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.
| Andrew
Levison
29 Jun 2001 |
Flying GA in the U.K. vs the U.S. Much is said on AVweb about all the problems for General Aviation in the U.S. with airports closing, the outrageous" cost of fuel etc. However spare a thought for us poor old Brits over in the U.K.! We have may fewer airports to start with and there is a constant attack on many of our remaining airports from developers and environmentalists, etc. We have very much more restrictive airspace, landing fees everywhere, "booking "in and out whenever we fly and the bureaucracy involved in doing a single short flight defies belief some times. This country is very GA "unfriendly" and having flown in the U.S. many times, it is truly a paradise to us with friendly controllers, reasonable prices, no landing fees etc...the list goes on!! And if you think fuel is expensive in the U.S., its over $6-7/gallon now in the U.K.! So next time anyone in the U.S. complains about flying, just remember you probably have the best place in the world to fly!! AVweb responds... And thanks for reminding us of that, Andrew. It helps to put things in proper perspective. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| George
Shanks
29 Jun 2001 |
Oceanside (Calif.) Airport AVweb wrote:
I would think the local pilots would have a case against putting those markings under the wings so locals could snitch on them. Unless I am mistaken, that sort of thing is regulated by the FAA and is outside the jurisdiction of local government. I think Addison airport (KADS), just north of Dallas, tried to have some sort of local fee charged to airplane owners and the AOPA fought it and won. It should prove interesting to see what happens out there in the land of fruits and nuts. AVweb responds... While I think I resemble that "fruits and nuts" remark, George, I agree with you completely that aircraft markings are strictly a matter of federal jurisdiction, as I'm certain the courts will rule in this case. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| David
C. Phillips
28 Jun 2001 |
Oceanside (Calif.) Airport Were I able to vote in Oceanside elections, I'd cast my ballot for RECALL of most elected incumbents in city government! I've recently met several other East-bound pilots and aviation mechanics, who have left California for better environs. I'd wish only the best for WAYMAN and his staff at the Oceanside-based "Pacific Flyer" - one of the finest & most fun hard copy monthlies of its type! I know he is also in agony, and -- yet (from Central Rural Utah, then Eastern/Southern Nevada soon!), I am at a loss on how to offer comfort or solace to my winged brothers in North San Diego County, where I used to live! "Shame on Those Elected Yahoos (in Oceanside City government)!" is the best I can muster from this distance. Hope it helps, if only a little. |
| John
Ratchford
28 Jun 2001 |
Oceanside (Calif.) Airport I am an avid aviation buff, worked for Boeing for 25 years, flew as a flight analyst with them for 2 years, on 737, and 757s, and ended my days with them as a quality assurance supervisor, at the flight line, with the responsibility of releasing the airplanes for the first flights, so I have a little background in aviation, I also held a GA pilots license many years ago, but sadly had to give it up, due to the onset of diabetes. AVweb's tone in reporting the situation at Oceanside Airport leads me to believe GA pilots can do no wrong! and that making them put identification numbers under the wings, so as transgressors can be identified, is almost a sin! Well, I have to tell you, GA pilots do transgress! I can attest to many a violation at the airport in my home town, I had the unfortunate experience to live 2000 feet off the end of that runway, and believe me it can be damned frustrating when you know the jerk going over your house is below minimums, but you cant identify him because he has moved his "N" number to the base of the vertical fin, centered, and above the horizontals, Unable to identify it by the "N" number, one can only report "it was a red and white Cessna 172..." I can only think one thing when a pilot intentionally moves his reg numbers to an obscure location, and that is, he is going to cheat the system at some point, I eventually purchased a laser rangefinder (not the kind that would hurt the eyes of pilots) and numerous times, along with my video camera I recorded planes as low as 175 feet going over my house, on approach, and on takeoff and climb out. So i can understand the frustration going on at some of these airports, and I believe the pilots, to a large degree, bring this wrath upon themselves. In my case, they did not have to fly over our neighborhood, in fact at the end of the runway, when they were taking off in the direction of our neighborhood, they were advised and cautioned to climb to 1000 feet msl, and turn to a heading that would put them well outside of our location. But I have to say that for everyone who abided by the rule, there were 10 who did not. When pilots have the attitude that they can just about do anything they want, because they can, as I was once told, that translates to the general public that there is a law for them, and a law for us! As example, if I was to obscure my vehicle license plate and commit a misdemeanor, or for that matter a felony, how long would it be before a police officer would nail me for the offense, and the obscured license plate? It is not fair that GA airplanes can have their registration numbers obscured, the general public is not so familiar with airplanes as those of us in the industry, and if it's frustrating to us, it must be really frustrating to them, when they cannot identify a plane that they observe, doing something, that they feel is illegal. As in all walks of life, pilots can be jerks too!!! So think for once, why is the public getting so upset with GA? I can assure you, there is more to it than just complaining for the sake of complaining! AVweb responds... John, nothing in our coverage of the Oceanside story should be construed to suggest that we support obfuscation of N-numbers, or even the FAA rule change that (for awhile, at least) permitted small N-numbers that could not be read from a distance. In the old days, the FAA *did* require large registration number to be applied to the underside of an aircraft's wing to facilitate its identification by ground observers, and I'm not sure why they changed that rule. (It happened before I started flying in the 1960s.) Our objection to what's going on at Oceanside is that a local City Council would try to impose its own rules with regard to airplane markings. Can you imagine the hue and cry if your local community were to pass a law saying that state-provided license plates were not adequate for automobiles driven through that community, and that they had to bear special community-required supplemental identification? If every community did this, imagine what your car would look like after you applied hundreds of local-issue identification plates. Airplane markings are clearly a matter preempted by the FAA. Local communities have no right to impose their own private requirements, as I'm sure the courts will rule. If a community wants to petition the FAA to change the FARs that define aircraft marking requirements, that's fine. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Bill McClure
28 Jun 2001 |
Cayman Caravan Ditching To throw my two cents in, I'd like to point out that many experienced, prudent aviators, my self included, would not dream of setting out over water in a single engine plane. I have occasion to cross 60 miles of ocean now and then, and I felt it safest to purchase, maintain, and insure a twin for the purpose. Oh yeah, I can hear the argument about the relative safety levels of singles vs. twins as demonstrated in the accident statistics. You cannot argue that twins do offer redundancies in powerplants and systems that, for the proficient pilot, afford added levels of safety. Additionally, I operate much more conservatively with my family aboard. For example, the 65 mile crossing of Lake Michigan enroute to OSH in a single might be an acceptable risk for me alone (with vests, etc) but not acceptable for Mom and the kids. I have read articles by Ms. Laboda in the past describing "adventures" with her kids over water and wondered what she was thinking. I guess the luck ran out.... Everyone has an opinion, this is mine. Just make sure that the risks you take affect only you. Your passengers most often blindly trust in you, not understanding the risks nor being in a position to decide for themselves. AVweb responds... Fortunately, the FAA has still not outlawed the right of each adult individual to perform risk management as we see fit. Amy will undoubtedly speak eloquently for herself about the incident when she's ready to do so, but in the meantime let me point out that she's been flying in piston-powered single-engine airplanes for more than 35 years, and this was her only forced landing experience in all that time. Not a bad safety record. Furthermore, she handled the forced landing by the book, and as a result all five occupants escaped significant injury. Many of us -- perhaps even most of us -- would consider this to be a reasonable risk/reward ratio, even if you don't. Fortunately, you have the right to make your own assessment. I think your remark about passengers putting blind trust in the pilot are inappropriate in the case of Amy's incident. The adult right-seat passenger is a highly experienced single-engine flyer who'd made the Cayman trip numerous times before in single-engine aircraft and completely understood the risks. Her husband is an experienced CFI who carefully investigated both the aircraft and its pilot before agreeing to have his wife make the trip with Amy. The back-seaters are children who were not in a position to make their own risk assessment, and their risk-management decisions were appropriately made by the adult responsible for them (Amy). On a personal note: Although I presently fly a twin, the majority of my 6,000 or so hours are in piston singles. I would not have the slightest hesitation to make the trip to the Cayman Islands in a piston single, so long as I was knowledgeable of and comfortable with its maintenance history. Would I take my family along? Yes, I would. Would I make same trip in a rented airplane? Probably not. So I guess that's where I draw my own personal risk-management line, but everyone is entitled to draw their own. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| David
L. Hogan
28 Jun 2001 |
Runway Incursions I've been hearing and reading tons of stuff about the problem with runway incursions lately, but very little seems to be going on to assist pilots in avoiding them. I'm not a big time flyer. In fact I don't fly very much at all, so I'm the kind of guy that's at greatest risk of doing something stupid at a strange, big airport. Thus far, the markings I see for runways are far from clear and unmistakable. In fact, even with a taxi diagram, it's hard to distinguish taxiways from runways. They have to make the taxiways so large and long these days, that everything looks like a runway or a taxiway when you're a stranger to a field in a little Mooney. So, I was wondering why runways don't have stop signs (lights really)? Red you stop, green you are cleared to cross. Yellow and you can only cross with permission. This way, I'm taxiing along and think I have clearance to cross runway 35L but there is a red light. I call ground and maybe they chew me out for even thinking I had clearance, but at least I don't enter the runway while a 747 is on it's takeoff roll. The controller that clears an aircraft for takeoff turns the lights red, if they are any other color. Everyone in the world knows red, green and yellow lights for driving cars all their lives. Even a 16 year old kid could taxi through the Dallas complex with a map and obeying the lights. Also, there should be something so distinctive about the active runways, that no idiot could mistake them for taxiways. Maybe in huge fluorescent orange letters on the runway surface at each taxiway entrance that says [ 18R RUNWAY 36L ] so no matter where you are crossing you know for sure, with the lights and the wording, that you are crossing a runway and which one it is. Yes there are those little signs and hold short lines, but clearly pilots and controllers don't or can't utilize them properly to be able to avoid incursions. Finally, I think the FAA should stop giving clearances that imply the pilot has authority to either cross or not cross active runways. Clearances should have to tell the pilot what runways they have permission to cross, period. The clearance would be like this: N5966Q you are cleared to runway 27L for departure. You are cleared to cross RW 15 and 18 on taxiway G. Contact the tower on 122.9 for departure clearance. Read back is, Roger N5966Q is cleared to 27L, and cleared to cross 15 and 18 on G, 122.9 for departure. Still would like lights, in case one hand forgets what the other is doing in the tower and clears something for takeoff on RW 18 after I get my clearance. Also, things change (emergencies) and controllers may need to stop everything from crossing runways until further notice. They could just turn everything red. Cleared or not, the pilots or ground operations vehicles have to stop. Unless someone comes up with something even more foolproof, I'm going to start sending this idea to everyone I think is the least bit interested in this issue. FAA, Congress, EAA, AOPA, etc. etc. etc. There has to be a better and safer way to deal with this issue. Pilots, generally anyway, are not stupid. What we have now is a system that is so complex that even smart folks can't live with it. When every airport had one or two runways this current system was tolerable. But with the current concrete layouts, it's not. It's time to simplify the procedures rather than come up with new ways to whip the pilots because they can't understand the current, overly complex system.
AVweb responds... As reported in AVweb News (02 July 2001), similar ideas were presented to Congress just last week in testimony by AOPA, ATA and others. Predictably, AOPA (representing "little iron") favors the low-tech approach of better pilot training, airport markings and signage, while ATA (representing "big iron") is pushing for high-ticket high-tech solutions involving surface radar (AMASS, ASDE), ADS-B and moving-map cockpit displays. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Scott
Rodriguez
28 Jun 2001 |
ReliefBand Anti-Nausea Device As a user of the ReliefBand device, I have found that now after several sessions of use, the effectiveness seems to be diminishing. I was wondering if this effect is limited to my own experience, or if others have experienced the same phenomenon? My first use of the unit was as a passenger during hard aerobatics, which is the real acid test for me as I invariably turn green. With the device, however, I lasted the entire session with no ill effects and was extremely pleased with the function. The next sessions of use were during less intense aerobatic rides in which the device again worked well. Recently, I began recurrent training after 8 years of no flying during which I have been using the device. I found that during lessons with mild turbulence, or doing steep turn and stall familiarization work, the sessions began causing some pretty good nausea even with the device. On a recent fishing trip, I almost lost my lunch even while using the device at a pretty high setting. The battery is not going dead -- on the contrary, it will zap the crap out of me if I turn the setting up past a level of 2. I still consider the ReliefBand to be proven effective. However, I'm wondering if I'm doing something wrong, if I'm becoming desensitized to the unit, or if perhaps it was the placebo effect from the beginning for me? Any suggestions are welcome, as I would like to get the effectiveness back on line. AVweb responds... Scott, we have not had any reports of ReliefBand users becoming "immune" to its effect. I am not sure why you are experiencing the change but suggest you try some of the following:
Let me know what happens. --Brent Blue MD, Senior AME, Aviation Medicine Editor |
| Ron Cox
26 Jun 2001 |
Chicago's Meigs Field After a recent trip to Chicago, where I laid eyes on Meigs field for the first time, I am left to wonder: Why doesn't Sen. Daschle use his apparent ability to usurp Illinois law and throw his weight toward saving this lakeside treasure? |
| Mark H.
Jessen
26 Jun 2001 |
OMF Symphony So, now that AADI has sold the GlaStar to Thomas W. Wathen, what happens (or happened) to the OMF Symphony that was being marketed in the U.S. by AMD. Last time I checked, AMD no longer shows any evidence of the Symphony on its website. Does this mean that the Symphony isn't being sold anymore? What happened? AVweb responds... OMF's website [http://www.omf-aircraft.com/] is almost nothing BUT the "Symphony." However, a very interesting caveat exists as item 10 on this page [http://www.omf-aircraft.com/htm/index3.htm] (aircraft sales, terms and conditions). It reads:
I sent an e-mail to the OMF rep, and he responded as follows (please excuse some of the wording, English is not his first language):
Further:
For the AMD question:
Mark, that's the absolute latest. --Glenn Pew, Newswriter, Editor |
| Malvin
Pettersen
25 Jun 2001 |
Engine Failures As a 60 year old student pilot, I am amazed at the number of articles that refer to engine failure (i.e. Amy Laboda's recent crash off Key West after the engine literally blew up) as the cause of an aircraft accident. I cannot ever remember a car engine disintegrating up acceleration, and yet the RPMs are often twice that of an aircraft engine. Moreover, aircraft engines probably receive ten times the maintenance care of the typical family auto. What is the story? AVweb responds... Catastrophic engine failures are very rare, and account for a relatively insignificant percentage of aircraft accidents. Underscoring this fact, both the accident rate and fatal accident rate for piston twins and piston singles is virtually indistinguishable. Piston aircraft engines spend most of their life operating at between 65% and 100% of rated horsepower. Automobile engines spend most of their life operating at between 10% and 20% of rated horsepower. Today's piston aircraft engines were designed in the 1950s. Today's automobile engines were designed in the 1990s. Because catastrophic engine failures like the one Amy Laboda faced are so rare, incidents like hers are newsworthy, which is why AVweb ran the story. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Ted
Vanmeter
25 Jun 2001 |
Martz v. TEAM Lawsuit That is truly a disgrace. If Al Martz intends to sell the kits or plans then he does not think there is anything wrong with the design and should thus assume ALL liability in ANY lawsuit like his. As soon as he sells his first unmodified kit it sounds like he has committed theft by fraud. I was rather interested in the Airbike, but now will buy a used one if at all. This !@#$%* happens because we allow it. Just my angered opinion and not to be taken as rational or even sane. |
| Bill
Wagner
25 Jun 2001 |
Martz v. TEAM Lawsuit Your various reports in the June 25, 2001 News Wire regarding TEAM contain several factual errors. He brought an action in the State Court in Tampa, Florida against Tennessee Engineering and Manufacturing Company, which used the trade name TEAM. The company had the case transferred to Federal District Court in Tampa, Florida. One of the effects of such transfer was to require the parties to participate in non-binding arbitration in an effort to see if a case could be settled without a full trial on the merits. At the arbitration the arbitrators explain their decision. If the evidence is clear, they also estimate the damages. If either side does not agree, the case proceeds to full preparation and trial. At the Martz arbitration, the arbitrators announced that they concluded the case did not involve any pilot error, and felt something was wrong with the aircraft, but also concluded that Mr. Martz had not proven what was wrong with the aircraft. After the arbitration, Mr. Martz s attorneys hired several experts. The experts concluded that a wing spar that had been manufactured by a sub-contractor of TEAM had failed, causing the crash. Two specialists in wood assemblies stated they could determine that the glue used in assembling the spar had been improperly applied and had not properly penetrated to form a proper bond. During this entire process, the plaintiff s indicated a willingness to attempt a reasonable settlement of Mr. Martz's claim, but the answer was that TEAM would rather pay lawyers to defend the suit than discuss settlement. Before the plaintiff could present evidence at trial, Tennessee Engineer and Manufacturing declared bankruptcy. In the bankruptcy petition Mr. Ison stated under oath that the company had zero assets. The trustee in bankruptcy found assets enough to pay off a former employee of the company, and was left with only Mr. Martz's claim. The trustee suggested to the court that if Mr. Martz would agree, the Court could approve a settlement of that claim in exchange for a transfer of all of the assets of the company to Mr. Martz. Notice was given all concerned. The company s attorney appeared at the hearing. Neither Mr. Martz, nor anyone representing him appeared at the hearing. The court, noting that the company claimed to have zero assets, approved the proposal, and a deed transferring all assets to Mr. Martz was approved. Again the suggestion was made that all continued court proceedings stop and that Mr. Martz and Mr. Ison join to continue to build and sell what TEAM had built before. Mr. Ison s response was apparently to issue his email letter, and give you a statement, upon which you apparently relied in distributing your story. The quoted statement of Mr. Ison contains many factual errors. Your summary of the history of this matter likewise contains errors, presumably relying on Mr. Ison, or previous reports based on Mr. Ison s inaccurate statement of the facts. Had you contacted Mr. Martz, you would have been able to get the complete true story on this matter. The facts, outlined above, can be verified by examination of the sworn testimony and records in the Federal Court in Florida, and the Bankruptcy Court in Tennessee. The errors in your report have been extremely unfair to Mr. Martz, and unfairly suggest a problem with the legal system. Mr. Martz properly used the system to seek compensation for his loss. There are those who would suggest that Mr. Ison did not. |
| Tim
Johnson
25 Jun 2001 |
COMAIR Pilots' Currency? If the COMAIR pilots have not flown during their 89 day strike, I assume most -- if not all will not be current to carry PAX ... how will this be resolved? A line at the simulators? Touch-and-gos before each flight?
AVweb responds... Good question, Tim ... and one COMAIR is facing right now. In fact, that's why it will take them until December to be up and running to all 95 cities they service. COMAIR will have to send all their pilots through recurrency training before they can put them back in the cockpit, and because of that, are considering getting some other regional carriers to fly certain of their routes until the pilots are ready to return. --Liz Swaine, AVweb News |
| Milt
Clary
25 Jun 2001 |
Big Brother Watching? AVweb wrote:
In today's AVweb you wondered if the feds could keep an eye on GA from afar like the rental car company did to one of their customers. Did you ever hear of Automatic Dependent Survelance-Broadcast (ADS-B), the Universal Access Transceiver (UAT) or the FAA's Project Capstone?
AVweb responds... Those using flying in the system using ADS-B (or regular ATCRBS transponders for that matter) know in advance that their position is being tracked by the FAA, and even that this position information is available to the public via the Internet (e.g., Flight Explorer). They voluntarily waive anonymity for the privilege of receiving ATC services. The driver of the Acme rent-a-car made no such voluntary waiver. Huge difference. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Patric
Barry
24 Jun 2001 |
Cayman Caravan Ditching I hate to nitpick, which is what I am doing. You've mentioned a few times that the incident this week in the Cayman Caravan was the first 'incident' -- in fact, the first incident was a fatality at least ten years ago. An Aerostar had departed Miami for Grand Cayman and flew into a thunderstorm south of MIA and lost its wings. The plane crashed and the pilot was killed. The plane was part of the Cayman Caravan. His daughter worked at Orange County Airport (SNA) running the tiedown department - she was so distraught that she eventually quit the job since she couldn't bear the hangar talk and dealing with GA pilots - simply because of the anguish of losing her dad over Florida. AVweb responds... The Cayman Caravan is a meticulously organized flight of aircraft from Key West to Grand Cayman. The Aerostar to which you refer may have been headed for Grand Cayman for International Aviation Week, but unless it departed from Key West, I don't think one can properly say that it was a Cayman Caravan aircraft -- it was on its own. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Dave
Kerr
22 Jun 2001 |
NASA Looks at Controllers' Dirty Laundry I always enjoy your publications -- thanks for the good work. But I couldn't believe that you didn't make some connection on this juxtoposition of articles in AVflash 7.25b:
and:
That NASA work could probably help the NTSB help us GA pilots as well!
AVweb responds... Damn, how did we miss that? --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Greg
Menken
22 Jun 2001 |
Don't Try This At Home AVweb wrote:
Pretty dramatic pictures of the snake. However, that's not a rattlesnake. It's a carpet python. They're found in Australia so unless the USCG has a base down under, it's probably someone's pet or an escapee. AVweb responds... Oops ... guess we didn't get close enough to make a positive herpetological identification. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Dave
Menken
22 Jun 2001 |
Don't Try This At Home The photos in your magazine of the "diamond back rattlesnake" found under the coast guard plane actually depict a large and very beautiful Australian carpet python. That snake is completely harmless (to humans) and was probably someone's treasured pet. AVweb responds... Dave, are you kin to Greg? --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Coy
Franks
21 Jun 2001 |
Don't Try This At Home I look foreward to each and every AVweb that I receive, but your story about the nine foot rattlesnake was not accurate. I don' t know what kind of snake that was, I would venture some sort of constrictor, maybe a Python or something similiar but I' m definately sure that it is not a rattlesnake. I 'm 52 years of age and have been catching and killing rattlesnakes since I was five years old and I know that it is not a rattlesnake. Besides, if it was one and was nine feet long, then Texas has them even longer than that! Actually, if you find a six-footer it is a rare find indeed. Coy Franks Flomot, Texas AVweb responds... Coy, we defer to your experience. According to the Menken brothers, it was an Australian carpet python. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Larry
Larkin
21 Jun 2001 |
Don't Try This At Home I am no snake expert, but grew up in south Florida and I'd be willing to bet that that is not a diamondback rattlesnake in your picture, but a boa or python. AVweb responds... Uncle! --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Nate
Bohlmann
21 Jun 2001 |
Gruesome Chicago Gridlock AVweb wrote:
I find it VERY interesting that Senators Daschle, Harkin, and Grassley are so sick of the squabbling in Illinois that they are ready to ignore the Constitution -- and we are ready to go along with them. Last time I checked, none of the Senators are from Illinois, and O'Hare happens to be located in Illinois, which means this is nothing but a power grab and a highly illegal one at that. The Federal Government wants to take away a Governor's veto right? I mean, I know we live in an oligarchy these days instead of a Republic, but it's been a while since I've seen such a blatant example of it. Here's a thought: Why don't Harkin and Grassley get Tom Vilsack to build a new, large airport in Iowa to relieve some of the congestion at O'Hare instead of telling George Ryan what he can and can't do in Illinois? |
| Norris
Laclair
21 Jun 2001 |
Kudos to AVweb I just wanted to tell you how much I look forward to reading AVflash on Monday's and Thursday's. I receive ten bazillion aviation magazines and can only take a few moments to scan them. With AVflash, I read every word and know that I have the latest, up to date information. I appreciate your efforts and look forward to the next edition.
AVweb responds... You're very kind, Norris. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Karin
Chevalier-Cozzolino
21 Jun 2001 |
Don't Try This At Home Great pictures of the diamondback rattlesnake in the June 21 edition of AVweb. I hope the snake wasn't killed after the picture was taken. Snakes do a great job of rodent abatement, which helps protect airplanes from damage. Contrary to the image people have of them, snakes (even venomous snakes like the rattler pictured) do not show aggression towards humans unless severely provoked. Most snakes are very timid and prefer to flee from humans if given the chance. While the guy holding the snake by the tail looks like he knows what he's doing, that method of snake handling is not a good idea for non-experts. A safer method is to get a broom or similar long-handled implement, push the snake out of its hiding place, and then use the broom to nudge it towards where you want it to go. If the snake in the picture was let go at the nearest wooded or brushy area, I'm sure it immediately put some distance between itself and the ramp, then resumed doing what snakes do best: catching rodents that carry diseases and can cause damage to property (such as airplanes). AVweb responds... Thank God! Someone ELSE actually thought it was a rattlesnake... --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Rob
Hunter
21 Jun 2001 |
Rattle Snake Picture What makes you think it is a diamondback rattle snake in the photo in this weeks newswire? It sure looks like a python to me. AVweb responds... Lookit ... it's a big snake, okay? --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Stephen
Campbell
21 Jun 2001 |
Runway Incursions Now Have a Ranking System AVweb wrote:
I was thinking about possible ways to reduce these dangerous incidents. I had remembered an AVmail contribution some ways back explaining a simple yet effective method of eliminating runway incursions. (And please forgive my ignorance if I am unaware of some critical issue in what I am about to suggest). The writer (whose name has escaped me) suggested that there be a simple "street light" at every taxiway that crosses a runway, and at every hold short line at the end of the runway. When a plane was cleared for takeoff or final approach, the controllers could simply press a button and turn the lights red. When the plane had taken off or had landed and turned off the runway, the lights could be turned back to green. Planes would still require clearances to cross active runways, but this simple light system would serve as a fail-safe device to ensure that even with misunderstood controllers or lost pilots there would be no opportunity for incursions to occur. The railways use an analogous, yet vastly simpler system with their weight sensing crossing gates. Airports could even have weight sensors beneath the runways or motion sensors along the sides to turn the crossing lights red when a plane was sitting in "position and hold" or was taking off. AVweb responds... While many technological approaches have been suggested, and many others are being tried (including stop bars and surface-detection radar), it seems to me that there are a number of low-tech solutions that could be put in place immediately at virtually zero cost beyond a little radio bandwidth:
Why don't we try the cheap, simple solutions before throwing money at the problem? --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Terry
Curtis
21 Jun 2001 |
NASA Looks at Controllers' Dirty Laundry Speaking from experience (fired by Bonzo in '81), they should put humidity sensors in that underwear! The response to "How close was that traffic?" was "Blue eyes" a little too often. |
| R. M.
Wooten
21 Jun 2001 |
Don't Try This At Home I am not sure but the pictures posted on the AVweb of the snake under the Coast Guard C-130 looks more like a boa constrictor or python. But I guess the person sending in the photo, who was there would know. AVweb responds... Actually, I believe it was actually a Monty Python. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Michael
Bonner
21 Jun 2001 |
Don't Try This At Home Your recent article titled "Don't Try This At Home!", featuring two pictures of a large snake found resting under the tires of a C-130, contained an obvious error. The snake is not a diamondback rattler. The head is not nearly triangular enough, and the markings only vaguely resemble the very striking diamond pattern seen on the rattler. The snake pictured is likely some variety of python. Also, in the second picture showing the snake being pulled away by the tail -- if that was truly a rattler, it would be difficult to pull it in that fashion without pulling off the rattle. It would help to know where this picture was taken, as that would help to narrow down possible IDs for the snake. It is remarkable enough as it is without further sensationalizing it by calling it a rattler. AVweb responds... Memo to file: No more snake stories. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Dave
Hirschman
19 Jun 2001 |
Jim Tucker Profile Thanks for the excellent profile of Jim Tucker! All aviators can be proud of his crew's extraordinary accomplishments aboard FedEx Flight 705 -- and their tremendous determination to make full recoveries from their injuries is truly inspiring. It's a great loss to the aviation community that Jim Tucker has not yet been allowed to rejoin the ranks of active pilots, and I sincerely hope the FAA can see fit to grant him a third-class medical. (I know that I wouldn't hesitate to send my 5-year-old daughter flying with Jim in his Luscombe -- and my standards for her safety go well beyond the FAA's...) But true to his optimistic nature, Jim Tucker doesn't let disappointment stop him. He rededicates himself to his family and his faith, and he volunteers to help build his community. Joe Godfrey has given us a moving portrait of a remarkable human being. |
| Larry
Baker
19 Jun 2001 |
Aussie GA Fatalities Statistics AVweb wrote:
I find it the comments made by the Aussies concerning the lowered death rates of its GA air force absurd. One has to remember that a very large percentage of that GA force was grounded last year due to fuel problems brought on by refining errors. It was at least three months before the GA force was rated air worthy again. The reported numbers have to be badly skewed to come up with the results they did. I'll bet that they never took into consideration the forced grounding of the GA fleet when they come up with those numbers either. AVweb responds... Since the numbers were reported as "rates" -- that is, number of accidents per hours flown -- the lower number of overall hours you suspect should be irrelevant. However, as for how the ATSB came up with its estimate of "hours flown" for GA aircraft, that is surely open to question. Still, I would assume that they were well aware of last year's massive groundings due to fuel contamination. CASA's report can be found online at: --Mary Grady, News Editor |
| Bud
Williams
18 Jun 2001 |
Smart Bombs AVweb wrote:
Normally, I would not bother to correct "minor details," but this one needs correcting, given the wide-spread audience you enjoy and the potential for some serious false impressions. The so-called "smart bomb" (or precision guided munition in the CORRECT lexicon of the fighter/bomber pilot) is a munition that has the capability to automatically adjust its flight path using an on-board steering mechanism (such as steerable fins) to follow either an on-board targeting signal or a signal from another airborne source (such as laser energy being reflected off a target from an airborne laser). The 25lb bomb you refer to is a BDU-33 and has NO such steering capability. It is strictly a gravity bomb that follows a simple ballistic trajectory once it departs the aircraft. Many factors affect the flight path of any gravity ordnance: aircraft dive angle, speed at time of release, winds aloft, to include any changes in the winds aloft and wind shear, distance from target (bomb range), aircraft drift across the ground at the time of release, aircraft bank angle, aircraft skid/slip at the time of release, the altitude of release, and, of course, the aim point at time of release, to name a few. Any changes to the EXACT specifications that go to determine the exact bomb range (distance the bomb will fall) will affect this bomb range. Even if the pilot was utilizing a laser targeting pod to deliver the BDU-33 (the targeting pod DOES provide greater aiming and ranging information, hence precision) the munition itself is still a "dumb bomb," incapable of adjusting its flight path to dissipate excess energy or make other flight path corrections once enroute to the target. Pilots DO, on occasion, hit the wrong target. Many factors can lead to that: failure to follow proper procedures, misidentification of the target, failure of the bomb to release when commanded (a not uncommon occurrence with the systems used to employ the BDU-33), and a host of other conditions that COULD lead to an incident such as you describe. However, reporting, in a perceived coy and glib manner, that an error with a "smart bomb" caused a range fire, without first verifying some of the simple facts (such as is there such a thing as a 25lb "smart bomb") is unprofessional and unworthy of the otherwise perceived outstanding coverage you normally provide...or am I now to assume that this may have been an error on MY perception of what I have read in the past????
|
| Joaquin
Espinoza Goodman
18 Jun 2001 |
Letter to an Airport Kid My name is Joaquin Espinoza Goodman, and I am a 21-year old college senior studying physics and music. Three months ago I obtained my private pilot's license, and am currently working on my instrument rating. I am writing to let you know how much I appreciated Rick Durden's column "Letter to an Airport Kid." Rick's column gave me much pride because in reading it I realized how much I was an airport kid. As a teenager in Eugene, Oregon I would often bike out to the airport to watch planes takeoff and land. Airports and planes held a special thrill for me, and I read all the books I could find about aviation. When my mother took me to France at age 12, the thought of a trip to Europe was insignificant next to the excitement I felt about the prospect of flying in a jumbo jet! I routinely told people I was going to grow up to be an airline pilot. Yet, I often felt alone in my seething enthusiasm. The only pilot I knew was my grandfather, who flew B-17s and B-29s in WWII and had not flown since. While he would tell me stories and take me to the airport (he even arranged rides for me twice), anytime I would mention my own desire to become a pilot he would discouragingly wave his hand and allude that I should leave the flying to others: it is for older people who have money. The idea of being an airline pilot was very strongly discouraged -- why would I want to be a bus driver? It was definitely not for me. My parents were supportive, but they did not share or understand my passion. By the end of high school, I was convinced that I did not have the means to become a pilot through General Aviation, so I began looking towards the military. When my father found out that I was secretly investigating Air Force ROTC programs, he yelled at me and told me that were I to have anything to do with the military it would create a deep rift between the two of us. (He strongly dislikes the military, as do I -- I was simply trying to find a way into the cockpit!) Fortunately, near to the college I decided to attend (Oberlin) there is a small regional airport with a very active flight school. My desire to fly lay dormant for a short while, but in the summer after my junior year (last summer) I bit the bullet, allotted the funds, and started to take lessons 1-2 times weekly. 9 months later I got my license! My love for aviation has once again become a very strong and central part of my life, as it was when I was a little kid. While I cannot speak of my future in certain terms, I feel that being a professional pilot (airlines!) is where I will end up. So thanks for Rick Durden's column -- it renewed and confirmed my love for the art of aviation, and got me thinking about how I might be able to help the many airport kids who don't know how very possible it is for them to become pilots. |
| Richard
A. Petty
18 Jun 2001 |
Ellison vs. SJC Curfew AVweb wrote:
I am based at SJC and have followed this story closely. Unless I and the news media have incorrectly read the judge's ruling in this case, your report of the curfew being declared illegal (ended) is incorrect. My understanding is that the judge exempted specifically Ellison's plane, not any other that are covered under the poorly conceived curfew. Also, the airport staff informed the general aviation tenants at SJC at a meeting last week that they still propose to increase hanger rents by 160% over the next three years because GA is not paying its fair share at SJC. However, the staff has claimed that they will look at suggestions made at this meeting. The only remaining hangers in the master plan are on the west side and a standard T-hanger will go for $820 per monthl Anyone want to move to Silicon Valley? AVweb responds... Richard,Boy, you guys are in a tough spot out there. About the story -- one of our sources was: http://www0.mercurycenter.com/premium/local/docs/curfew14.htm I've clipped and highlighted the relevent text, below:
...and more from same source:
...and my personal favorite:
In spite of the ruling, things don't look good for GA at SJC. We wish you the best. --Glenn Pew, Newswriter/Editor |
| Rayford
K. Brown
18 Jun 2001 |
Smart Bombs There are smart bombers and dumb bombers. This applies to aircraft and pilots and sometimes maintenance personnel as well. The BDU-33 (Bomb Dummy Unit - Model 33) is not a smart bomb. Smart bombs either contain their own guidance or are capable of receiving inflight guidance from an external source. Dumb bombs are ballistic. Smart bombers get all their target information correct, load into the computer correctly, and get their switches right the first time. Dumb bombers miss one of the above and receive a lesson. Rules of Life (partial list):
Dumb maintenance covers a wide spectrum of possibilities. The chain of events that must not be interrupted for a successful drop on the range is very long. The aircraft must fly, the nav system must work, the computer must not fail, the wiring must not short or open, and the triple ejector rack (TER) must fire its release cartridge and function mechanically perfectly. The ordnance crew must have assembled and loaded the bomb and latched the rack securely. The F-16 has a record of dropping these dumb bombs into a circle of error probable (more than 50% of the time unless stated otherwise), CEP, with a radius of less than 10 meters (33ft). Considering that the F-16 usually is traveling in excess of 450 knots TAS at the time of release, a little math will give us the time interval available for release...450*6076/3600 gives us ft/sec velocity or 760 or about 75% of a .45 cal slug. The diameter at the widest point of the CEP is 66 ft and goes to zero at each lateral edge. Lets assume an average of a 33ft window available to drop. Thirty-three divided by 760 gives us a time available for release of .04 secs assuming level flight at exactly the preplanned altitude with exactly the preplanned wind. Piece of cake. Now gimme your quarters because I had a Shack. Blue Four Out.
P.S. Blue was a common SEA flight callsign. Four was the last man in a typical four ship formation. He had no one to check his six and was at the end of the whip in a turn away and was sucking speed brakes and idle with an aggressive turn into the formation and was trying to remember that at negative G you have to bank into three and push to get away. Makes you love a good smooth flight leader. (Especially inside a monsoon cloud when you are tucked in so close that you are using the points on the Phillips head screw in three's nav lite for a reference--no, you could not see even a shadow of his fuselage. Break out of formation...out of the question. If you survived being single ship in NVN then Blue Three would kill you in the O'Club Bar for leaving his ___ hanging out). Ahh, fond memories. |
| Al
Prest
18 Jun 2001 |
ALPA Tells ATA to Take a Breather AVweb wrote:
Your story misses the point of the ATA legal action taken against FAA. We have challenged FAA because we believe they have changed a long-standing rule by issuing a new interpretation and not through the normal rulemaking process, as required by law. The normal process would have been for FAA to publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and afford the public an opportunity to submit comments before issuing a final rule. FAA's rush to judgment has resulted in a flawed new rule that can actually result in circumstances where a rest period is shorter than what is permitted using the current regulation. Although the current regulations do not contain duty limitations, ATA believes that is wrong and two years ago wrote to Administrator Garvey requesting that the rules be changed to establish a 14-hour duty limit to go along with the 8-hour maximum daily flight time limit. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
|
| Jeff
Geibel
17 Jun 2001 |
The Clamor Over Airport Noise AVweb wrote:
I don't know where you get your information, but a non-pilot colleague us of mine (who actually lives in the affected area) and who has been pretty involved in this issue had this to say about a recent meeting:
(Note: Groton, Mass - just west of Hanscom airport (BED), is the area affected by the "noise" -- apparently thought to be aerobatic maneuvers.) It seems that the "Stop the Noise" people, when exposed to the public, are their own worst enemy. Their web site is actually somewhat amusing for its shrill tone and misinformation. As an aside, the local (at least at Bedford) flight schools and aero clubs now have a notice posted showing the area in question, and asking all pilots to avoid maneuvers in the area -- accomplished without any legal orders, violations, mandates, or anything -- other than the simple spirit of cooperation.
P.S. A judge recently ruled in Ellison's favor. AVweb responds... I agree that the "Stop the Noise" folks are their own worst enemies, which is precisely why AVweb decided to publicize the existence of their over-the-top Web site. We reported on the recent federal court ruling on Ellison v. SJC. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Don
Frame
17 Jun 2001 |
Youthful Airline Pilots How old should you have to be to fly for Part 121 ops? I see ads for 23-year-olds doing it, and that honestly doesn't work for me ... at least not in the absence of orchiectomy on the pilot's part or lobotomy on mine... AVweb responds... You sure got me on that one, Don! While I generally score in the highest category on the Readers Digest "It Pays to Increase Your Word Power" vocabulary quizzes, you made me look that one up:
Very funny. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Brian
Love
16 Jun 2001 |
"Mandatory" Guidance from Parker Aerospace Parker Aerospace has recently mailed out a pamphlet of materials, apparently to all IFR pilots, consisting of safety warnings regarding flight in IFR conditions. I'm willing to bet that this round of paper was spawned by the Governor Carnahan crash in Missouri. As pilots we've heard the complaint of our tort system over and over. Is there no end? Will it get worse? Does this represent a worsening already? Can we expect to receive flyers in the mail every time something bad happens, someone dies, and someone sues? "Remember, flying below MSA can be hazardous to your health" -- perhaps from a company that happens to sell GPWSs. Oh oh, here's another one from your local mechanic: "Have that annual done, before an engine failure puts a cramp in your lifestyle." (Okay okay, I'll stop while I'm behind...) Second, in these flyers from Parker Aerospace, the number one "rule" on many of the sheets is, "You MUST have a back-up pneumatic power source for the air driven gyros, or a back-up electric attitude gyro instrument." Did I miss something? I do not remember any aviation reg that supports this statement. In fact, in the enclosed FAA ASP pamphlet titled "The Silent Emergency," it says, "Although it is legal to fly single engine aircraft without dual power sources...". So what's up with this "MUST" thing? Is Parker Aerospace "covering its butt," or is it trying to sell more product, or something else? As a recent AVweb subscriber, I'm not surprised that you receive so much angry mail (some well written, some not). I just want to say that I think you guys are doing a great job: informative, timely, balanced, entertaining. Please, keep up the good work! AVweb responds... Of course, Parker is covering its corporate butt. I have no doubt that the materials you received were written by its legal department. All aviation manufacturers do this sort of thing, not just Parker. For Part 91 operators, compliance with such manufacturer's service bulletins and instructions is NOT compulsory -- even if the manufacturer says that they are mandatory -- unless given the "force of law" through the issuance of an FAA Airworthiness Directive. For Part 135 operators, whether or not compliance is mandatory depends on what their FAA-approved Operations Specifications say. If the op specs say that all mandatory SBs must be complied with, then they must be complied with. Of course, Part 135 ops without backup vacuum are rare to nonexistent anyway, so it may be moot. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Addie
Busch
16 Jun 2001 |
Tactile Situational Awareness System AVweb wrote:
Leave those pilots' bods alone! Maybe you don't know that one man's nudge is another man's orgasm. I'm not even mentioning what a nudge can do to women. Now, if you want to give the passengers a nudge... AVweb responds... In the interests of full disclosure: the writer is my 80-year-old mom. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Addie
Busch
15 Jun 2001 |
The Race for New Runways AVweb wrote:
What is the big deal about needing three years to build a runway? I have been flying for 62 years and I am quite familiar with runways. You get a nice long piece of land. Surely if the government can find some to drill oil in, they can find a few thousand feet of spare land for a runway. You then get rid of a long strip of grass and cover the strip with concrete. Believe me, this is no big deal. Your local driveway or patio contractor would be glad for the job. Then you paint some nice white lines to show the airplanes where the road is. Then you call in the electric comepany to put in some lights alongside the road (or you pick them up cheap at Costco and put them in yourself). Okay, now you have to spend a little money. You have to find some decent, experienced, rested air controllers and build them a nice tall house in which their chairs and and desks and microphones and screens can be used. And, voila! A functioning runway. Should take no more than three months ... six months tops. Aside from the screens and microphones which may cost a few bucks (because Costco doesn't carry 'em), the rest should be a snap. Here's an idea: President Bush's tax refund checks are due shortly, and I think it is only ethical that the guys who pushed those refunds into law should recuse themselves from profiting from their actions. Thus, the Bush family and the Cheney family and the families of all the cabinet members and Congress should kick in their tax refunds to a runway-building fund. You could have a functioning airport in every tank town in America with all that money available. Problem solved. Feel free to quote me. AVweb responds... Thanks, Mom. You should really invite Mrs. Garvey over for tea sometime. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Douglas
Sowden
14 Jun 2001 |
Mike Warren AVweb wrote:
Thank you very much for disseminating the tragic news about Mike Warren's death in a plane crash in Washington state. Mike -- I never heard anyone, including Mike, use the legal name Jerry -- was a valued member of the Nanaimo (BC) Flying Club, even though he lived in Washington state. If you had ever met Mike, you would have enjoyed his personality and demeanor. He was a man who left you smiling whenever you met him. He had a calm and quirky view of life that is best revealed by the transcript of his communication with SeaTac Tower as he hung upside down in powerlines. I saw Mike maybe once or twice a year when he would bring his Bonanza up to the Nanaimo Flying Club fly-in weekend. I last talked with him on June 2nd and I left the short conversation smiling. Mike was not a politician or important public figure.. He was a pilot and a genuine proponent of civil, general aviation. As you may know, he was part of a formation flight on his last day on Earth; his son, Jason, was in one of the other planes in the flight and was a witness to the tragedy. Jason has let us know that Mike once said of a fellow pilot, "He died doing what he loved: flying." Your paragraph in AVweb may have left the impression that Mike was not a careful flier. He was. He was also a fine gentle man and a good soul. I didn't know him well, yet I miss him. His fellow pilot, a man who defected with a top-line Mig-29, was obviously a man of courage. So was Mike. Mike's funeral was today. I wish you had met him. AVweb responds... We do, too. Thanks for sharing that, Doug. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Bob
Luten
14 Jun 2001 |
The Race for New Runways It's about time somebody high up noticed that, at the same time we're flapping our gums about pouring more concrete, we (as a society) are closing small airports down about as fast as we possibly can. Somehow we need to get the message through to the federal, state, and local bureaucracies, and local bodies politic, that there is a lot of concrete/asphalt already in existence that is poorly utilized and is in serious danger of being lost. My concern is that we will collectively manage to close down many of our now urbanized airports, and find ourselves 10 to 20 years from now wishing we had kept those very same airports to support STOL commercial service. My particular hot button is Reid-Hillview airport, which is still a prime candidate for closure, but I see the same thing happening to all urban airports. The aviation media has to be a large part of a campaign for a plan to retain and expand existing urban airports, and to truly integrate those airports into a national air transportation plan. What is AVweb doing along those lines? AVweb responds... Trying our best to publicize threats to airports, so that users can mobilize and organize in opposition to those threats. That's the job of a journalistic enterprise like AVweb. Of necessity, we leave the actual lobbying to others. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Bill
Rump
14 Jun 2001 |
The Race for New Runways In my opinion, many of the runways needed to expand our air systems capacity already exist at abandoned military bases. In my area, which is in the San Bernardino area of Southern California, we have the old Norton USAF base with one 10,000-foot runway and all the facilities needed for handling large aircraft. In fact, the big Antonov transport uses it now. Just northwest of us in the high desert is the old George USAF base with two runways of 9,138 and 10,050 feet, respectively. George has even better facilities for handling large aircraft and both airports have towers that are not now being used. Southwest of us is the old El Toro Marine base which is also a possibility. All three are close enough to serve the Southern California area and could easily be used as relievers or even primary airports. It should cost much less to get these runways into service than to build new ones at LAX. El Toro is a real problem with the local affluent residents not wanting a new airport and having the money to fight it, but both Norton and George are a different matter. I believe both of these areas would welcome the investment and jobs that the airports would bring to the area and since the runways and taxiways are already there, and have been used by heavy transport aircraft for many years, the environmental impact has already occurred. This is only one area of the nation, I am sure that other areas of the nation have the same types of runways available to some extent. If the Federal Government and the FAA were serious about using these runways, I am sure they could find a way to employ them that is much faster and cheaper than building new runways. This is not the only solution -- some new runways may still have to be built in certain areas -- but using these old military runways could be a big part of the answer. |
| Karin
Chevalier-Cozzolino
15 Jun 2001 |
Jim Tucker Profile After reading Joe Godfrey's profile of Jim Tucker, I'm probably not the only person wondering why Auburn Calloway was assigned to a flight crew if he knew he was going to be fired. It defies reason that he was allowed to be on flight duty if management was in the process of terminating him. Jim Tucker's story is incredible. It's very sad that the FAA denied him a medical because of the injuries he suffered, but I'm glad he and the rest of the crew survived. The actions of the Flight 705 crew in subduing Calloway and bringing the plane down safely were heroic. Many thanks to Joe Godfrey, and AVweb, for bringing us this story. AVweb responds... Karin, I made a conscious decision not to give Calloway any ink -- or whatever we call it here -- in Jim's Profile. I had a feeling that decision might cause readers to wonder about Calloway, but why and how he got to that point in his life is a story in itself, and this was Jim's story. "Knew he was about to be fired" are my words, and while it's a nutshell summation of a very complicated story, I think it's accurate. Calloway's disciplinary hearing had been scheduled, and he knew his airline career would be over after being fired for lying on his FedEx employment application. I'll leave the legal question of why he wasn't suspended from duty to the lawyers. But he had a history of lousy morale with FedEx and his previous employers -- he was always complaining -- and he had just flown the inbound flight without incident. He worked the element of surprise to perfection. Read Dave Hirschman's book. Everything I left out of Jim's Profile is in there. --Joe Godfrey, Columnist (Profiles) |
| Eric
Laing
14 Jun 2001 |
Tactile Situational Awareness System AVweb wrote:
Nice attitude. Let's apply this same thinking to 1903: "That's neat Orville, but you might as well forget it. Those engines could quit and then what will you do?" I'm sure the Navy is dealing with possible malfunction scenarios. I for one would rather have another system (especially if its input is independent from the rest of my instruments) to cross check against in the event of a system malfunction. If you have such a difficult time figuring out which instrument is wrong during a system failure, may I suggest that you just cover up that pesky turn coordinator and the heading indicator and just go with the attitude indicator and magnetic compass. That will certainly reduce the number of conflicting readings you receive. All branches of the military are well versed in the concept of redundancy (combat tends to drive home this concept) and this is just one more application of that. Why would you belittle a system designed to enhance aviation safety? AVweb responds... Eric, I think you better talk to my mom about this. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Bill
McKenzie
14 Jun 2001 |
The Race for New Runways With regard to your first two paragraphs of today's AVweb edition, KXNA in northwest Arkansas was completed in just eight years, from concept to completion. AVweb responds... Yeah, isn't it just amazing how much red tape can be cut when you have Wal-Mart's Sam Walton, trucking magnate J. B. Hunt, poultry king Don Tyson, and what's-his-name -- you know, the guy who lived in the White House for most of those eight years -- behind the project? --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Bill
Holmes
14 Jun 2001 |
The Race for New Runways Need look no further than 8L/26R at Atlanta's Hartsfield Airport. Strongly opposed by airport neighbors, desperately needed, built in record time in the mid 70's. How? Built it with their own money, thereby keeping the Feds at bay.
|
| Gustav
Hertz
10 Jun 2001 |
High Cost of Aircraft Insurance Just got my renewal bill on coverage for my Mooney M-20C and my Interstate Cadet. Last year: $1850, this year: $2524! That's a hefty increase. Based on 100 hours per year, I'm now paying more for insurance than fuel. For a guy with 18,000+ accident-free hours and zero claims, I'm in shock. What would the increase be if I'd made a claim? AVweb responds... Probably not all that much, especially if the claim wasn't the result of your negligence. And you can consider yourself lucky ... we've heard of much greater premium hikes than yours. In his latest "Eye of Experience" column, Howard Fried states that there's no way to economically justify the ownership of an airplane that's flown less than 150 hours a year. You've provided another data point that demonstrates his thesis. Of course, I say this as someone who owns a rather expensive and complex airplane myself (a Cessna T310R) that's typically flown less than 150 hours a year. Economic justification isn't everything, you know. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Lawrence
Walther
9 Jun 2001 |
747/777 Taxiway Incursion at Dulles AVweb wrote:
You stated that the 747 being pushed back hit the 777.this is untrue. The united airline mechanic pushing the Lufthansa 747 had push-back clearance from the Dullas ground controller. The same ground control that cleared the United 777 to turn onto the westbound taxiway. The United mech pushing the Lufthansa.747 had stopped his push when he realized the 777 was turning into his path. The UAL 777 hit the Lufthansa.747, wingtip to apu shroud. This accident could have been a lot worse: The horizontal stab on a 747 has fuel tanks in it and thay were only a few more feet away. This UAL mech should be preised for his actions of stopping this major disaster .His fellow mechs sure are proud of him.
AVweb responds... Thanks for the additional info, Larry. Our story was based on reports from folks aboard the 777. Obviously, things looked a bit different from the ramp. In any event, I guess that's why there's hull insurance. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Richard
Newman
7 Jun 2001 |
Go With The Flow I printed out Michael Maya Charles' latest column to hang in our FBO. Our operation, Northway Aviation, actually has several of us more "mature" individuals (me: never could get an airline job, bad test-taker) and a couple of youngsters who are "time builders." Two younger ones recently declared they are never going to go to the airlines, just don't want to go through the distasteful process to get to that coveted job. Two others are waiting for the worthwhile commuter company job and won't take just anything. Our company's owner has done a great job of finding CFIs who enjoy teaching, and has managed to keep out the "filled to overflowing with testosterone" types. Doesn't hurt that we are the best-paid CFIs on the West coast, me being the best paid in the country (I think). And it would be a drastic pay cut to go to the commuters. Essentially, with a lot of flight schools hurting for instructors, boneheads like your young man in the column are not the exception.
AVweb responds... Where do I sign up? --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| David
deJong
6 Jun 2001 |
FAA 10-Year Plan to Reduce Delays The FAA says it is going to cut airline delays with a 30% increase in ATC capacity over 10 years. But then they say that passenger movements will rise from 620 million to over 1 billion in the same period -- a jump of more than 60%. I appears that the plan will not only fail to make improvements, it won't even maintain the status quo ... unless the only planes in the sky are A380s...
|
| Ron
Taylor
5 Jun 2001 |
Reagan's 30-Year Plan It started with the PATCO strike on August 3, 1981 with the promise of Reagan, the FAA Administrator J. Lynn Helms and DOT Secretary Drew Lewis, that they could and would rebuild the ATC system and make it better than ever. Billions of dollars were wasted on computer systems that never worked and ideas that were as far-fetched as the policymakers that were spending the money. The system went to hell on the backs of controllers that were trying their best to keep up ... but it would not help. It is now 20 years later and this same agency is asking again, just for starters, for at least $11.6 billion of taxpayers money ... to continue the Reagan Legacy. The FAA's continued 20-plus-10-more-year plan is a smokescreen, a mirage, to pacify public outrage. They call it "Free Flight" ... but nothing is free, especially nothing that has to do with this government agency. Reduced separation standards are called for in the new brainstorm plan, and this combined with the 20% correction factor for system error cover-ups that the agency has just recently approved, makes the perfect ingredients for an unsafe situation. Interesting that the plan does not ask for or demand more controllers, now ... but then again, that was the Reagan plan of '81. Some things never change.
|
| Michael
L. Engle
04 Jun 2001 |
Hangar Rates at San Jose International I am based at SJC (San Jose International) and all of us "little GA guys" are being pushed out. In a meeting between the airport and GA next week, the city will propose a hangar rate increase, over the next three years to $824/month!!! The rates are currently $300. This is for a simple "T" hangar. Tie downs will go to $257. We are trying to pull together a defense for what we believe is an unfair and illegal (hopefully) attempt to run everyone except the corporate guys off the field. Has anyone had experience fighting such a battle elsewhere? Could those who rent hangars at comparable size fields ( Seattle, Portland, Phoenix, etc.) please forward their rate for comparison? Any help would be greatly appreciated. |
| Brian
Perry
4 Jun 2001 |
Go With The Flow I'm currently a First Officer for a large regional airline on the east coast flying the Canadair Regional Jet. Recently I entered training to become a Captain on the Dornier DO-328 Jet. I first entered flying in June of 1997 at a flight school called Everything Flyable. I had signed up for their Pro-Pilot course and my intention was to go 0 to MEI with them after which time I would instruct until I could get a job at a regional which would hopefully lead some day to a major. My first flight instructor was a guy like myself who was building time towards a better job. When that flight school went out of business a week and a half into that course I felt very fortunate that my instructor and I ended up at the same school. From Aug of 97 to Feb of 98 I worked to obtain various licenses culminating with my MEI. After completing my MEI I went immediately to work as a CFI at that school. I instructed from Feb of 98 until April of 99 when I took my first airline job. In the meantime in addition to instructing I flew as a corporate pilot in a Cessna 340 and my logbook grew from just over 300 hours to over 1500 and I added an ATP to my license. By the time I left instructing I was glad to be moving on. I was tired of working 12-hour days for little to no money. I was tired of never getting to actually fly myself. I was tired of dealing with unprepared students who'd been told they could have an instrument rating in 10 days no problem. I was tired of having to give ground for free because of company policies. I was tired of working 6 days a week day in and day out. Did I hate instructing? No. Was I glad to move on? You bet. So by any definition I was a time-builder. I only stayed in flight instruction until a better offer came along -- and zap, I was gone. In fact all of my instructors and nearly every instructor at my school was working towards the goal of an airline job. I'm telling you all this because I wanted to lay some background for my remarks to follow. As an airline pilot who once instructed to build time I've grown tired of the blanket damnation that writer after writer applies to people like myself. In nearly any article you read about choosing a flight instructor you'll be warned to avoid "time builders". This is not only unfair to hundreds of flight instructors but I believe that it does a disservice to prospective students as well. Instructing was never my primary goal in flying. But I am and was a professional pilot. I worked hard and cared about making sure my students were safe. I took very seriously what it meant to put my signature in their logbooks. I held my self and my students to high standards. I knew that their lives and perhaps my own depended on my giving them the finest quality of flight instruction I could. I never milked my students for time and frequently worked with them to help them cut costs and to ensure that they got the most out of every hour in the air. When I knew that my time as an instructor was growing short I made sure that I didn't take on students that I might have to leave in the lurch. Was I a perfect instructor? Hell No. When I look back there are decisions I made that I regret. But I always worked hard and did my best to be the best possible instructor. I made sure my students went not to creampuff DE's but to a select few that I knew gave 100% fair and by the book checkrides. In short despite being a "time builder" I don't feel I have anything to apologize for. As I mentioned earlier all of my instructors and nearly all the instructors that I worked with were "time builders" Yet I can't remember any of them that worked with that mindset. I chose my first instructor because he seemed to have an attitude that said he was a through and through professional that would demand a lot of me and I wasn't wrong. I can't remember anyone who truly loved flight instructing but that didn't mean that they weren't committed to being the best they could. The young guys coming out of UND or ERAU are the best example of this. The young man Michael Maya Charles spoke with probably deserves condemnation. Chances are he's a poor flight instructor. I'd also be willing to bet that when he gets to his first airline he'll be a poor FO and then a poor Captain. Even when he's sitting in the left seat of a 747 he'll probably still be no damm good. Why? Attitude. I firmly believe that it doesn't so much matter if you're military-trained or a product of a school like UND or the local mom-and-pop flight school. Its your attitude that determines whether or not you'll be a good pilot. If you're determined to be the best you can be, then you will. I've seen it firsthand. On the other hand, if you're just trying to get by, then even the finest training won't make you any damm good. But its just possible that our young instructor was speaking not from his heart but out of frustration. Frustration at spending long days working for little to no pay. Frustration at facing a seventh straight night of eating Ramen Noodles because its all he can afford. Frustration at being locked in a cramped cockpit with someone who smells like they haven't bathed in a week. Frustration at having no time off. I could go on but you get the picture. I'm sure Michael remembers some of this from his own early days. So please no more articles about "time builders.". I think its long past time that we quit assuming that just because an instructor is young and hoping to move on to better things that he isn't any good. |
| Leonard
Smith
4 Jun 2001 |
Go With The Flow I read Michael Maya Charles' column on the young instructor who hates instructing and is only doing it for the hours to get on with a regional. I know there are many regionals out there dying for pilots as I am a full time Instructor and Check Airman for one of the largest in the country. Thinking out loud as a regional airline check airman, a candidate coming from the General Aviation Flight Instructor ranks had better know how to assess his flight conditions and apply them to his advantage. Anyone who thinks he knows it all and has nothing else to learn for himself or give to someone else won't make it through training at my company or make it past people like me that make that decision. If I could give advice to the young instructor described in Michael's column, I would tell him now is when you need to learn not when you get here. |
| Andy
Manning
4 Jun 2001 |
The Clamor Over Airport Noise Good for you, Mr. Busch! In your response to U.K. reader Dr. David Crocker [AVmail, 31 May 2001], you wrote:
That's the way the bloody British did it in 1938! With a mindset like his, no wonder they have to knuckle under! |
| Name
Withheld
4 Jun 2001 |
Comair, Resting, In Pieces As a recently retired pilot from one of the major airlines I have witnessed the airline unions going virtually berserk in their efforts to "teach the company a lesson." Some of the members are absolutely dedicated to the destruction of the airlines that I grew up with since the early 60s. I don't mean to generalize but it seemed to me to be mostly the newer, younger baby boomer brats who have had the world handed to them since they were born. They want it all and they want it now. Captain Witheld [AVmail, 01 June 2001] unfortunately has an attitude typical of these union thugs who seem to have taken over the professional organizations I originally belonged to. His words suggest that he is a very unhappy child. He's not getting what he wants and he's throwing a tantrum. Poor baby. Captain Witheld suggests that you are an airline pilot wannabe. I doubt it. If you didn't like your present job and wanted to be an airline pilot, I suspect you would leave AVweb and join an airline. That would be your choice. That is Captain Witheld's choice also but he doesn't want that choice. He wants somebody like mommy or daddy to make it all better. Captain, you don't want to work for Comair. You don't want to start over at Mesa. I guess the major carriers don't want you (wonder why?). Why don't you contact John Miller who wrote another of those whining letters and find out where you can get one of those lucrative $100,000 plus jobs being a garbage collector. That sounds like a terrific plan. I've written a couple of letters to the editors of newspapers in my life. I think I even wrote one to AVweb a year or two ago. I've always signed my name because I believe in what I say. I'm going to make an exception this time. I think these guys are dangerous. I don't want one of them coming after me or my family. Please withhold my name from this letter for personal safety reasons. |
| Terry
Mason
4 Jun 2001 |
Go With The Flow In reading Michael Maya Charles' column, I was sorry to read about the selfish young instructor. As a CFI of about 10 years, I have had the misfortune of taking on students that have been "dumped" by these overly ambitious pilots. The rejected students are usually basket cases, scared of the instructor, and have to be de-programmed out of taught bad habits. Not only do the students suffer, but as Michael suggests, the instructor himself loses a great opportunity to learn, not only about flying, but also about himself. This kind of pilot is most likely the one who we will read about in the NTSB reports, having taken down a couple of hundred souls with him. I hope he does not make it that far. I too had aspirations for the airlines, but somehow became a career instructor. Anything will get old after a while, so now I work for the State of Vermont, flying around in their old Cessna 182 when I get the chance. Flying is fun, and it should remain that way.
|
| Kim
Huntington
4 Jun 2001 |
Go With The Flow THANK YOU, Mr. Charles! As a professional part time flight instructor, I see and hear this kind of attitude continuously in Southern California. I did all my "time building" the hard way and didn't start teaching until I had 1500 hours under my belt and felt that I could offer students and pilots a like a real learning experience. After 25 years in this business, it seems to be getting worse, not better. I had thought we had been able to get past the CFI for time building only generation, but the quality of instructors and pilots I am running across denies that observation. I personally do not take on a CFI candidate unless I interview them. If there is any "only want to get to the airlines" mentality, I steer them elsewhere. I know there are more instructors like me out there who take pride in teaching beyond the PTS (which in my opinion is too watered down these days) and turning out good, safe, conscientious pilots who understand their equipment. Unfortunately, here in SoCal I can't live on $13.00/a flight hour and teach only those students who truly wish to learn to be the best that they personally can be. Hopefully more students and pilots alike, will read your column and take a more active role in choosing their Instructor. Thanks again.
|
| Brian
Fennell
4 Jun 2001 |
Comair, Resting, In Pieces AVweb, I think your text speaks volumes to your knowledge:
An interesting choice of words for an unbiased journalist-don't you think?
I guess the New York times doesn't think a Regional Pilot is a career? Apparantely the courageous men and women who pilot the planes for COMAIR do. "Moving on" Should one move on individually from a career that they have spent over half their life at? Should a group not fight for their collective rights, after having waited and unprecedented Seven Years (now eight) on a four year contract while COMAIR managment sat on their heels?
This statement is laughable and so PRO Management I wonder how you can even consider yourself a journalist. It may as well be an advertisement.
I guess Quality of Life is not important to you, your family, or anyone else that's fighting for a fair and equitable work contract. How much is it worth to spend half your life living out of a suitcase? How much is it worth to miss your daughter's graduation? How much is it worth to spend every Christmas for the last twelve years in a musty hotel room while your family is all home wishing daddy was there? How much is it worth to put your job on the line every six months at the mercy of an FAA medical examiner and then an FAA Check pilot? Yeah, It's worth a lot. We know that coming in. In respect to the aforementioned, the Regional guys are treated no better, in most cases much worse than the majors. They weren't even asking for as much as the majors, just a fair and equitable contract.
This statement as well almost doesn't warrant response. However, I think you hit the nail on the head when you said, "those of us who are less familiar with union actions". You should have taken it one step further and said, "Those of us who are totally unfamiliar with labor negotiations, the Railway Labor (slavery) act and the constitution." Hang in their my COMAIR brothers and sisters.
P.S. You're obviously not in the journalist union. AVweb responds... Obviously not! --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Ted
Mastenbrook
04 Jun 2001 |
Sport Pilot Regs Inch Toward Reality I am a CFI, AGI, and Naval Aviator/Instructor Pilot. I think the 40 hour private pilot license needs to be considered a learner's permit. The last thing we need are no-license ultralight pilots, recreational pilots, and sport pilots. In my opinion a private pilot ticket is not that demanding or expensive and should really require a 60 hour minimum. The 40-hour figure was set when most training aircraft were fabric and flew off a grass strip with little radio work. The biggest issue was aircraft handling. There was a proposal to increase to 60 hours in the late 60s or early 70s, but that was opposed because it would discourage people from flight training because of cost. The average private pilot candidate back then had about 62 hours. Many budgeted for 40 hours and were surprised that it cost more. I have never had a private pilot candidate that met my personal standards to take the check ride at less than 60 hours, but they all passed on the first try. I don't think the actual flying of the aircraft is the biggest issue now, but the experience needed in the modern airborne environment and the book knowledge. I think we don't want to lose site that we operate heavy objects flying over people and their buildings. We also need to operate in a crowded sky with each other. Can we afford partially trained pilots in this environment? There seems to be few people that see a problem here with the FAA and AOPA in favor of lower-time training. This email is narrowly pointed at the hours requirement, but I have not lost sight of other aspects of the issue. Hours alone certainly don't make better pilots! |
| Ray
Gustafson
4 Jun 2001 |
New Airport for Chicago? The story in today's AVweb News about relieving delays at O'Hare caught my eye. In the quest for new runways, existing runways which are under-utilized should not be overlooked. The Greater Rockford Airport (KRFD) is a very nice, very capable facility which is already up and running, and it should be put to use in relieving O'Hare. The Peotone area may be economically depressed, but that's no reason to spend all that money duplicating an existing facility. However, unless the media start blowing the horn, I'm afraid the politicians will call the shots, and more taxpayer $$$ will be wasted. |
| Len
Buckwalter
4 Jun 2001 |
Pearl Harbor, The Movie I enjoyed the airplane scenes in "Pearl Harbor" so much that I forgive the movie makers for four bloopers they made in the avionics. The B-25 had a GPS antenna, a VHF com antenna and a VOR antenna. This is as historically correct as Neanderthals wrestling dinosaurs. My pet peeve, however, is the radar showing the approaching fleet of aircraft. The display was the familiar round screen with a cursor sweeping 360 degrees (known as PPI, or Plan Position Indicator). The radar display at Pearl Harbor 1941 was far more primitive---just a scope showing two pips on a horizontal line; the emitted pulse and the reflection from the target. But I shouldn't nitpick Disney with such trivia because, after all, I still enjoy Mickey Mouse even though he has only three fingers.
AVweb responds... Len, I always find it difficult to watch movies with flying scenes, because I find the inevitable technical inaccuracies distract me. My biggest problem with "Pearl Harbor" was the constant switching back and forth between actual aircraft footage and computer-generated images -- it should have been seamless, but I found it far from it. If you like Mickey Mouse, run (don't walk) to see "Shrek" from Dreamworks SKG. It raises the bar on animation to the point that things will never again be the same. While it may be billed as a kids' movie, only an adult can appreciate what a fabulous job Jeffrey Katzenberg and his minions did. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Gary
Iverson
4 Jun 2001 |
Comair, Resting, In Pieces Dear friends in flight, I am always amazed how that in the great community of aviation people we have so very many very volatile people! I have seen it personally in everything from local airport issues to EAA meetings. I'll never figure it out, and it often is way out of proportion to what it should be. I am sorry you have taken so much unkindness, and I hope it will not sour you or your people there. Hang in there!
AVweb responds... Not at all, Gary. It goes with the territory. After six years of doing this, one develops a thick skin. But your concern is much appreciated. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Tracey
Bernath
04 Jun 2001 |
Letter to an Airport Kid Thanks for Rick Durden's great article on airport kids. I was such as airport kid, and I can't count the number of times I made my way out to the airport and I even remember paying for 15-minute flights, cause that was all the allowance I had. There were always pilots looking for excited "breathing ballast." There were so many wonderful people that taught me to fly. The key to good pilots is the fire inside that can't be contained, an exuberance for the sport. It stuck with me, when I graduated college, and times were tough, I took my first credit card and walked across the street to the FBO and told them to teach me 'til my card bounced. It never did, I started and I never looked back. I now share the feeling with my 13-year-old, and will when my one-year-old is old enough to enjoy it. I've worked with Angel Flight, and EAA Eagles, and Big Brothers and Big Sisters, all to share that feeling. |
| George
Lamora
04 Jun 2001 |
Go With The Flow I am a 55 year-old, lapsed student pilot (I do intend to finish!) who works for a large flying school. I see many flight instructors every day -- we employ over 200 of them. The majority are eager, bright, and interested in going the extra NM for the student. A few are of the type you described in Michael Maya Charles' excellent column. I probably cannot add much to that part of the discussion -- it's all been said and done before -- but I have to take issue with Mr. Charles' closing: "I wished him good luck with the airline game, honestly hoping that he would be hired sooner rather than later for the sake of any pilots who might be unfortunate enough to fly with him." Given that CFI's willingness to treat his students as stepping stones to the commuters, how will he treat the commuters? If his ethics allow him to "go with the flow" in this situation, who is to say he won't do it driving a Beech 1900 or a CRJ? And then -- when he gets to his pot of gold, the major airlines -- what kind of habits will be ingrained? What behaviors will have been reinforced? What kind of airline pilot is he going to make? I feel sorry for his passengers. |
| David
Feinstein
04 Jun 2001 |
Go With The Flow Thanks for Michael Maya Charles' latest column. I realize it wasn't his main point, but I'm glad to see the sheep mentality exposed every now and then. I was at Sussex two years ago when three people died after being pressured into a downwind takeoff, and I'm still sorry I didn't try to stop them. |
| Walter
Boyne
04 Jun 2001 |
Klyde Morris Celebrates One Year On AVweb Congratulations, Klyde, great stuff. Your cartoons are the Dilbert of aviation! |
| Dan
Halpern
3 Jun 2001 |
Letter to an Airport Kid Reference Rick Durden's column "Letter to an Airport Kid," what a beautiful article. All I can say is "Bravo!" What a magnificent work of art. I saw myself in the article. I'm 44 years old now, but "way back when," I was also an "airport kid," at a small ranching community (population 4,000) in West Texas. Frequently, I also rode my bicycle two miles or so to the airport. The airport had a single 5,000 foot paved strip and a few of the local ranchers (Mr Meriwether --P iper Comanche; Mr. Morrow -- Cessna 172; Mr. LaBeff -- Cessna 210; Mr. Stradley -- Piper Aztec; a twin, now that was big time; and Mr. Arnold -- he was the local pharmacist -- Beechcraft V-tail Bonanza) kept their aircraft at the field. I would hang around the airport for hours. If one airplane landed or took off, it was worth the wait. On one or two occasions, Mr. Meriwether would ask me to get a bucket, a sponge, and some towels and wash his plane for him -- for which I leaped at the opportunity! He never paid me a dime. Instead, in his bright, shiny, newly-washed Piper Comanche 260-B, "Seven Six Papa" (I still remember), he would take me for a spin around the pattern -- fifteen minutes or so. Those few flights meant more to me than all the money in the world. They were gold. Whenever I travel aboard an airliner these days, my favorite pastime, particularly on bright, clear, sunny days, is to locate small, rural communities with a local airport nearby -- a runway or two and a row of hangars and maybe an FBO along the road -- and wonder if there is a young boy or girl, leaning against the fence, absolutely fascinated with every aspect of aviation. I like to imagine there is! Thank you, Rick, for a wonderful article, and thank you for the time you spent with "airport kid." You made all the difference in the world to him. P.S. I'm proud to say I'm still an "airport kid." No, I don't ride my bike out to the airport and lean against the fence anymore, but I love to go to a large airport, visit the observation deck (can't find many of those anymore, security, I suppose) and watch airliners depart for far-flung, exciting destinations. |
| Richard
Beach
02 Jun 2001 |
Independent Mechanics Banned From PAE Recently I wrote a letter to the editor of AVweb [AVmail, 14 May 2001] concerning Independent Mechanics being banned from conducting business at Paine Field (PAE) in Everett, Washington. Since I wrote that letter I have written to my congressman the Honorable Jay Inslee. My complaint was forwarded to Congressman Inslee's Mount Lake Terrrace, Washington office and assigned to Mr. Patrick Hogan for furthur investigation. I was contacted by Mr. Hogan and asked for more information. I forwarded copies of FAR part 150,FAR part 65,AC5190-5 and FAA Order 5190-6A to Mr. Hogan. There was then a telephone conversation between myself and Mr. Hogan and at that time Mr. Hogan told me that it appeared that I had a valid complaint. The matter has now been referred back to the Honorable Jay Inslee for a more complete investigation. I understand that getting this issue resolved may take a significant amount of time but at least I am encouraged by the response from my elected official. In order that we as pilots, owners and mechanics continue to protect our rights and privileges. I would encourage each and every one of you to get in contact with your representatives and remind them that we are the ones who elect them. Good Luck.
|
| Gordon
Hughes
01 Jun 2001 |
Bahja California Update I spent several days in Loreto last month for the first time in years. (We usually just stop there for Mexican customs and gas, and don't go into town.) The landing fee is now $49, gas is $3/gallon, visa fee $23/person, airport parking $11/night. We stayed at the Oasis Hotel for $130/two with meals but didn't like it (food was poor). I recommend the Hotel La Pinta 800-336-5454 which has European plan. Enjoyed several restaurants in town (no Montezuma revenge problems), rented a car and drove to Mission San Javier (pretty), and Nopolo (good snorkeling plus a nude swinger hotel you can't visit unless you are one... Loreto has the first of the California missions and a nice Mexican town atmosphere.
|
| Walter
Windus
1 Jun 2001 |
The Clamor Over Airport Noise Yes, airport noise is a big issue. Here in California it has been a big issue for about 10 years and several things have developed for the benefit of the pilots. The first is that a California state real estate law states that in essence, if you complain about airport noise, you have identified your property as being impacted by the airport and therefore your property value is less than otherwise. This is an incentive not to make un-substantiated crank noise complaint calls. Ex military airports have a special clause in the grant to the public owner requiring the new owner protect the airport for future use. Therefore the pilots can expect the airport management and the local jurisdiction to properly zone the land use around the airport to protect the airport and aircraft operations. The California state legislature created a law requiring that every county develop a Comprehensive Land Use Plan for each public use airport (California PUC 21670). This land use plan restricts the type of land use that is permitted in certain zones around the airport due to noise and public safety. The zones extend out to 9000 feet from the runway ends for GA and 15,000 feet or more for Air Carrier airports. In some of these zones, these land use plans require that before a project will be approved the land owner must grant an aviation easement to the county, thus giving subsequent owners of the property notice through the property deed that the airport exists and the pilots have rights to fly overhead and to make noise. Here's a link to a land use plan for a large air carrier airport near Sacramento: http://www.sacog.org/aviation/mather/tc.htm. Pilots and airport managers need to be very aggressive in protecting their airports, otherwise the airport will be closed. That has happened several times here in California already. Since we have taken the aggressive stand, we have cut the noise complaints significantly and we are in a much better position. |
| John
Miller
1 Jun 2001 |
Comair, Resting, In Pieces AVweb wrote:
I am a professional pilot (but not for COMAIR) and I was very disappointed in your comments "that if you don't like the job find another one". You more than anyone else should understand the issue -- the senior pilots have worked for years to grow this airline, it is not a struggling mom-and-pop operation. It is part of Delta Airlines. In today's world, I know garbage men who make more than $100,000/year. You are right on when you point out that they are flying jet aircraft on longer flights. Enlightened management would find the cost of retraining new pilots as they rotate in/out is far more expensive than paying people and having working conditions which promote long term stability. What a safety enhancement!! Where does a young First Officer learn to fly the line? Will he get better training from a Capt who has 5 years/4000 hours IN TYPE or one who has 5 weeks/100 hours in type and is just building time to get on with the major airlines? I want to fly with the experienced crew. |
| Name
Withheld
1 Jun 2001 |
Comair, Resting, In Pieces As a former Comair pilot and ALPA member I have three words for scab scum such as you: GO TO HELL!!! I flew for Comair for eight lousy years. The entire time I flew for those pricks I was treated with contempt for my life and my family's life. Do you really think the striking Comair pilots want to lose their jobs??? The striking Comair pilots are making a stand for every professional pilot in the country by facing up to a management which has repeatedly lied to them. The last contract I worked under while I was a Captain was routinely ignored by management. Their typical response if an issue was brought up concerning the contract was "go ahead and grieve it. It'll take two years for anyone to even look at our alleged violation of the contract." Many pilots feel, as I do, the management of Comair is out to bust their union in order to set a precedent for all other regional carriers. A wannabe airline pilot as yourself would probably jump at the chance to SCAB for Comair. How would you feel if after paying $13,000 just to be considered for an interview, (not to mention paying for a four year college degree and $40,000 in certificates and ratings) plus 6-8 weeks of training without pay and five years of service you were only making $28,000 a year? You mentioned "If you don't like you job find another one." Oh yeah, great. Start over at $12,000 a year at Mesa and have your family live on food stamps for another three years. I find it inconceivable you would find the pilots' demands unreasonable when a high school dropout can make $55,000 a year driving a truck for JB Hunt! Personally, I'd rather fly plane loads of rubber dog shit out of Hong Kong at night than work for a management as oppressive as Comair. AVweb responds... Thanks so much for writing, Capt. Withheld. I didn't even realize that they made rubber dog shit in Hong Kong, much less transported it out of the country in the dead of night by air. That's the marvelous thing about this job: You learn something new every day. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Anne
Kohut
1 Jun 2001 |
The Clamor Over Airport Noise One of my subscribers forwarded to me a recent story run in AVweb News discussing anti-noise activists' web sites on the Internet. My newsletter, Airport Noise Report, was the first site listed. This information is incorrect and I want a correction run immediately. Airport Noise Report is a trade journal whose subscribers are predominantly in the aviation industry (airports, airlines, aviation trade groups) as well as consultants, attorneys, city, state, local officials, etc. I have representatives of several major airports, the Air Transport Association, and the FAA on my editorial advisory board. I do not represent the interests of anti-noise activists but I do include their viewpoint in stories for balanced coverage. Since your article ran I have received several rude e-mails that I believe to be a direct result of misleading information you published. I want a correction run immediately and would like to see a copy of what you publish. This error could have been avoided had your reported taken the time to visit the ANR website.
AVweb responds... Thanks for writing and pointing this out to us. While we meant only to reference your publication as a site that might provide information for anti-noise activists, we DID lump it in together with other Web sites in a way that could be interpreted as identifying it as an "anti-noise activists' site." We have published a clarification in our our June 4 issue. --Mary Grady, Senior News Editor |
| Tom
Winsor
1 Jun 2001 |
Comair, Resting, In Pieces For quite some time I have read AVweb's news wire with interest. I consider it to be a very informative source of aviation news. I take exception to your comments about the Comair pilots. Without going into specifics, I truly believe that they are doing the right thing. Most articles (yours included) usually quote the salary range that the captains would be making under management's proposal. While I agree that 69K-100K is probably an acceptable wage for a 50-seat RJ captain (spoken from a former 34-seat prop captain), you miss the entire point. The greater goal is work rules and retirement. With industry groups like ATA lobbying against enforcement of 1985 work rules and creating a bogus "Alertness Management Symposium," it's no wonder that unions must fight for work rules that protect them against fatigue. While I certainly have feelings for the thousands of workers out of work at Comair, I can't say that this wasn't inevitable. I was a regional pilot for 5 years, and while I loved the company I worked for and the people I worked with, I am certain I would have found myself on a regional airline picket line one day. There comes a time in your career when you start to question if you'll ever get to move up to a major airline (if that is even your goal.) Five years ago, the FAA touted it's "one level of safety." While noble in spirit, the disparity of working conditions between the Majors and Regionals is remarkable. While Comair pilots aren't asking to be paid like 777 captains, they are asking for equal work rules and retirement. Pilots at Comair are beginning to realize that they may not get that "dream job" at United, Delta or American. They want to make Comair a place where they can choose to live out a career, and I respect them for their effort.
|
| Mark
Stone
1 Jun 2001 |
AVweb's Liberal Bias I have noticed an increasing liberal bias in comments made in your AVflash newsletter. These range from pro-union to pro-democratic party comments that have nothing to do with reporting the news. I look forward to reading AVflash news and would prefer not to read opinions. Please save any opinions for an editorial section and simply report the news in a professional manner. If you continue to offer opinion in your news section, then fairness and journalistic integrity dictate you provide the other side an opportunity to comment as well. This is necessary to present fair and balanced reporting. I certainly expect a varied political landscape among editors at AVweb as in any enterprise, but I believe news reporting should be objective and free of personal opinions -- that's what editorial sections are for. Please know I am not a recent subscriber who casually writes emails like this. In fact, I rarely comment like this - such as less than once a year and tend lean to libertarian as well. To show I am not pulling things out of thin air, I offer the following two of examples taken directly from recent copies of AVflash:
and:
I enjoy AVflash and your web site and look forward to a continued relationship with AVweb. You put out a good product that is very enjoyable. AVweb responds... Mark, here we're being inundated by angry mail from striking Comair pilots and other folks accusing us of anti-union bias, and you're suggesting that we're biased the other way. The politics of the AVweb editorial team varies all over the spectrum. My own leans heavily toward libertarian, but hopefully you'll never see that come out anywhere in print except in my editorials and comments on the AVmail letters-to-the-editor page. If conservatives think AVweb is too liberal, liberals think we're too conservative, union members think we're anti-union, and employers think we're pro-union, than it seems to me that we must be damn close to "fair and balanced." While your snippet about Comair might sound pro-union when taken out of context, I think that the full text of the Comair story as it appeared in AVweb news is far more balanced than that. Certainly the striking Comair pilots wrote us nastygrams this week hardly considered our coverage to be pro-union. As for your snippet concerning the fallout in the U.S. Senate from Sen. Jeffords' defection from the Republican Party, that was also taken out of context. The preceding sentence of our coverage (which you omitted from your quotation) made it explicitly clear that the cited commentary represented the views of AOPA, not AVweb. In fact, the specific remarks concerning Sens. McCain, Hollings, and Daschle were taken almost verbatim from the AOPA press release on the subject. Not to belabor the point, but if your position is that AVweb news should be fair and balanced, I agree wholeheartedly and I believe we do a credible job of meeting that standard. Obviously, it's always easy to select excerpts of our coverage that, when taken in isolation, appear to be making the liberal case or the conservative case or the pro-union case or the pro-management case. That's only natural, since fair and balanced reporting tries to explain the arguments on all sides of a controversy. Our reporting can only be called biased if it makes the case for one side and ignores the case for the others. We try hard not to do that. On the other hand, if your position is that AVweb should limit its reporting to purely factual information and avoid injecting opinion and commentary about those facts, then we'll have to agree to disagree. AVweb's journalistic philosophy has always been "news with an attitude." AVweb has consistently expressed its opinions on the aviation-related matters it covers, sometimes to the point of overt activism when we feel strongly enough about something. We will continue to do so as long as I remain at the editorial helm. I'd like to think that AVweb's opinions cannot be pigeonholed as consistently liberal or conservative or pro-union or pro-management, but are always pro-aviation and pro-aviator -- and always critical of wastefulness, mismanagement, over-regulation and stupidity, regardless of whether the guilty party happens to be an airline, a union, a government agency, a private group, or an individual. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |