-workers numbered in the hundreds and they came to see me off. But among those invited, there was one who hadn't been. One who never forgot our conversation so many years past. And at the end of the party, when the crowd was through speaking, one voice raised up and asked if he could speak. It was Junior, the young man so troubled in the past, but now a father, with his own son, and a law student. What happened next was only heard, because my own eyes were filled with tears. His words were kind, and loving, and echoed those things I had hoped for him so many years ago. That I have faith in the future, that I enjoy time spent with others, that I keep looking ahead, that I believe in God and the goodness of others. The room fell silent as he spoke, and I know that many policemen cried. Today I look back on that event four months ago and of all those words said by many old friends, fellow workers, and family. What stands out the most, and what will sustain me for the remainder of my life, are my own words, echoed by a good man who never forgot what time spent could render. What Rick Durden did was more than help get another pilot into the air. Perhaps that may never happen for him. The greater effect of Rick's actions is that he gave someone something even more precious: his time and care. Don't ever take that lightly. Chances are, this boy will be the man Rick will meet again. I hope that happens. |
| Dave
Sandidge
22 May 2001 |
Letter to an Airport Kid I too was an "airport kid." I remember sitting in the corner of the musty, stove-heated office on cold, dreary winter days, mesmerized, listening to all the "old timers" who flew back in the thirties and forties tell their tales of heroism and adventure. I could only imagine the wonders that laid beyond those hills that surrounded Roanoke, Virginia. Washing the flying service's planes and sweeping out the hangars seemed as close as I would ever get to tasting those wonders. But, I loved every minute of my job, because I swapped my sweat for flying time -- thirty minutes a week. It was the best job any young teenager could have. I was lucky. It seemed like there were a passle of us kids who wrestled for jobs like mine. I just happened to be at the airport at the right time on the right day. Wes needed an "airport kid." But now, sadly, times have changed. You don't see the kids anymore. One reason may be that the kids aren't welcomed anymore. In fact, no one is welcomed anymore. The city long ago put up signs that discourage the public from visiting the airport -- much less walking around and exploring the airport. The signs used to say, "Welcome." Today the signs read: "Go away. You are not wanted here." It's a sad thing. But, I guess it's a sign of the times we live in.
|
| Bruce
Kamminga
22 May 2001 |
Letter to an Airport Kid That Kid was me 40 years ago. I lived near 36th and Kalamazoo about 3 miles from the Old Kent County Airport which is now Roger B Chafey Dr. I went to school just up the street, a little Christian school that my father started with a couple other business men in the area. After school my brother [who was always getting into trouble and me wading right in with him] and I would ride to the end of 36th st and watch the " big planes " land and take off. As we grew we would ride our bikes to the tower on 32nd st and watch planes load and unload, always standing by the gate hoping to shake hands with the pilots,ask about the plane they were flying, and once in a while get a "tour" of the plane which included a hand full of Chicklets gum and a set of Wings to pin on our shirts (some of which I have still today). I can even remember getting a ride in a Viacount as it was taxied to the maintained hanger WOW. About a year before they closed that airport I remember sneaking under the fence and laying in the grass next to the runway right at the touchdown point and almost getting caught by airport police. We did catch it later that year when we got in by the private planes and got caught sitting in my fathers Tripacer. We got hauled off to the tower in the police car where dad had to come and get us and set things straight Anyways its been a long road since then but I always enjoy breaking ground, no matter what I'm flying in and look forward to doing it again this summer. Thanks for the memories |
| Name
Withheld
22 May 2001 |
Letter to an Airport Kid Forget about the dangers of hanging on props. Everyone warns us about having liquids around our computers -- the Murphy's "if a glass can spill itself into your keyboard, it will" Effect. <g>. Yet Rick Durden disregarded this very real danger in writing that soppy, lump-in-the-throat story, "Letter to an Airport Kid". If I hadn't been "strong enough" to bite my upper lip nearly clean through, I might have been trying to type this message on an electrically shorted-out computer. Salty eye water and computers don't mix . As I read that damn story, I kept thinking of things I would have said to "the Kid" myself. Invariably, each following paragraph covered my ideas. Durden touched every base -- nothing was left unsaid. What a stupendous article -- and an even better letter. I was going to say, "if I were you, Rick, I would try to deliver that letter to the Kid". As soon as I started typing that sentence I realized he probably doesn't have to. What Rick did in just stopping to talk to the kid -- and that alone -- will be enough to keep the kid on track if it's his fate to be involved in aviation. I can't imagine the impetus to his career Rick's giving him a ride will bring.
|
| Tom
Reid
21 May 2001 |
Letter to an Airport Kid Loved Rick Durden's letter to the kid. I'm very impressed an attorney would take a kid for a ride without a signed permission slip. There is hope in this world after all.
|
| John
Daniell
21 May 2001 |
Runway Incursions Seems to me a (relatively) low-tech solution like traffic lights clearly visible at the hold point at ground level, together with TV cameras at the same location linked to a monitor in the tower should do the trick. Every mall and bank has TV monitors, so why not airports? In view of the propensity of the FAA (assisted by NASA) to waste millions of Tax Dollars inventing solutions they don't implement until obsolete, why don't airports just get on and do this now? If you really want a bit of high-tech, when an aircraft interrupts a beam of light at the entry point, the traffic light automatically goes RED, until the controller notices, and gives the guy a GREEN after making sure there isn't any heavy metal coming down the slot. I kind'a remember colored signals used to be in the AIM. At large airports you can't always see the thresholds of all the runways without TV monitoring. Oh, and you can put them at intersections as well to spot lost souls who taxi unannounced across active runways. AVweb responds... Of course, there's an even lower-tech solution that would probably work just fine if we all paid a little more attention. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Joseph
F. Brittain
21 May 2001 |
Letter to an Airport Kid Thanks for Rick Durden's column on AVweb. Here I am now, a 75-year old and still vividly recall one fine day in Springfield, Mo., about 1940 when three shining Curtiss AT-9s circled over my home before landing at the (then) muni airport -- no runways, just a magic, smooth grass area with one building. I, too, jumped on my bike and pedaled the several miles as fast as I could so that I could just view these exotic birds from closeup. Never talked to any of the crew, just stood at the fence and soaked it up. Funny how that has stayed with me. Two years later, at 17, I enlisted in the Marines and spent the war in the tropics. Afterwards, I tried pilot training as an aviation cadet at Randoph Field, washed out, got my private licence, and later flew as an observer in SAC recon. Lots of experiences, but I don't believe any exceeded my excitement at seeing those AT-9s. |
| Debbie
Pappas
21 May 2001 |
Letter to an Airport Kid Thanks to Rick Durden for his Pilot's Lounge column about the boy on the bike. It was heartwarming to read. I belong to the Beaverton Chapter of the Oregon Pilot's Association. Last month we were invited to speak at a high school career night and like your boy on the bike we had several boys who were excited about aviation. I'm happy to say what Rick wrote in his "Letter to an Airport Kid" was brought up that night, including washing airplanes for lessons, scholarships, and checking out the website www.beapilot.com. We had five people speaking that night and alot of hangar talking went on. It turned out to be a great evening. Thanks again for the fine column. |
| Fritz
Stout
21 May 2001 |
Boeing HQ Moves to Chicago Read Rick Durden's open letter to Boeing on AVweb, and it was excellent. Chicago deserves every bit of the sarcasm Rick heaped on it. And worse. And don't even get me started on Boeing's decision to move. In a day when the world has supposedly interconnected to the point where work stations can be at home, it seems odd that Boeing needed to be "closer" to its customers, wherever that is, is ridiculous. Those of us in Washington have been listening to Boeing's threats to leave for years, and this seems like a logical poker move in order to wrest the tax relief they want from Washington's legislators. Thanks to Rick also for a rational voice on Meigs. With the machine against saving the field, I'm doubtful that Meigs can be saved. I'd love to see the feds step in and crush the opposition, but Daley comes from the dark ages and plays as dirty as it gets. |
| Joe
Greenberg
21 May 2001 |
Carbon Monoxide During Ground Operations One year later, I have finally resolved the CO-on-the-ground problem in my Cherokee 150B. I had been routinely experiencing CO levels of about 35 ppm during ground operations. A month ago, I started experiencing levels of 190 ppm in flight, during full throttle operation. This was traced to a faulty muffler causing back-pressure and CO leaking from the slip joints. With the new muffler, the CO level is zero during ground and air operations. I have the AIM 696 unit that starts registering at 30 ppm. The CO meter alarted me to a situation that could have lead to engine stoppage, worst-case, if the muffler had been allowed to continue to deteriorate, in addition to the hazard of the the high CO levels. AVweb responds... Thanks for the feedback, Joe, and congratulations on finding and fixing your CO problem in time. I continue to be convinced that CO is a huge problem in the single-engine piston fleet, and that all pilots of these aircraft should carry a sensitive digital CO monitor on every flight. Since that's probably never going to happen, I'd also like to see a CO-in-the-cabin check become part of every annual inspection. Finally, I'd like to see more research on the effects of low levels of CO at high cabin altitudes be undertaken by the FAA's Civil Aeromedical Institute (CAMI). --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Jim
Nelm
21 May 2001 |
Letter to an Airport Kid Rick Durden's "Letter to an Airport Kid" is absolutely, 100%, dead on right concerning the CAP. I call those "frustrated Pattons" PFCs in real life and make-believe Majors on Tuesdays. I am a member of a Senior Squadron, and a couple of years ago, I thought it would be fun to work with the cadets. I went to a cadet squadron for one night, and I was appalled at what I saw. The "leader's" military "experience" seemed to come from the movies, and old issues of "Soldier of Fortune" magazine. If I were a kid, I would NEVER join the military after an experience like that. The Air Force needs to really clean house, because the CAP is certainly NOT helping the recruiting effort. I really enjoyed Rick's column.
|
| Steve
Kieffer
21 May 2001 |
Runway Incursions Here's a novel thought. The FAA could check with their sister organization, the Federal Highway Administration, obtain and read a publications titled "Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices". They might discovered that the government has actually conducted research on readability and published minimum standards for signs. http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ When this is compared with the normal airport signage, you'll discover that we're suffering with terribly inadequate signage. |
| Tulio
Soto
21 May 2001 |
Letter to an Airport Kid I rarely do this. Writing to someone I don't know. I just finished reading Rick Durden's "Letter to an Airport Kid" column. I could say many things, relate experiences, talk about unachieved aviation dreams ... All I want to say is: Thank you.
|
| John
Laming
20 May 2001 |
Aggressive Leaning of Piston Aircraft Engines The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) issued a report following a double engine failure in a Chieftain near Whyalla in South Australia. The company concerned has been shut down by regulatory authorities. The aircraft made a night ditching. There were no survivors. The investigation claimed that aggressive leaning techniques caused the double engine failure. Here's an excerpt from the ATSB report:
In view of John Deakin's "Pelican's Perch" columns on the advantages of aggressive leaning, the ATSB report shows reservations.
AVweb responds... John, coincidentally, George Braly and the engineers at General Aviation Modifications Inc. (GAMI) in Ada, Oklahoma, have just completed an extensive detonation study of the turbocharged Lycoming TSIO-540 engine used in the Piper Chieftain in GAMI's digitally instrumented test cell. They determined that this engine operates in light detonation when operated per the POH. While such light detonation in itself is not necessarily harmful to the engine, it does indicate that the engine has very little detonation margin to accommodate things like minor deviations in magneto timing, slightly sub-standard fuel octane rating, fouled spark plugs, etc. In other words, it wouldn't take much to put this engine into heavy detonation, with the associated thermal runaway and rapid destruction of the powerplant. Based on the results from the GAMI test cell, one might well ask how this engine probably could have been certificated by the FAA in the first place, at least with its existing limitations and recommended operating procedures. In fairness, however, at the time the Lycoming TSIO-540 received its certification, the sort of instrumented test cell that GAMI uses did not exist, and the technology that makes it possible was not only nonexistent but probably unimaginable. That's not to say, however, that the Chieftain's TSIO-540 engine cannot be operated safely. Detonation margins can be increased dramatically through modifications in operating procedures -- either by operating the engine quite rich (say 150F rich of peak) or by operating it quite lean (50F to 100F lean of peak). The worst case occurs around 50F rich of peak, which is undoubtedly where most pilots operate this engine based on Lycoming's recommendations and the "conventional wisdom." It's difficult to argue with the ATSB's recommendation that encourages "the adoption of conservative fuel mixture leaning practices," but it's important to define the word "conservative" properly. "Conservative leaning" should not be construed as a synonym for "run rich." The enlightened meaning of "conservative leaning" is leaning to avoid the area of maximum cylinder head temperatures and minimum detonation margin (which occurs about 50F rich of peak EGT). This can be accomplished either by operating well on the rich side of that area, or by operating well on the lean side of that area. Either way, CHTs are reduced and detonation margin is increased. Many of us prefer the lean-burn approach, since it provides cleaner engine operation and greatly improved fuel economy, but certainly the rich-burn approach works also. There are pros and cons to each method. Incidentally, it's also possible to completely eliminate the detonation threat by using an electronic ignition system that senses the onset of detonation and retards the ignition timing automatically to eliminate it. I expect that within the next few years, this technology will be retrofitted to most high-performance turbocharged engines and that detonation-related failures will be a thing of the past. The driving force behind expedited development and approval of such technology is the increasing pressure to eliminate tetraethyl lead from avgas, and the resultant decrease in octane rating and detonation margin that would result from a changeover to lead-free avgas. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| David
Staten
19 May 2001 |
Texas GA Bill AVweb wrote:
When I read this item in AVflash, something just didnt sound right. When I read the phrase "Lt. Gov. Bill Ratliff has indicated his opposition to one of the bills. Since Ratliff's signature is required before a bill becomes law..." I remembered my High School and College government classes, from which I remembered that the GOVERNOR signs bills to make them law, doesn't sign (in which case they become law) or vetos them. The Lt. Governor doesnt have a thing to do with this act. If the House and Senate pass the bill, its out of Ratliff's hands. However, as Lt. Gov., he can have significant control on the bill before it ever comes to a vote, and if there is a tie he casts the deciding vote. AVweb responds... Yes, David, you're mostly correct, and I should have phrased that better. Under the Texas Constitution, the Lt. Governor (and the Speaker of the House) must sign the bills in their respective houses before they are passed to the Governor for his action. Thus, Ratliff has the power to drag his feet in doing so, and with the legislature adjourning in a week that is a threat we're taking very seriously. --Jennifer D. Whitley, Research and Copy Editor (and Texas pilot) |
| Gladys
Miller
18 May 2001 |
Klyde Morris and Delta Airlines Love your comics, Wes! It helps brighten up the strike centers!!
|
| Curtis
N. Sanford
18 May 2001 |
Carbon Monixide in the Cockpit I am considering the purchase of an SR-22, and have a question about CO. Recently I bought an AIM 935 as recommended on AVweb to monitor CO levels in the Diamond Katana's I'm training in. I've been surprised to see levels from 7 to 30 ppm in various stages of flight in planes across the line. I'm wondering if anyone has carried a low-level CO monitor in their Cirrus SR-2x to see what the levels are? In the Katana, the exhaust is not far from the cabin air intakes and certain flight attitudes seem to be worse than others. For comparison, when I start my car in my garage with the door open and back out, levels in the car rise to the 10-12 ppm range. Idling on a freeway in rush hour traffic can also rise to the 7-12 ppm area. Most home CO detectors do not sound until at least 35 ppm.
AVweb responds... Actually, Curtis, UL-approved residential CO detectors do not alarm until at least 70 ppm, and then only after a lengthy exposure. They are also not permitted to even register concentrations less than 30 ppm on their digital display. Let me see if I can put some of this in perspective for you and other concerned pilots... To begin with, the CO concentrations you are seeing in the Katana (7-30 PPM) are well within the FAA requirements for newly-certified airplanes under FAR Part 23. For certification testing, the FAA requires only that CO concentrations in the cabin do not exceed 50 PPM. I happen to think that standard is too loose, but that's what's in Part 23. (CAR 3, the predecessor of Part 23 and the rules under which the vast majority of today's single-engine piston fleet was certified -- Bonanzas, Cessnas, Mooneys, Pipers, etc. -- had no CO testing requirements at all, so Part 23 is certainly a huge improvement in that regard.) It's important to keep in mind that the effects of CO on the bloodstream are a function of two variables: CO concentration (as measured by your CO monitor) and time of exposure. A concentration of 100 PPM of CO is inconsequential if you're only exposed to it for a minute or two. A concentration of 35 PPM could make you quite sick if you were exposed to it for 24 hours. A third important variable that has not been studied adequately is cabin altitude. Although profound CO poisoning can make you quite ill to the point of physical incapacitation (and even death in extreme cases), as airmen we should also be quite concerned by the effects of low-level CO poisoning on our cognitive abilities that affect our performance and judgement as flight crew members. CO poisoning affects cognitive function by interfering with the ability of our red blood cells to carry oxygen to the brain. In short, it produces a form of hypoxia (known tecnically as "hypemic hypoxia"). But we all know that flying in unpressurized aircraft at cabin altitudes well above those to which our bodies are acclimated also causes hypoxia (variously termed "altitude hypoxia" or "hypoxic hypoxia") which also reduces the supply of oxygen to the brain. Common sense would suggest that the effects of CO-induced hypoxia and altitude-induced hypoxia are cumulative, but very little research has been done on this to date. (I'm happy to see that the FAA Civil Aeromedical Institute is finally doing a study on this issue, focused specifically on the question on the degree to which pilots who smoke before flight -- and thereby subject themselves to mild CO poisoning -- have degraded performance at altitude compared to non-smoker pilots. See http://www.cami.jccbi.gov/AAM-500/hypoxia.html) While we're waiting for the research results, I'd suggest we apply a common-sense approach to CO in the cockpit. I'd offer the following guidelines:
Hope this helps. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Scott
Crossfield
18 May 2001 |
Low Pulse-Oximeter Reading I am planning to take a friend, a retired military pilot, with me on an extended trip in my old Cessna 210A. In the hanger I was showing him the Nonin FlightStat pulse oximeter. I was reading about my norm in the middle 90s (%SpO2). He got repeated readings of 75-77%. Field elevation is 200 feet. I have never seen a reading that low with anybody, even at altitude. I generally fly at 10- to 12,000-foot levels. The lowest readings I see on anybody at those altitudes are 83-85%. (My grandson, 18, reads 98% at 10,000 feet ... how dare he?) My question: Do I dare take this gent along as a passenger? Is he at risk at altitude? I fear that he is. I do not carry enough oxygen for long trips with 5-6 hour legs. I will not be an advisor to an old pro but I will refuse passage if he is considered at significant risk by informed opinion. AVweb responds... Scott, based on your note, I think your friend may be at significant risk. At 75-77% SpO2 at your home airport, I wonder if he has significant lung disease -- possibly a longtime smoker. If he is walking around at that level, he needs to see his physician. He probably needs oxygen when he is ambulatory on the ground. The reading should be confirmed of course. All pulse oximeters become less accurate at low extremes. If the physician has doubts about the validity of pulse oximeter readings on this person after taking it with a hospital-quality instrument, he may want to take a blood sample for an arterial blood gas study. In any case, I'd suggest that you urge your retired pilot friend to go see a doc pronto ... and not to fly (even as a passenger) until his respiratory situation has been evaluated. --Brent Blue M.D., Senior AME, Aviation Medicine Editor |
| Jim
Schnier
18 May 2001 |
Are My CFI and A&P Rated and Current? How do I know if my CFI or my IA or A&P are current and rated to sign off my logs? And if it turned out they weren't, who would be held accountable once the fraud were exposed? Would my aircraft or pilot certificate be in jeopardy? AVweb responds... Hmmm, sounds like there must be an interesting story here, Jim... Ask to see the CFI's instructor certificate (which contains an expiration date), and his medical certificate to see if both are current. Note, however, that a CFI does NOT require a medical to instruct, only to act as PIC. For example, if the CFI is giving a Flight Review to a pilot who is rated to fly the aircraft involved as PIC, the CFI can legally do so even without a current medical certificate. Even if the CFI is acting as PIC of an instructional flight, in most cases the CFI needs only a Third Class medical (not a Second Class medical) since in that situation the FAA considers that the CFI is being paid to instruct, not paid to fly. A&P certificates don't expire (just as pilot certificates don't), but you can check with the local FAA Flight Standards District Office if you have any questions about the qualifications or currency of a particular A&P/IA. Mechanics must meet recency-of-experience requirements to exercise the privileges of their FAA certificates, just like pilots do. Inspection Authorizations must be renewed annually (often through attendance at an FAA-sponsored IA renewal clinic, although there are other methods) and the FSDO can check to ascertain the currency status of any certificateholder. As for liability for misrepresenting one's status or currency as an FAA certificateholder, that's a question for an aviation attorney (which I'm not). I've forwarded your note to AVweb's aviation law editor Phil Kolczynski for comment. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Dave
Merriam
17 May 2001 |
Boeing HQ Moves to Chicago After reading Rick Durden's open letter to Boeing, it is obvious that he lived here. His cogent cynicism is right on the mark. But Durden really sells our politicians short. We've got the best money can buy ... and at bargain prices. And he missed the 1997 historic milestone in Chicago. It was the first year in 25 that an alderman was NOT indicted, tried, convicted or sentenced to prison. Okay, so the one that had been convicted the prior year and was to be sentenced, died. A small detail, but a milestone anyway. In Chicago, elections are a perfunctory legal formality. And these Boeing execs are NOT going to live in the city. Chicago is LKR's (Little King Richie) city. His daddy gave it to him as a reward for his persistance and accomplishment in passing the bar exam on only his third try. The rumors of someone else actually taking the exam for him have never been verified. |
| Larry
Zakem
17 May 2001 |
Runway Incursions AVweb wrote:
I believe the problem of runway incursions has the same roots as our running red and yellow lights in our cars. It seems to me that everyone is looking for some high-tech magic. How about an airborne "take-off" of a simple phrase that goes back a while:
placed on a sign at each runway entry or crossing? |
| Jeff
Raykovich
17 May 2001 |
Runway Incursions AVweb wrote:
What was the ground controller doing in the tower during this time? Don't they put windows in the towers for the controllers to look out of during working hours? I'm sure NATCA will defend the controller to the fullest and put ALL the blame on the pilots involved. When are these federal employees going to live up to the responsibilities of the job and be an "Air Traffic CONTROLLER?" The key word is "controller". They are no longer Air Traffic Controllers, but Air Space Controllers. They seem to want all the accolades of the job, but not accept any of the consequences that result from "not performing duties as assigned." AVweb responds... Jeff, I'm inclined to take a different view. I hesitate to formulate judgments about this incident until all the facts are in, but if indeed (as reported in the AVweb news story) the twin turboprop cargo plane was "apparently lost" (i.e., deviating from its ATC-cleared taxi route and crossing an active runway), then in my view the fault lies strictly with the cockpit crew and should not properly be placed at the doorstep of ATC. On the other hand, if ATC had cleared the turboprop to cross the runway, or even issued an ambiguous taxi clearance that could have been reasonably interpreted as a clearance to cross the runway, then I'd agree that ATC was contributorily negligent. I've not seen anything to suggest that occurred in this instance. Frequently, ATC detects pilot deviations and brings them to the crew's attention before harm is done. That's a nice redundancy built into our system. But we should not depend on it working that way all the time. It's the absolute responsibility of a pilot to follow ATC instructions, or to advise ATC if the instruction cannot be followed. It is NOT the absolute responsibility of an air traffic controller to detect and correct all pilot deviations, although most controllers certainly try to do that most of the time. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Paul
Hekman
17 May 2001 |
The Great Meigs Field Conspiracy I note that one of your readers picked up an urban rumor that the plan all along is to replace Meigs with condos [AVmail, 14 May 2001]. That isn't a bad guess. Another rumor going around Chicago is that what's planned is really a casino. There are probably a dozen other possibilities, none of which would be a park. I think the main reason the mayor wants to close Meigs is that it's a pawn in the ongoing Chicago airport war. Hizzoner wants (with good reason) to keep all those jobs in the city. State politicians are principal users of Meigs and the message is, "if you build that airport 50 miles out of town in Peotone, you will have the privilege of using it." |
| Michael
R. Pablo
17 May 2001 |
Tupolev TU-104 -- World's First Passenger Jet? AVweb wrote:
Suspecting this to be incorrect, I consulted "Jane's Encylcopedia of Aviation" and looked up the entry for both the Tu-104 and the de Havilland D.H.106 Comet. In the entry for the Tupolev, it says, "The Tu-104 was the second type of jet transport to enter service and has remained in continous service longer than any other." It goes on to mention that the prototype first flew on 17 June 1955, and it entered service on 15 September 1956. The Comet entry's first sentence is "The Comet was the world's first jet transport to enter service." The prototype first flew on 27 July 1949 and the first passenger service is listed as 2 May 1952 on the London to Johannesburg route. Not to put down the work of Tupolev or his design bureau, but whether you're talking about the first flight of the prototype or the beginning of revenue service, the de Havilland wins by several years.
AVweb responds... We got lots of mail on this, Michael. Thanks to you and all the others who pointed out that the DeHavilland Comet flew revenue passengers well before the Tupolev TU-104 did. What I meant to write was that it was the world's first NON-EXPLODING passenger jet ... oops, strike that ... the world's first SUCCESSFUL passenger jet. The Comet made its first scheduled flight, as you mention, in May of '52. On March 3, 1953, a Comet 1A crashed killing all aboard. On May 2, 1953 a Comet 1 crashed, killing all aboard. January 10, 1954 another Comet crashed, killing all aboard. On April 8, 1954, two weeks after the fleet had been granted a clean bill of health and returned to service another Comet crashed, killIng all aboard. This time, the Comet 1 was grounded for good, having destroying itself and its passengers' and the public's confidence in jet air travel. It took authorities a while to figure out that the Comet's problem was a design flaw that led to explosive decompression. In the meanwhile, the TU-104 was introduced. From its introduction to the Western world on March 22, 1956 and through 1958, the TU-104 was the only passenger jet in commercial operation anywhere in the world -- and the world's first successful passenger jet. Though the Boeing 707 had been around since '54, the first production commercial model made its maiden flight December 20, 1957, and entered transoceanic service with Pan American World Airways in October of '58. So yes, I was admittedly wrong when I referred to Mr. Tupolev's TU-104 as the world's first passenger jet ... but not all that wrong. --Glenn Pew, Newswriter, Editor |
| Gregg
Nesemeier
17 May 2001 |
Criminalizing FARs Pilots should be aware that in many states, laws specifying criminal penalties for various types of unlawful aircraft operation are already on the books. Im an air safety investigator in the NTSBs Northwest Regional Office in Seattle. (Disclaimer, naturally: any views expressed here are my personal views, not necessarily official positions of the NTSB.) In the four states in our region (Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington), the laws of all four states contain provisions making certain acts relating to operation of an aircraft unlawful. Generally, these include: operation of an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner; operating an aircraft under the influence of alcohol or drugs; and operating an aircraft without a valid required FAA certificate (airman, medical, airworthiness, registration, etc.) The codes contain "implied consent" statutes requiring pilots to submit to drug and/or alcohol tests upon demand of law enforcement officials, similar to those in force for motor vehicles. Furthermore, some state statutes contain language to the effect that "in determining whether or not operation was careless or reckless, th! e court may (or SHALL, in some states) consider any applicable Federal Aviation Regulations." Violations of these laws are generally misdemeanors, but some states specify that they become felonies if death results. Fines and jail time are both possibilities if a person is convicted. The state codes generally contain language that make it "the duty of every state, county, and municipal law enforcement officer" in the state to enforce these laws. Also, most (if not all) give state aeronautics officials "police powers" to enforce them as well. Im not personally aware of any prosecutions for violations of these laws. Certainly the standard of proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" to a jury, required for a criminal conviction, is substantially higher than that required by the FAA to pursue an enforcement action (a civil/administrative, not criminal, sanction.) It could also be that local authorities generally defer to the FAA as the agency with primary enforcement responsibility in this area, and/or that local prosecutors usually have more pressing matters to pursue. However, pilots should be aware that if they offend the sensibilities of local authorities badly enough, many jurisdictions do have the power to prosecute for these acts. Given that the vast majority of state legislators (as well as "ordinary citizens") are not pilots (and may actually, rightly or wrongly, perceive "small planes" as a public safety hazard), its probably a pretty safe bet that there would be little to no public or legislative support anywhere for repeal of these laws. Most of the above would probably believe, "if a drunk/reckless/unlicensed automobile driver can be sent to jail, why shouldnt a drunk/reckless/unlicensed airplane pilot?" In any case, pilots should recognize that in many (if not all) states, they CAN be criminally prosecuted by state and local authorities for FAR violations. A pilot would be wise to know the laws in the states where he/she flies, and to follow the rules.
|
| Alan
Graves
16 May 2001 |
Boeing HQ Moves to Chicago I moved to Wichita after living and working in Chicago 1977- 79. Rick Durden's "An Open Letter to Boeing" brought tears to my eyes and then quiet nods. Rick and I could be brothers. Thank you.
|
| Karin
Chevalier-Cozzolino
15 May 2001 |
Boeing HQ Moves to Chicago Just finished reading Rick Durden's open letter to Boeing. While I fervently hope that Boeing will do what it can to keep Meigs Field open, and give Mr. Durden's letter an "Attaboy!" on that count, I think that he's a bit off-point in so heavily identifying Boeing with the commercial aircraft side of the business. Boeing isn't just about jet airliners anymore. It's also a major player in the aerospace defense industry, a leader in commercial and military satellite payload technologies, is heavily involved in satellite launch delivery vehicles, and is in the forefront of air traffic control systems. Boeing has made a number of strategic alliances and acquisitions over the last few years that have changed the company profile greatly, and will probably make further acquisitions and alliances in the future. As I understand it, moving the Corporate headquarters out of Seattle (AKA "Jet City") was done at least in part to emphasize the fact that Boeing is not just about commercial jets anymore. Whether the mergers/acquisitions/alliances that Boeing management has undertaken are a "good" or "bad" thing remains to be seen and depends on what viewpoint you take?shareholder, military customer, commercial customer, consumer, or whatever. But I think it's important to put what Boeing is, and what it intends to become, in the larger perspective of the changes the aerospace defense industry as a whole has undergone during the same time-period. Now that's a subject that warrants an AVweb article in its own right. AVweb has carried news about things relating to the defense aerospace business, like progress on the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) flyoff, the F-22, and the F/A-18E/F Superhornet. It's grazed around the edges of the business in things like John Deakin's Pelican's Perch column, "Ground All Bonanzas?" that dealt with Raytheon's handling of the T-34 wing spar AD. Why not look directly into how the aerospace industry has changed and what this might mean for the future, and do some commentary/profiles about this, instead of dancing around the edges? Trying to understand the future of military aviation, future space ventures, and our whole national defense policy without having a clear insight into the way the major defense contractors are now configured is just not possible. Trying to rationalize Boeing's decision to relocate its corporate headquarters without this perspective is a disservice to both Boeing and your readers. I enjoy reading AVweb and really appreciate the work you guys do. I'd love to see your direct take on the industry I work in. I'm 22 years with Raytheon by way of Hughes Aircraft Co.; my husband has 28 years with Boeing, also by way of Hughes Aircraft Co. It's not your daddy's defense aerospace business anymore! |
| Dave
Smith
15 May 2001 |
Klyde Morris and Delta Airlines Just a note to let you know I'm really enjoying the Klyde Morris Delta cartoons. The best part about it is that they're getting a rise from Delta. I'd love to see AArogant AAmerican take a few bananas! ... I'll buy.
|
| James
Bond
14 May 2001 |
Boeing HQ Moves to Chicago As a current Boeing employee I agree with the move Boeing made. I have lived in the Pacific Northwest since 1979 and a Boeing employee since 1996. During all this time (and it's continuing) the press in this are has lambasted Boeing for whatever it does. Boeing could do nothing right in the eyes of the local media and government. So, now that Boeing corporate (which is just 500 people) moves its headquarters out of the area the local media is in a frenzy as to why. If I were a political cartoonist I would draw a picture of a beaten and battered woman crawling out the door to her house with a fat beer-bellied lout standing behind her with a bat in one hand a beer in another saying "Whatsa matta? Doncha love me anymore?" Both the government of Washington and the media here have nothing but themselves to blame. |
| John
Majane
14 May 2001 |
The Great Meigs Field Conspiracy I am based at Frederick Airport the home of AOPA. One night at a hanger party an AOPA lawyer told be the real reason to close Meigs Field was as follows: 1) Close the Airport and develop plans for an elaborate park 2) Suddenly discover that the city does not have enough money to build the park. 3) Sell the land to developers to get rid of the liability. 4) The developers will then build a luxury condo community that they already have plans for. The reasons given to the public about a building a park and the problems with the airport are apparently lies. The City of Chicago is in with the developers and the whole thing is planned out. I stated to the lawyer that this is criminal and that AOPA should bring this information to the public. The lawyer said that AOPA did not want to rock the political boat which I found very strange indeed. This information was all recieved during a hanger party so I do not know how valid it is. But considering the source and the City's rabid need to close the facility I believe that there may be some truth to it. AVweb responds... Which AOPA was that? The Association of Public Accountants? --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Andrew
Smith
14 May 2001 |
"Pax" In response Mike Busch's reply to my AVmail on "pax" [AVmail, 10 May 2001] in which he asked me what my plans were for April Fools Day ... Mike, I don't have any plans for April 1 next year; if you can contact me with an assignment by February 30, I'll have it for you by March 32. AVweb responds... You're on! --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| James
D. Ivey
16 May 2001 |
Chances of Death by Bloodclot AVweb wrote:
I have to respectfully disagree with the "SO rare" characterization. To me, 1% risk of death is huge. That's 3 dead people on every trans-oceanic flight on a 747. Of course, 3 people don't die on every trans-oceanic flight, but 3 people on every flight risking death by just sitting in their seat is terribly frightening. I wouldn't characterize that risk as "rare." When it comes to life-threatening risks, I prefer that they be many times more rare than 1%. |
| Larry
Meegan
15 May 2001 |
Chances of Death by Bloodclot The scientists have me laughing. I've flown the big jets for long distances, admittedly only once or twice. But I know that they will pack at least 200 people into the cabin. If only 1% of the population is susceptible to the blood clot problem, that would statistically mean 2 people on each flight would have the problem. And that doesn't concern them, huh? I don' t know where they came up with their numbers but I'm reminded of the axiom: "Figures don't lie but liars sure do figure." |
| Lloyd
Stearns
14 May 2001 |
Chances of Death by Bloodclot Wow, only one percent! This means that in almost every ariplane f flown by the airlines, someone could be affected. In a 747 with around 400 people on a long flight, 4 people could be affected. Rare indeed! |
| Les
Jones
14 May 2001 |
Chances of Death by Bloodclot This is interesting, so we can now plan on three to four deaths due to blood clot on a typical B-747 flight, wow. |
| Glenn
Inn
14 May 2001 |
Chances of Death by Bloodclot I just read the news item about the chances of dying by bloodclot from immobility during a prolonged flight. The comment at the end about the rarity of this happening has me concerned. "One percent of the population is affected" is a HUGE number. It seems to imply that on every typical wide-body flight, THREE passengers are susceptible to unexpected death. There has to be something wrong with the reporting/measuring of this statistic, or else the story way underplays the potentially devastating risks. |
| Owen
Delong
14 May 2001 |
Chances of Death by Bloodclot I simply don't believe this is possible. If it were true, than at minimum, 1-2 passengers per flight would be experiencing a blood-clot in the leg after each international flight. I simply don't believe it happens this often. 1% means one in 100. The average trans-oceanic airline flight usually contains much more than 100, and some of them are pushing around 400 passengers. AVweb responds... Dr. John Scurr, a vascular surgeon at London's Middlesex Hospital, said that he believes the vast majority of people will have nothing to worry about. I think saying three people on every widebody plane are susceptible to dying from blood clots is, at least according to the new research, not borne out by the facts. --Liz Swaine, AVweb News If you read a report that said "studies show that 1 percent of the population will die of a heart attack brought on by job stress," would you quit your job tomorrow? Obviously, the report on bloodclots is saying that 1 percent of the population may be at risk over a lifetime. That sounds like a pretty low risk. The percentage of the population at risk of dying from cancer or heart disease or any number of other causes is vastly greater than one percent. Those who read this statement as meaning that 1 percent of the passengers on every flight will die from a bloodclot before touchdown should probably take two Xanax and call their Aviation Medical Examiner in the morning. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Rick
Kiefer
14 May 2001 |
Chances of Death by Bloodclot Amazing, isn't it? How we differ as individuals! I've spent 12-14 hours a day in a wheelchair for nearly 17 years now and never experienced fatal blood clots in my legs, while others assert that a cross-Pacific trip can be fatal. Methinks researchers have too much time on their hands and too much grant money available.
AVweb responds... Yeah, Rick, but you don't have to deal with that airline food. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Donald
Morgan
14 May 2001 |
NASA's Thrust-Only Control Technology AVweb wrote:
... except this is not what happened in the case of Al Haynes DC-10. First of all, "all the engines on one side are one in the case of the DC-10. Secondly, it wasn't either #1 or #2 engine (the wing-mounted engines) which exploded but rather it was the tail-mounted engine. AVweb responds... Sorry our news story was confusing. The phrase about "losing all of your hydraulic systems, plus all the engines on one side" referred to the parameters in the NASA system that was the subject of the story. The aside about the UAL flight was an illustration of an accident in which limited flight control was a factor -- I think this was more clear in our expanded version of the story, in our NewsWire, at <http://AVweb.com/n/?19b>. --Mary Grady, News Editor |
| Mike
Boren
14 May 2001 |
"Rocket Guy" Brian Walker I hope for his sake that Brian Walker consults a topo map of the area around the Alvord Desert before waiting until "around 10,000 feet" to pop the parafoil. Steens Mountain, within three miles of the desert floor, rises to something like 9520 MSL. AVweb responds... I'm pretty sure he meant 10,000' AGL, Mike. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Jay
Libove
14 May 2001 |
HTML Version of AVflash? I have loved reading AVweb for a few years now. I would really like to have the same content in the email version of the newsletter that I see on the web site, rather than the shortened versions of some stories that I see in the email version. I know that there's always a balance to be struck between the size of the email (bigger means slower for some readers) and the amount of content. What are your thoughts or plans on perhaps offering a full HTML-ized email version of the newsletter? AVweb responds... Jay, we have no plans to offer an HTML version of AVflash, nor expand its content beyond what it's always been: a summary of our NewsWire's full coverage, a description of new feature material we've published and paid advertising. We've discussed and thought through the pros and cons of doing an HTML-ized email product on several occasions, and always concluded that the cons outweigh the pros. As always, our expanded, illustrated NewsWire will remain only a mouse-click away. --Joseph E. (Jeb) Burnside, Executive Editor |
| Richard
Beach
14 May 2001 |
Independent Mechanics Banned From PAE I was wondering if you are aware of the growing movement nationwide to ban independent mechanics from working on Federaly Funded Airports? The Airport Management at Paine Field (PAE) Everett Washington and The Arlington Airport (AWO) Arlington Washington are curently allowing independent mechanics to work on the field only with the "APPROVAL" of the airport management.They have set arbitrary standards in direct violation of FAR part 150 and are acting contrary to FAA Order 5190.6A and 5190.5 .If you read FAA Order Section 2 Policy paragraph 3-8 a. you will immediatly see that the airport managements' policy is in direct violation. Not only is the airport management getting away with this but The FAA Office of Safety and Standards District Offic is backing them up 100% The airport management at Paine Field has caved into pressure from the FBO's on the field that rent or lease space from the airport to keep independent mechanics off the field.Many aircraft owners are dissatisfied with services provided by the FBO's on the field and are now willing to fly their aircraft to a place where work can be performed by the mechanic of their choice.In several cases that I know of this has been done with the aircraft in an unairworthy condition.The airport management is now not only restricting free trade in violation of FAA Order 5190.6A but has created a safety issue. Even though I have complied with all their requirements at Paine Field and spent thousands of dollars in legal fees I have yet to win "APPROVAL' from the airport management to conduct business on the field.
|
| Joe
Lemanski
13 May 2001 |
Criminalizing FARs At a recent aviation safety seminar in the Detroit area, employees of the Michigan DOT Bureau of Aeronautics made a presentation about proposed changes to the Michigan Aeronautics Code as detailed at http://www.mdot.state.mi.us/aero/CodeChanges.htm. Changes include some definitions, ultralight "vehicle" issues, a regulation about commercial seaplane takeoff and landing distances being sufficient for the operations being conducted (duh!) and criminalization of FAR violations. To my amazement, the presenter explained that local FAA employees had come to MIDOT/BA asking for state help by establishing criminal sanctions within the state aeronautics code for violations of FARs allegedly because the FAA did not have the ability to adequately nor timely sanction violators! In audience discussion, the MIDOT/BA employees persisted in their righteous defense of "public safety" against rogue pilots and flight operations. Non-certificated first-time violators of FAR 135 "SHALL BE GUILTY OF A FELONY". Certificated 135 operators start with a Misdemeanor and work up to a Felony after multiple violations within 5 years as does any "person....not....in full compliance with the federal airman certification requirements". Fines and jail times are also specified. The speaker did state that he did not intend to ramp check pilots and would only go after them after an incident or accident (an exclusion not noted in the proposed changes). I see no need for a state government to criminalize violations of federal aviation rules, however, the speaker stated that such duplication is a common practice in many regulatory areas. I mentioned the many articles I've seen about stringent FAA enforcement actions, but the speaker professed a general lack of awareness of them and cited an old case of a local rogue operator in need of an additional state sanction because the FAA could not penalize him enough to keep him out of business! I have no knowledge of that case, but do feel the FAA is quite capable of enforcement sanctions as published in the aviation press. I also question the propriety of federal employees lobbying state rule makers without a national and public directive. Is AVweb aware of a national legislative agenda of this nature by the FAA or is this a local aberration?
|
| William
G. Levy
11 May 2001 |
Iridium Isn't it interesting that Iridium was bought by private investors who are remaining very very private considering that:
Long before Sky King encouraged me to be a pilot I was a ham radio operator. I was also an early investor in Cellular. So I am not surprised that the communication system didn't crash down from space considering that before its invention and installation it WAS AND STILL IS the only communication system that can be used in handheld configuration that can talk to any other handheld and interface with the world telephone networks from ANYWHERE ON THE PLANET AT ANYTIME. Now the Defense Department can do that, too, but you need to be near an embassy or battleship group, or army group or AWACS, etc. You get my drift. Not even the Pentagon had a system that could do what Iridium could do (and Globalstar didn't come close). What the wizards of technolgy didn't know was how to market this baby. They should have started with NATO, not rich businessmen. The technology is simple. The Iridium system was built with off-the-shelf components. The Motorola Wizards simply reduced the size of their landbased cell phone sites, and instead of fixing the cell phone sites as on the planet, they move them around inside the satellites. So the users, you and I, are compared to the moving cell sites of Iridium basically standing still. Not many of us can stay ahead of one of the Iridium birds so as they pass they simply hand us off to another bird coming into view. It is really so simple and elegant. And its also cheap enough for us to have in our airplanes as COM 3 and it will be data-enabled soon. So whomever the mystery investors are, they got a sweet, sweet deal! |
| James
D. Ivey
10 May 2001 |
Lake Aircraft Wing-Spar Doubler Kits AVweb wrote:
I just thought I'd offer a perspective on Lake's situation since I know more about patent law than I do about aviation. First, people can go right on doing what they're doing with respect to the AD until the patent is issued. A patent application conveys no rights. It typically takes 2-5 years to get a patent issued, so it may be some time before anyone has to worry about the patent -- depending upon when the application was filed. I should give two caveats, however. First, if the patent does eventually issue, it gives the owner the right to exclude others from making, using, selling, and importing the patented article. The important one here is "using." Flying with the patented spar is probably "using." And, now a caveat for this caveat: it's generally considered unwise to sue one's potential customers. I'd be really surprised if Revo sues Lake owners and forces them to remove the old fix and install theirs (or just pay royalties). Second caveat, due to recent changes in U.S. patent law, applications are now published at 18 months from original filing. If the patent eventually issues with no substantial changes to the claims published at 18 months, the patent owner can collect for infringement from the date of publication. So what does this mean? It means that competitors should get a copy of the application and make sure they don't infringe the published claims -- or perhaps make sure they believe that the claims should not be allowed. It also means that, if you want to get the fix from a competitor of Revo's, you should do so before the application is published, since they may stop competing after publication. In addition to my first point above re time to issue, you should be aware that acts outside of the U.S. are not infringing (since U.S. law pretty much applies only to the U.S.). I don't know if they're also applying for Canadian patents, but it might be possible to go to Canada and get the fix there. Of course, bringing it back into the U.S. would be importing and therefore a direct act of infringement. I don't know if Revo would sue it's potential customers though. One last thought, the patent will specify a specific fix in the claims. It's possible that a competitor's fix won't infringe the patent. Of course, this is all based on general principles of patent law in the U.S. and is not legal advice since I'm not familiar with the specifics of this case. In addition, due to time considerations, I've simplified things a bit for informal discussion purposes. Bottom line: the existence of a patent application is not the end of the matter. |
| Andrew
Smith
10 May 2001 |
"Pax" Regarding Ed Reading's beef about "pax" [AVmail, 07 May 2001], what's the big deal? It's an aviation contraction (not an acronym, which is a word made up of the initial letters of a group of words -- like FAA). It goes with "wx" (weather) and "cbx" (continental breakfast, as far as I know). If we use "self-loading cargo," you can bet someone's going to create a TLA (three-letter acronym) from it, which will be SLC, and then everyone will be forever confusing passengers with Salt Lake City International Airport (at least here in the U.S., where we generally don't bother with the "K" prefix). And who cares if it's a beef? Maybe the original writer meant to cry fowl instead, but chickened out. I have two things to say to those who get all steamed up about things like this. First, see the Supreme Court's refusal to hear a case involving a Disney character who happens to be a female rodent: "de Minnie Mouse non curat lex." Second, pax (oops, self-loading cargo) vobiscum.
P.S. No, the Supreme Court never said that, as far as I know, but it's the only way I could think of to perpetrate that particular atrocious pun. AVweb responds... And we thank you for that, Andrew! What are your plans for next April 1st? --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Carl
Jordan
10 May 2001 |
AVweb Profile of Al Haynes Concerning Joe Godfrey's "Profiles" piece on Al Haynes... Once again, Al Haynes is given credit for controlling the "uncontrollable" DC-10 that crashed at Sioux City. It seems that it's certainly time to set the record straight. The tenth anniversary of the crash was an appropriate time to do so. Since that didn't happen, perhaps it's now time to review the true facts. It's a myth to credit Haynes with flying the airplane to the airport with throttles and asymmetrical power alone. This is because Al Haynes rode into the ground thinking that he still had working elevators and ailerons on that disabled aircraft! What this means is that, unfortunately, he didn't understand the airplane's systems well enough to know that with zero hydraulic pressure on all systems, his flight controls were totally and completely inoperative. (I'm sure he's aware of this now, but he wasn't aware of it at the time. In fact, his first action was to ask for the "checklist" covering such a situation. Naturally, there was no checklist for this condition. It was akin to asking for the "checklist" to cover actions the crew should take after one wing leaves the aircraft. Wing loss and complete hydraulic loss weren't covered. In truth, Al Haynes lacked adequate knowledge of the DC-10. He should have known no such checklist existed.) As a result of his misunderstanding and lack of knowledge, he had his co-pilot "ride the controls" with him in an effort to fly the airplane with a totally inoperative flight control system. This effort was completely in vain, but Haynes didn't know it. For the rest of the flight, the copilot dutifully manned the flight controls and "helped" Haynes move the control column, even though he knew it was fruitless to attempt to do so. During radio conversations with the control tower, Haynes reported that he had a "little elevator" and "almost no ailerons." Then, again, he reported with regard to the elevator controls that he had "almost none." With regard to the ailerons he reported he had "very little." Actually, with regard to ALL of the flight controls, he had none at all! But, he continued in the erroneous belief that he was controlling the airplane with the flight controls - albeit in a struggling manner. Even after the copilot(?) tried to set matters straight with regard to the flight controls, Al Haynes came back and reported on the radio that he had "a little bit of control." What happened was that at one point, Haynes was unable to answer a radio call from the tower. Perhaps he was making a PA announcement, or something. At that point, another crewmember (probably the copilot) is heard trying to correctly inform the tower (and the world?) that they were only able to control the airplane by "power alone." This, of course, was a correct analysis of their true condition. But, Captain Haynes remained undeterred in his erroneous belief and "corrected" the copilot's radio transmission by subsequently reporting that he had "some" flight controls working on that crippled aircraft. As they approached the end of the runway, Haynes wanted to chop the power. At this point, as throughout the flight, Denny Fitch (the "visiting crewmember" in the cockpit), was handling the throttles. (Haynes was still "handling" the control column). Fitch countered Haynes by imploring him to realize that he couldn't chop the power because they were controlling the airplane with power, and engine power alone. So, even up to the moment of impact, Al Haynes was unaware of the true condition of the airplane, and what was actually controlling its flight path. Yet, he continues to this very day to be credited by the media with doing a "fantastic job of controlling the airplane with asymmetrical thrust, despite its total lack of flight controls." With regard to this erroneous praise, in current-day interviews, Al Haynes will go as far as to say, "Thankfully, we had Denny Fitch on board." What he means by that, of course, is that it was Denny Fitch, and NOT Al Haynes, who demonstrated that remarkable fete of flying ability that got the DC-10 to the runway using throttles and asymmetrical thrust, alone. The media, naturally, continue to extol the "fact" that other pilots on the airline were not able to duplicate "the extraordinary airmanship demonstrated by Captain Haynes." Actually, United Airlines showed that only .0071% of their 8,000 pilots (at the time) were unable to duplicate that fete. The other 99.99% of United's pilots were not given the opportunity to demonstrate whether or not they, too, could have controlled the airplane. Therefore, the conclusion by the media that "other pilots couldn't duplicate the fete" is far-fetched, indeed! Of course, writers DO like to take "editorial license" and "juice-up" the facts a bit, don't they? And, it must be kept in mine that Al Haynes, himself, NEVER demonstrated such ability! It was Denny Fitch who controlled that airplane and got it to the runway. Unfortunately, Fitch made a mistake right at the last moment that ruined the entire effort. He felt that the airplane was descending at too great of a rate of descent. In an effort to smooth out the landing, he pushed the throttles forward in an attempt to "flare" the aircraft for touchdown. The airplane had a built-in tendency to turn to the right. This, along with flugoid (sic) oscillation, was the main difficulty in controlling the aircraft right from the moment of the total hydraulic failure. When Fitch shoved the throttles forward at the last moment, the airplane reverted to its tendency to roll to the right. This is what caused the fiery cartwheel as the resulting roll tendency caused the right wing to dig into the ground. It's ironic that when Al Haynes wanted to chop the throttles, Denny Fitch countered him because he realized that doing so would have caused the airplane to roll to the right. Fitch realized that higher power on the right engine was the only thing making the airplane fly straight ahead. Yet, at the last moment he unfortunately upset that delicate power balance by shoving both throttles forward. This had the same aerodynamic effect as chopping both throttles: the airplane rolled to the right. Getting the airplane to the runway WAS a great demonstration of great airmanship. But, the credit doesn't belong to Al Haynes. Instead, the credit rightfully belongs to Denny Fitch. Perhaps the media will finally recognize this fact a decade after the accident. But, I sincerely doubt it. The airline and ALPA and the airline pilot fraternity, themselves, just LOVE to have one of their own made into a hero. Once they've bestowed the crown of "hero" upon somebody (even erroneously), it's almost impossible to remove it. Just wait and see.
P.S. As an aside, in the interview Haynes is quoted as saying, "We merged with Capitol Airlines." Joe Godfrey misconstrued and wrote the name incorrectly in his text. It was Captial Airlines that merged with United Air Lines, and NOT "Capitol Airlines." Capitol was a freight outfit, and was NOT the airline that merged with United. Capital Airlines, on the other hand, was the fifth largest passenger-carrying airline in the world, and, at the time of the merger, United was the second largest. When they merged, they formed the largest airline. AVweb responds... Captain Jordan, I agree with you that Denny Fitch deserves a lot more credit than history has given him so far. I don't usually announce upcoming Profiles, but this seems like a good time to announce his. And I won't take the bait and defend "the media." There's plenty of good media and an abundance of bad media, and we get to pick. Without taking credit from Denny, I do think you're pretty rough on Al. I think he demonstrated amazing composure during the entire emergency. There was more to do than controlling the aircraft, and he did most of it. Maybe you disagree, but I don't see how anything he could have done, or not done, would have saved one more life. Al doesn't really talk about controlling the airplane in the Profile, and he certainly doesn't take credit for it, from Denny or anybody else. He didn't say it that day, but since the interview I've heard him say something like "I realize now that holding the yoke was just out of habit. For all the good it did I might as well have gone back and taken a toilet seat out of the bathroom and held that." We now know a lot more about propulsion control of an aircraft than anyone in the cockpit knew that day. Bill Burcham and Gordon Fullerton at NASA Dryden have spent the last ten years or so immersed in the subject, and their research is available at: I will take the bait on "juicing up" the facts. You say that
I won't dispute that, but United didn't share that fact with me. The fact I used is that the NTSB replicated the data of Flight 232 and not one of the 57 crews they tested in the simulator could control the airplane all the way to the ground, and I'm not aware of any juice in that fact. If your point is that somewhere in that 99.99% we would have found a pilot who figured out that the way to control the aircraft was to let go of the yoke, get out of his seat and kneel between the throttles, I think it's a good point. We should all be willing to examine every possible option with a different mindset in the face of a catastrophic failure. Al has spoken to thousands of people since the accident. He tells them about the five factors that saved lives on 232: execution, communications, preparation, cooperation, and something he calls luck (which some might call divine intervention). We'll never be able to measure how many lives that advice might have saved. Or how many people coping with post-traumatic stress have been given a good role model. I think Al would be the first to agree that he was part of a team that included Denny, First Officer Dudley Dvorak, air traffic controller Kevin Bachman, Lead Flight Attendant Jan Brown and her crew, and the rescue squads on the ground in Sioux City, and plenty of luck. Thanks for writing. --Joe Godfrey, Columnist (Profiles) |
| Name
Withheld
10 May 2001 |
Boeing HQ Moves to Chicago As an employee of the Boeing company, I must say that I am amused by the apparent decision of the CEO to move the company headquarters from Seattle to Chicago. We'll see how the bosses fare during the first year. Maybe a hot and humid summer with mosquitoes the size of sparrows, followed by a cold and brutal winter with a bit of -40F temperatures will put things in perspective. Add some of that famous wind, too. I give 'em maybe two years and they'll be ready to come back. There will be a lot of us here in the Pacific Northwest grinning every time we see the Chicago weather report. We can read it while we are stuck in traffic. |
| Ronald
Wright
10 May 2001 |
Lake Aircraft Wing-Spar Doubler Kits Doesn't Lake realize that they can't get a patent on any item that has already been produced and sold by a competitor? If Lake had already gotten the "patent" on the repair spar (and it would have to be a very specific part), then they could possibly stop someone else from selling. But waiting until the horse was out the gate and thinking they could stop the competition is only a pipe dream. |
| Charles
Curtis
10 May 2001 |
275 Days Left to Save Meigs Field The best way to demonstrate the value of Meigs is to close the airport for three days (with advance notice to regular users) and encourage those users to utilize O'Hare and Midway. Prove to the mayor and the other anti-Meigs folks what the impact will be on delays. |
| Chuck
Forsberg
9 May 2001 |
NTSB Blames Radio Host in Chicago Midair AVweb wrote:
If the NTSB blames Collins for the midair on the basis of a position report being a mile off, it shouldn't be long before GPS is a requirement in every cockpit. In my experience, errors of a mile or more in position reports are common for pilots eyeballing distancs. Do we wish pilots not using GPS or Loran to spend all their time looking at waypoints on sectionals instead of looking out for traffic? |
| Glenn
Pomerance, M.D.
07 May 2001 |
Coffee Pot Capers AVweb wrote:
Is the disgruntled controller of coffee pot fame going to be able to come back to her job. I surely hope not! What kind of judgment does this indicate she has? I wouldn't want her preoccupied brain separating me from the heavy iron in the sky!!
AVweb responds... No word on what Ms. Jones will be doing after her release from jail. Perhaps working in the lunchroom at New York Center? --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Al
Myers
7 May 2001 |
FAA Error in Part 135 Op Specs Hopefully, I am not the only one who has read the recent 135 Operations Specifications in detail ... however ... As you may be aware, Operations Specifications have been completely revised to fit a new DOT/FAA computer model ... yes a lot of growing pains. In essence the FAA has, through the stroke of a type writer key(s), now requires Part 135 operators to depart with two pilots during IFR departures when RVR is AT 2400-1/2, in lieu of "LESS THAN 2400-1/2". This error appears in all Ops Specs (Page H-116) for helicopters, as well as the appropriate section for 135 fixed wing operators. The correction ... a possible "comment process" in lieu of a clarification fax to FSDO's and re-issuance of H-116 for helicopter operators as well as for the fixed wing jocks. This becomes an issue if the aircraft is certified for single-pilot IFR and two pilots are required to takeoff and climb through a thin fog layer, not to speak of the cost to man the single-pilot IFR aircraft with two pilots under the current 2400-1/2 requirement. Landing minimums are tighter than this! Time to read the new Ops Specs, folks, no one is perfect, but the correction process needs cleaning up. Pressure from the ranks should do the trick. |
| Ed
Reading
07 May 2001 |
"Pax" I have but one beef with your entire editorial product, every week: "pax." Good God. These "passengers," if you don't want to call them that, are people, persons, human beings. Some of them may even be pilots; they just don't want to drive themselves all the way across the continent. Please don't call them "pax." I don't CARE what FAA form, regulation, policy, or NPRM mentions -- or has a blank to be filled in -- by the term "pax." Screw those acronym-makers, users and administrators everywhere. There -- is my complaint broad enough? Please refer to passengers by some term (the copy desk can choose) that recognizes they are not objects, but human beings. Thank you. AVweb responds... Okay, Ed, from here on out, we'll refer to them as "self-loading cargo." --Mary Grady, News Editor Could Ed be the "leader of the pax"? --Art Weiss, News Writer I personally object to Ed having a "beef" with something. What about chickens and pigs? Good God. They're animals too. --Brenda Carol, News Writer Reminds me of the bumper sticker that says, "I'm not a vegetarian because I love animals; I'm a vegetarian because I hate plants." --Joseph E. (Jeb) Burnside, Executive Editor Now cut that out! --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Thomas
L Fraser
07 May 2001 |
Garmin GPSMAP 295 WAAS Update A few issues back, AVweb reported on an announcement that Garmin was offering a WAAS update to GPSMAP 295 owners. Am I correct, or was I having a "senior moment" in presuming that AVweb provided this information? If I am correct, please provide the Web site or info concerning how to get the upgrade. AVweb responds... Guilty as charged, Thomas. The WAAS capability was added to the Garmin GPSMAP 295 in software version 2.20. The current version of the software is 2.21. It available for download from the Garmin site at http://www.garmin.com/software/g295_221.exe. Hope this helps. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Michael
Orlowski
7 May 2001 |
Honeywell's AIRSAT 1 System In AVweb's NewsWire story on Honeywell's AIRSAT 1 system, the statement...
...is incorrect. Honeywell did not purchase the Iridium Satellite system. A group of private investors bought the system. Honeywell did develop the aircraft system portion. Boeing Services Corp operates the satellites.
|
| Matthew
Shaffer
7 May 2001 |
Images in AVweb's NewsWire I enjoy reading AVweb's Web-based NewsWire to its email-based AVflash, preferring the more interesting and colorful formatting I find there. Some pictures I've viewed recently were rather small and difficult to view in detail. Have you considered having higher-resolution versions available? That guy's Cessna stuck 900 feet up a 1,000-foot tower is a prime example. AVweb responds... Matthew, I'm the editor responsible for producing the online NewsWire, and I'm solely to blame for the images that appear there. The rest of the AVweb news team rarely sees what images I have until we go "live." My goal is to provide informative, and sometimes entertaining, graphics for the news. We do tend to keep the graphics "low-res" for both aesthetics, and to keep page loading time reasonable. (A large percentage of our readers still access the Internet via dial-up.) Still, I try to make the graphics a "useful" as possible for our readers. The Cessna in the tower pic is an example of another limitation of the job. In many cases -- especially with breaking news -- we are limited by what we can find by deadline. I spend some time searching for a good pic of the Cessna in question, found four or five, and the one we published was the best of the bunch. What you saw in the NewsWire was the best I could find, low resolution and all. While I am probably more disappointed than you are at times (I began my career as a photojournalist in 1965, so I have a bit of expertise in this area), time, budget, and pure availability are major hurdles that limit what we can offer graphically. --Bob Kaputa, Managing Editor |
| Ron
Wolf
7 May 2001 |
How Many Pilots Are There? I was reading (and enjoying) Rick Durden's AVweb article titled "A First Solo" when I came across a comment that pilots constitute something less than one percent of the world's population. While I am certainly not challenging this statement, it occurred to me that this figure might be misleading. I believe there are some 600,000 certificated pilots in the United States, including GA, transport, rotor wing, etc. Since the U.S. population is in the vicinity of 250 million, dividing one into the other gives the result that less than a QUARTER OF ONE PER CENT of the U.S. population can call themselves pilots. While this number does not represent an order-of-magnitude difference from Durden's one percent figure, my point is that if one includes the entire world (as Durden did), I believe the number of pilots will be represented by a vastly smaller percentage than even a quarter percent. I do not know how many pilots there are worldwide, but for reasons having mostly to do with the economics of third world countries, the exorbitant expense of flying in nearly every country, and the lack of general aviation in all but a few countries, I suspect that the final world percent will be a vanishingly small number. So, assuming I am correct, Durden may have sold himself short (or long, depending on how you look at it). In other words, as pilots, we may indeed be rare individuals on planet Earth.
|
| Stephan
White
07 May 2001 |
"Name Withheld" AVmail A suggestion: to avoid any needless diminution or distraction from the fine work of AVweb, I would ask that, except in cases of potential retribution (an airline or FAA employee, a pilot criticizing the FAA, or the like), that if you send a letter to AVweb, you had better have the backbone to have your name with your words. I have noted a less-than-gentlemanly, much less polite tone in several letters. The recent "Name Withheld" letters that diminished my readings have been: "High Cost of Aviation Insurance," 23 April (juvenile), 12 April (a cheap shot at Phil Boyer), and the "April Fools Day Issue" letters, 1 April (too much email) and the scurrilous 2 April letter. Flying takes a certain amount of courage. A minor exhibit of pilot courage might be to stand by your words instead of hiding behind them. AVweb responds... FYI, we never publish a letter in AVmail unless the writer provides his or her name and email address. However, we always honor requests to withhold the name from publication (assuming that we elect to publish the letter at all), and we never publish correspondents' email addresses except in extraordinary cases when the writer specifically requests that we do so. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Dawn
Mather
7 May 2001 |
Microsoft Flight Sim 2000 in Schools AVweb wrote:
I hope you're not getting swamped with requests...but...do you have any information on how teachers can get this software for their (Middle School) students' SMT use?
AVweb responds... Thanks for your inquiry. Actually, we'd be happy to get swamped with requests for more information. We think this is a great program for kids. Since this was a donation to the EAA, I would suggest contacting Dick Knapinski, Director of Media and Public Relations. I'm sure he could point you in the right direction. His number is (920) 426-6523, or you can reach him via e-mail at dknapinski@eaa.org. --Brenda Carol, News Writer |
| Carl
Jordan
07 May 2001 |
C-5 Nose-Gear-Up Landing AVweb wrote:
Tell me, did "the crew" take a vote to decide where they would land? (That would be unique in a military aircraft!) I bet that it's more likely that the aircraft commander decided where to land that airplane. Why the current tendency to credit (or blame) "the crew" with regard to decisions that are actually made by the pilot in command? Does AVweb really believe that airplanes -- military and commercial -- are flown "by committee?" "The crew" might be consulted by the aircraft commander, but the "decision" belongs entirely in the left seat. Any other method of decision making would be folly.
AVweb responds... Carl, I'm not sure whether to interpret your note as linguistic nit-picking or a substantive comment on interpersonal dynamics in the cockpit. If you meant it as the latter, all I can say is that your CRM (cockpit resource management) training must have had a rather different syllabus than mine. I must admit ignorance about how military transport crews are trained in this regard nowadays, but certainly civilian crews are trained with strong emphasis on the team approach to aeronautical decision making -- in sharp contrast to the often-autocratic captain-dominated cockpit environment that was prevalent 20 years ago. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Maj.
Russell Erb
7 May 2001 |
C-5 Nose-Gear-Up Landing With regards to the C-5 nose-gear-up landing at Edwards AFB, you said:
The lakebed is hardly remote -- the runways and taxiways go directly on to it. As for the safety equipment, the fire trucks and such are no farther from the lakebed than from the main runway here at Edwards. The second half of the above statement (forgiving surface, no directional constraints) is true and is the main reason for going to the lakebed in cases like this.
AVweb responds... We stand corrected, Russ. Thanks. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Ted
Lopatkiewicz
7 May 2001 |
Alaska Air Mechanic Certificate Revocation AVweb wrote:
The Administrative Law Judge of the National Transportation Safety Board did not revoke the mechanic's license. He upheld the FAA's revocation of the license. Some might consider that a minor technicality, but it maintains the separation between the regulatory authority (FAA) and the appelate body (NTSB). There are two more steps, first to the Board Members themselves, and then to the federal court system, if either party chooses to pursue it. When the dust settles, if the license remains revoked, it will have been revoked by the FAA, not the NTSB.
AVweb responds... Ted, you're absolutely correct, of course, and we know better. Certificate actions are taken by the FAA, with the NTSB providing an avenue of appeal, initially through hearings before its Administrative Law Judges, and subsequently via review by the full Board when necessary. Obviously, what we should have said was: "Last week, a judge with the National Transportation Safety Board upheld the FAA's certificate revocation of an Alaska Airlines mechanics' supervisor." --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Jim
Meils
4 May 2001 |
Respiration and Hypoxia I'm writing with a few comments about Mike Busch's articles "Respiration: What Pilots Need To Know (But Aren't Taught)" and "Pilot Report: Nonin Onyx Pulse Oximeter." Last fall I read those articles with great interest. Then I wrote Santa Claus and requested a pulse oximeter for Christmas. Good ole Santa came through with the Palco Aero from Aeromedix.com. I love it! A test flight became extremely necessary. I fly a V-35A Bonanza and I live in Erie, Colo., just a few stones' throws from Michael Maya Charles. The main reason for this letter is the reemphasize the exact technique for deep breathing as the testing that I did with the pulse oximeter indicated that the diaphragm is all-important. I normally breathe with my chest, expanding my shoulders or pulling them back to expand the chest. While sitting and reading, this action is very minimal. To take a deep breath, the action is much more pronounced. At this point, my diaphragm hasnt moved much. None of this entered my mind until I read your article last fall. In the "Respiration" article, Mike Busch emphasized the diaphragm in deep breathing more. In my flight test at altitude 17,000 feet, normal breathing resulted in readings of low 70s and high 60s (SpO2%) with increasing discomfort and some confusion. Then I tried deep belly breathing Wow! What a difference! The reading shot up to the mid and high 80s, but it was difficult to maintain as Mike mentioned in his article. The concentration required was distracting from the flying, so I need to practice this much more. I then tried normal deep breathing with the diaphragm not consciously involved that didnt work at all. I saw no O2 increase. The only way it works for me is to fully utilize my diaphragm. I also found that 5 seconds per breath was too fast and 10 seconds slightly too slow, so I settled on 8 seconds -- 4 in and 4 out. That gave me a reading in the 80s at 17,000. The main thing I learned from all this is that deep belly breathing is very necessary, and I now know why thanks to Busch's article. Its the "dead air space" and the difference between my learning to deep breathe normally and deep breathing with my diaphragm. I remember a flight a few years ago where I was at 17,999 feet or so (not IFR) over a huge cloud deck in central Colorado with TRW all around. After a while I couldn't stay up there and I descended into the soup to 15,000 where I was able to continue on -- and of course, there was a tremendous headwind. I was in there for about two hours. The information Busch provided would have been invaluable then, as it is now. Thank you very much! Its even more important for me now as I just turned 69 this week. I have been flying for more than 40 years. Thanks again to Mike Busch for a great article and to Dr. Blue and Aeromedix.com for making the information and equipment available. AVweb responds... Thanks for the great feedback, Jim. One think you didn't mention is that it's far harder to deep-breathe with your diaphragm when in the seated position (as you normally are in an airplane) than while standing. Reclining the seat back (if possible) improves the ability to breathe deeply, but of course makes it tough to fly. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Patrick
C. Roe
03 May 2001 |
South Pole Rescue Just to let you know, I think the South Pole rescue flight by the two Canadian crews in Twin Otters was one of the greatest feats of airmanship in recent years. Yes, I know it was only one plane that made the last leg and the actual evacuation. But I think it was a a realistic evaluation of the risks involved to have a second team standing by if case the first team went down. That's guts. When all of the resources of the great United State Air Force were unable to do the job it took of couple of gutty modern day bush pilots to do it. Someone ought to find some kind of medal for them. Someone should also kick the ass the the doctor who very likely had gall bladder trouble before he ever went to the South Pole but didn't disclose it. I know. I've had that trouble. It comes on slowly.
|
| Charles
Vomacka
3 May 2001 |
Computer System to Aid Dispatchers AVweb wrote:
I am writing in response to the cheap shot that you took at the FAA in your May 3 newswire. The FAA could make a system such as this available, but has been prevented from doing so. Dimensions International, makers of Flight Explorer, and others have lobbied Congress to prevent us from making our systems available. Where do you think that DI gets it's flight information? They get it from the FAA. The FAA has been doing this much longer than they have, so it is they that are doing what we, the FAA, are already doing. The FAA has the ability to make flight tracking information freely available to all via the Internet, but is not allowed to do so, because of the lobbying of Congress by SIGs. AVweb responds... Chuck, I'm afraid I see it a bit differently. The FAA fought tooth and nail to prevent flight tracking information from becoming available to the public. The FAA was finally compelled to do so by act of Congress, but like sore losers the FAA managed to drag its feet for years before finally making the Aircraft Situation Display to Industry (ASDI) data feed available. Dimensions International and other ASDI vendors invested large sums of money to develop software and develop the market for these products. Now, the FAA has made a 180-degree turnabout and wants to put these vendors out of business by offering a government-subsidized flight tracking service. Given the history, it's hard to blame Dimensions International and the other ASDI vendors from screaming bloody murder to their congressmen. It would have been completely different if the FAA had been willing to provide such a service from the outset. This is a tough issue. While I'd like to see free flight tracking information available via the Internet, I'd also like to see the commercial vendors who took risks and invested capital to develop this capability treated fairly. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Ira
Rimson
3 May 2001 |
Spy Plane? Durn it, it's bad enough that the unwashed ignorant press weenies keep referring to the captive EP-3 as a "spy plane." AVweb should know better. It was not a spy plane; i.e., neither clandestine nor inside the enemy's boundaries. It makes about as much sense as calling someone standing in the supermarket parking lot and reading prices thru binoculars a "shoplifter." By the way, I have 2000+ hours in P-3's and those guys/ladies did a phenomenal job getting it onto the ground and sticking it. |
| Bill
Earls
3 May 2001 |
Spy Plane? Why do you keep referring to our reconn plane as a Spy plane? We can expect this from the Washington Post or New York Times but not from AVweb. This plane was flying in International airspace and was not "spying' on anyone or do you know something that we don't? |
| George
Horn
03 May 2001 |
Spy Plane? Sometime the tongue-in-cheek humor is funny. Sometimes it's not. Sometimes it might even place international relations in jeopardy. The story about experts from the U.S. inspecting the Navy plane in China is troubling. This is a time for cool heads and reasonable people. The Chinese are sensitive about this issue. "Five experts from Lockheed Martin left Hawaii on Monday for Lingshui Air Base, where the aircraft remains. The spies ... er, experts ...", is potentially troublesome. Internet access is world-wide, right? Suppose those inspectors were picked up and held as spies? How funny would that be to their families and friends? I encourage you to consider such things when you publish. |
| W. Ivan
Lewis
3 May 2001 |
Spy Plane? The EP3 is a surveillance plane, or a reconnaissance plane. IT IS NOT A SPY plane. The crew aren't spies. "Spy" implies covert. Nothing covert about a plane with a known mission flying overtly in international waters. I flew many reconnaissance missions over North Vietnam. I was not a spy. I was a looker, an observer, a listener, but not a spy. Thanks for listening. I would expect use of sensational terms from the mainstream media, but not from suck an upstanding source.
AVweb responds... When you're right, you're right. Henceforth, we will refer to such planes as "aircraft designed for the purpose of loitering off the coast of communist nations to gather the discreet electronic transmissions of those nations." --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Bill
Allaben
2 May 2001 |
BFGoodrich's Stormscope Trade-in Program The BFGoodrich company is conducting a Trade-in program for all WX-7's, 8's, 10's, ll's and 12's, working or not working, for their new Series II scopes (500, 900's, and 1000). That sounds great, but according to "John" at BFGoodrich (800-253-9525), the company plans to scrap all trade-in models. What that effectively does is to take those trade-in scopes out of the market place, so they can never be available to owners like me, who would love to get a good WX-8 for my Skyhawk. While that may be a good marketing strategy, it is dumping on the "little guys," who want the technology, but could never afford the newer models. Please check into this and find out if there is a solution.
AVweb responds... Hard to fault Goodrich for wanting to get the old units out of the system. Real pain for them to support. (I know -- I have an old WX-10 in my airplane.) I guess the real question is how Goodrich's trade-in allowance on an old StormScope compares with the going sale price on eBay... --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Ted
Saylor
2 May 2001 |
Dennis Tito Too bad AVweb wasn't around 40 years ago. I can just see it...
|
| Steve
Layne
2 May 2001 |
WSJ Article on Cessna Fuel System Contamination Did you read Monday's Wall Street Journal? Wow! Is AV Web going to discuss this? I find it strange that you guys are silent on this. This problem is real and can be easily demonstrated. It's actually scary that it's been squelched for so long. This could be one of the bigest stories to ever break in General Aviation. The WSJ story is just the tip of the iceberg. Wait until the FAA issues the order to ground all high wing integral fuel tank Cessna's. Now that will be a story. I hope you guys are doing your own story on this and plan to follow it closely. I anxiously await your response.
AVweb responds... Steve, I did indeed read the WSJ article on Monday morning, and -- as someone who has followed this situation for some years as a member of the technical staff of the Cessna Pilots Association -- I considered the article poorly researched, unnecessarily alarmist, and the kind of near-tabloid journalism that I would expect to find in The Daily News, not in The Wall Street Journal. The article hopelessly confused the water-retention problems of bladder tank and integral tank systems (which are completely unrelated problems), and completely failed to discuss the issue of flush vs. umbrella fuel caps (very important because cap leakage is the principal means by which water gets into these fuel systems in the first place). Cessna's older bladder tank systems did have a serious contamination problem which caused a significant number of accidents, but this situation was addressed by Airworthiness Directive more than 15 years ago. By way of contrast, the newer integral tank (wet wing) systems (which were the primary focus of the WSJ article and are found in the current-production Cessna singles coming out of Independence) have had an excellent safety record. Problems like the one experienced by Mr. Scovill (http://www.sumpthis.com/) are anecdotal and quite rare based on the accident statistics. The WSJ article seemed to suggest that a major dispute was going on between Cessna and FAA, but our best information is that this is simply not the case. Our sources indicate that the FAA has performed re-testing of the fuel system in the new Cessna singles and found "nothing that causes concern." --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Trevor
Mulroney
2 May 2001 |
Carbon Monoxide During Ground Operations I purchased an AIM 935 CO Monitor in November last year from Aeromedix.com. The unit was brought back to South Africa in December by my wife, and fitted into my Piper Cherokee 180. The best place to fit it seemed to be the centre console adjacent to the rudder trim. The unit worked very well, showing small readings immediately after start up. The readings continued to climb while the engine warmed up and eventually reached a maximum of about 20 ppm whilst taxiing. I was very concerned at first but decided to take off and check the other phases of flight. Immediately the aeroplane began gathering speed the readings began to drop, and by the time we were in the early climb had returned to "low." All phase of flight were checked but the readings remained fixed on "low"including full use of the cabin heater. As soon as we landed and slowed down the readings began to climb again. This happens whether the vents are open, closed, door ajar, etc. Any ideas? AVweb responds... Trevor, it is quite common for aircraft to display higher CO readings during ground operations. In most cases, these readings can be reduced dramatically by properly leaning the engine while on the ground. Many pilots have been taught incorrectly to leave the mixture control full rich during ground operations, which results in excessively rich operation and high CO content in the exhaust. Engines are set up with a very rich idle mixture to permit cold starting, and should be leaned during ground operations to avoid fouling plugs, contaminating exhaust valve guides, and producing excessive amounts of CO in the exhaust. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Ken
Boetzer
01 May 2001 |
A Personal Experience with LASIK I too have had the LASIK surgery and have found it as wonderful as Dr. Blue did. I have one question, though. I was told to not fly an airplane within a month or so of having the procedure. The thought was that the change in pressure might cause the eyeball to expand and distort the surface of the area affected. As an engineer, I thought to myself: The eye is filled with a liquid, liquids are not compressible, and therefore would not tend to expand even though the outside pressure was lower at altitude. I want to get a touch-up on one eye and I'm having a real problem fitting it into my flying schedule. Even though I just fly for pleasure, my wife seems to have really taken to me being her personal airline. This is a GOOD thing, as not too long ago she wasn't real big on small plane travel. So ... The question is, was Dr. Blue cautioned about flying soon after the procedure? I read that he flew to Jackson Hole the day after with no adverse affects, so it would seem if he was warned, he decided to press on anyway.
AVweb responds... Ken, although my doc did not warn against flying, I have heard similar stories from other folks. I do not think there is any problem flying after the surgery specifically for the reason you mentioned -- fluid is not a problem for routine altitudes. (We are not going into space!) --Brent Blue M.D., Senior AME, Aviation Medicine Editor |
| Bob
Anderson
1 May 2001 |
Lycoming Speaks About LOP I want to thank you for publishing such a informative article as the one written by John Deakin titled "Lycoming Speaks About LOP." This hard-hitting factual representation of the current state of affairs at TCM and Lycoming provides a great service to aircraft owners who are regularly not fully informed by the other advertiser-supported publications. Given that TCM is one of your advertisers I am sure it is not easy to publish articles like this one. For my part I have been and will continue to regularly use the goods and services of your other advertisers who provide airworthy products, with appropriate customer service when things go wrong. Good job.
AVweb responds... Bob, contrary to popular belief, we try never to allow our editorial content to be influenced in any way by the fact that some of the companies we write about are AVweb advertisers. We also have a policy of never censoring our columnists, even when we don't exactly agree with what they write. As a result, AVweb offers some of the most controversial, iconoclastic, and downright interesting writing in the aviation field. Thanks so much for your kind words. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| John
Ovalle
01 May 2001 |
Flying with Dogs Do you have any info on flying with dogs. I have two year-old Maltese puppies and would like to take them (or get them used to) flying. I don't like to leave them home alone (I'm such a softy), so can you help me with this? or know someone who can? AVweb responds... John, many pilots fly with their dogs. The dogs actually do better at altitude than people do, and generally once airborne they just curl up and go to sleep. I've never heard of an instance in which a dog was adversely affected by flying in an unpressurized GA airplane. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |