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.
| Dave
Ahlberg
31 Jul 2001 |
Wizard of Oz Winged Monkeys AVweb wrote:
Sounds like a reporter letting some preconcieved notions color their "reporting". I was in one of the Quicksilver MX's and don't really appreciate the analogy, although I won't be permanently scarred. Maybe you should have the person who was sampling Chuck Sluzarczyk's Muzzle Loader at Sun n Fun do the UL reporting. Oh, and it might help if y'all got up and came to the 6:30 AM briefing before commenting on our pattern procedures. Monkeys! Get a clue! The only "real" flying at OSH is down on the farm. Next year have your reporter look me up, I'll show 'em around.
AVweb responds... Send us a reminder next June and we'll definitely take you up on that offer, Dave! --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Randy
Dettmer
31 Jul 2001 |
AVweb's Coverage of AirVenture 2001 Thank you for bringing AirVenture 2001 into my computer each day of the event. After flying for 25 years, I finally had my chance to see Oshkosh in person at AirVenture 1998 as co-pilot of the Martin 404 -- N636X (along with skipper John Deakin), which was on display next to Vintage Aircraft headquarters...what an experience. Couldn't make AirVenture 1999, but experienced a dream-come-true by flying my own Twin Commander (680F/N6253X) and family out from California to AirVenture 2000. Camped out in the Vintage Aircraft area next to 18-36 for the whole week...absolutely tremendous, I was changed forever. Once again, work and family priorities prevented my attendence this year, but with your superb coverage, I was able to listen to ATC arrivals in the morning, "live" coverage of the airshow in the afternoon, and recorded interviews each day...along with pictures and news. It was the next best thing to "being there". Thanks again for the superb job, and see you at AirVenture 2002.
|
| Ralph
Austin
31 Jul 2001 |
AVweb's Coverage of AirVenture 2001 Once again this old pilot wish to thank you for the coverage you provided me on Oshkosh Air Adventure this year. Having attended the event many times in the past it is almost like being there with your excellent coverage. Excellent job!. |
| Larry
Bruce
30 Jul 2001 |
PATCO Strike Anniversary As one of "those" 12,000 fired air traffic controllers, I must tell you that I am amazed at the aviation community's remembrance of that horrible time in aviation history... August 3, 1981 will be a day that I, for one, will rue forever. It was an ill-advised decision, and a shame for the controllers and for the nation as well. I believe you are correct ... nothing much changes, after all is said and done. The same conditions are being tolerated by today's controller workforce, and I can only pray that they remember history and choose to fight their battles at the bargaining table, not on the sidewalk. Thanks. It is a time for all of us to remember, and to reflect upon.
|
| Richard
Pike
30 Jul 2001 |
Wizard of Oz Winged Monkeys Thanks. I love being the red-headed step child. Maybe some day I'll win the lottery, be able to afford a "real airplane", and get some respect.
|
| Chuck
Wunz
30 Jul 2001 |
AVweb's Coverage of AirVenture 2001 I loved the enthusiasm of your representatives at Oshkosh and I certainly agreed with their premise that you are the only exclusively web-based aviation based provider of news and information. You had great cheerleaders! That kind of enthusiasm is something we all need foster! My hats off to all of you and to your efforts. |
| Dick
Jeffries
30 Jul 2001 |
AVweb's Coverage of AirVenture 2001 I really enjoyed the daily dispatches from Oshkosh. It wasn't exactly like being there, but how are you going to send us mosquitos and make us wait in line for the outhouses? Keep up the great work and keep up the smartypants attitude. AVweb responds... Dick, we'll certainly try to provide RealVideo coverage of the mosquitos and honey-hut lines next year. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Jerry
Holtz
30 Jul 2001 |
AVweb's Coverage of AirVenture 2001 Just a note of thanks for a job well done on the newsletter and the website. Especially appreciated is your down-to-earth writing style and no-nonsense reporting. I'll continue to order products from your advertisers (I need oil this week ... Phillips 66). |
| Gary
Iverson
30 Jul 2001 |
PATCO Strike Anniversary AVweb wrote:
I recall this vivdly! I guess from what you have written that you have forgotten much of the disaster and turmoil the PATCO folks created when they broke the law and went on the illegal strike. They put all aviation at risk so they could have their way, instead a president did the unthinkable -- he fought the union (legally) and won for all of us! It is certainly no worse than what we have now after those people are gone. They knew the risks right up front and did it anyway! They lost ( and so did everyone else in the system too). As a union member I cannot condone putting the public at risk for a strike. If they do not like their jobs, they can quit just like you or me. AVweb responds... I couldn't agree with you more, Gary, that Reagan had no alternative but to fire the illegally striking controllers. And I couldn't disagree with you more that the result was a victory for anyone, or that the ATC system we have now is no worse than what we had before. There were no winners in 1981, and the damage that was done to the ATC system still affects aviation today. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Allan
Price
30 Jul 2001 |
PATCO Strike Anniversary As a retired journalism school graduate, I'm not entering a complaint, just a caution. When you noted the 20th anniversary of the PATCO strike, you indicated that President Reagan fired them to "teach them a lesson." Your audience comprises an array of political persuasions. The strike was illegal for federal employees and some of us believe that it was time to draw the line in the sand. Unfortunately, the attitudes and behavior of controller supervisors were half of the problem and went unpunished. AVweb responds... Al, if you read into our story the suggestion that Reagan shouldn't have fired the striking PATCO controllers in 1981, you read into it something that simply wasn't there. I think any objective observer would agree that Reagan had no choice but to do what he did. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| David
Swarthout
30 Jul 2001 |
AVweb's Coverage of AirVenture 2001 Great job on the EAA coverage this year. Thank you! |
| Chris
Barden
30 Jul 2001 |
PAviation World's Fair 2003 AVweb wrote:
Those of us from central Virginia know that you don't need to bring the Eiffel tower -- we already have one at Paramount's King's Dominion amusement park. It is, of course, a scale model (333 ft.), like most historic homebuilts... |
| Greg
Booze
30 Jul 2001 |
AVweb's Coverage of AirVenture 2001 Thanks for the great coverage of Oshkosh. Especially the pictures with humorous captions!
|
| Rex
Perry
30 Jul 2001 |
Thanking Our Mentors I enjoyed Michael Maya Charles' column about Mr. Don Hissam ("Thanking Our Mentors"). It made me think of my father. My dad was also an A&P who spent his entire life around airplanes. Apparently a guy named Lindberg made a big impression on a lot of people. Over the years we had quite a collection of tools; just the right size for a little kid to play with. I was always told to "put them back where I got them". The other day I was looking for a certain wrench and thought that maybe one would be hiding in the old toolbox. Sure enough, I found what I wanted, used it and put it back as I was taught. That old Kennedy box, complete with the oily smell, is the same as it was the day my dad passed away...over 23 years ago.
|
| Phil
Corbell
30 Jul 2001 |
PATCO Strike Anniversary Your take on the PATCO strike was very offensive! A union (many of which violate the principle of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" by denying Americans the right to work unless they pay such a parasite organization) tried to take on the federal government and lost. Just like the Military do not have the right to strike, neither should government servants. If they don't like their working conditions, let them quit. There are more than enough to take their "excellent" paying jobs -- and that pay was NOT obtained by the union. Most of those PATCO controllers went from $50k jobs per year to pumping gas in gas stations -- they are the ones who have never recovered. This "first" which received more attention than it deserved, is actually a black spot on aviation -- not the FAA, nor the government, nor President Reagan -- brought on by a bunch of selfish, greedy people who didn't appreciate what they had. AVweb responds... You should read our story again, Phil. It was careful not to take sides. I also think your recollection of the PATCO strike is flawed. The strike was not about money, although much of the media coverage at the time portrayed it that way. And while a case can certainly be made that PATCO president Robert Poli and some of his accomplices were "a bunch of selfish, greedy people who didn't appreciate what they had," the fact is that most of the controllers who struck and were fired were railroaded into doing so by their union and a campaign of almost unbearable peer pressure. The PATCO leadership was stupid (not to mention criminal) in calling the strike. The rank-and-file controllers paid for that stupidity with their careers. Reagan had no real choice but to fire them as he did. Aviation suffered dearly, and continues to suffer 20 years later. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Mike
Galbreath
30 Jul 2001 |
PATCO Strike Anniversary More interesting than just a thought, a PATCO reunion is being held in Las Vegas on August 3-4-5. (at Harrah's). It is interesting that after 20 years anyone would still care, I care and we care. With the Federal law suits and many discrimination actions, some that have been won and still some that are on going this should be a very interesting time because PATCO is still alive. Should you show up in Vegas you can meet Ron Taylor, President of PATCO, an air traffic control union that represents working air traffic controllers and members of the fired class of 1981. There wasn't a booth in Oshkosh, but believe me, we were there, I was also there in 1981. There will be some good stories at this reunion. You are probably asking yourself what this has to do with aviation, well the FAA is spending a bucket of money on EEO actions and the Federal law suit in the Federal Court in Florida I'm sure will cost all of us a few dollars. Should you like to read more the official web site is http://www.Patco81.com. Don't miss this opportunity to hear about this from the horses. We are still alive.
|
| James
V. Hudson
30 Jul 2001 |
AVweb's Coverage of AirVenture 2001 Great work on the coverage of OSH this year. Keep up the grand effort. |
| Tee D.
Ponder
30 Jul 2001 |
AVweb's Coverage of AirVenture 2001 Congratulations: Your coverage of Oshkosh just gets better and better every year! Great copy and outstanding photos! Excellent job by all! Thanks, again! |
| John W.
Harris
30 Jul 2001 |
AVweb's Coverage of AirVenture 2001 Thanks for your excellent coverage of OSH. I loved the photos. The photo quality is much better this year. This is next best to being there!!! |
| O.h.
Mccullough
30 Jul 2001 |
PATCO Strike Anniversary I have to take exception to AVweb's comments about the PATCO strike. If recognized, it should have been as a massive and flagrant violation of Federal law and celebrated as an act of responsible leadership. I would suspect that the author (1) did NOT fly very much, if at all, in the "system" in those pre-firing days where many of the controllers were assuming PIC like authority and in a surly manner on top of it and (2) the author has a political agenda with Reagan ("supposedly teaching them a lesson") or is at least pro-union bias. While the firings did cause problems in ATC, they also resolved many problems that were causing, as a minimum, hostility, stress in the cockpit and frustration as well as flagrant violation of Federal law. The tail was wagging the dog and in an arrogant manner. AVweb provides a great service, but let's keep the editorializing down.
AVweb responds... Mac, I had nothing to do with writing or editing the story involved. However, you couldn't be more wrong about the experience or motives of the person who did write the story. Furthermore, I disagree with your essential premise. I've been an active instrument pilot for more than 35 years, and did lots of flying "in the system" both before the 1981 firings and afterwards. I could not disagree more with your suggestion that pilot/controller cooperation was improved in the wake of the PATCO firings. To the contrary, it is my distinct impression that controllers in the pre-1981 ATC system were more flexible and more aggressive in their efforts to "move the metal" than controllers are today. Indeed, the 1981 firings caused the FAA to impose far more rigid rules (mostly in the form of interfacility Letters of Agreement) that eliminate much of the flexibility that pre-strike controllers had. Those rules were necessary for ATC to function in the immediate aftermath of the strike and firings, but regretably they persist to this day. You're certainly within your rights to prefer the system the way it is now, but I'd definitely opt for the flexibility and can-do attitude that controllers had prior to 1981. Oh, and the day we quit editorializing is the day we shut AVweb down altogether. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Joe E.
Wallace
30 Jul 2001 |
AVweb's Coverage of AirVenture 2001 To all the Oshkosh attendees from the AVweb group, and others who made it possible. ...THANKS! You made it possible for me to attend also. |
| Bobby
Green
30 Jul 2001 |
Wizard of Oz Winged Monkeys As a 67 year old Quicksilver driver. I take offense at being called a winged monkey. |
| Nick
Ryan
30 Jul 2001 |
AVweb's Coverage of AirVenture 2001 Great Job! Class Act! |
| Andrew
Bresler
30 Jul 2001 |
AVweb's Coverage of AirVenture 2001 Loved your coverage of Oshkosh. You guys provide a great service. Keep up the good work! |
| Ed
Chmielewski
30 Jul 2001 |
Wizard of Oz Winged Monkeys Generally your coverage is fair and accurate, albeit with some attitude, but your disparaging remarks about ultralights in the Day Six coverage of Oshkosh (Down on the farm, AirVenture style) reflect a lack of understanding and are not in the best interests of aviation. The author of this article is obviously in need of more exposure to general aviation aircraft, and the editorial staff needs to be more discerning in what gets published. With regards to the term "Wizard of Oz' winged monkeys", would you refer to the Wright Flyer in such a manner? I'm an ATP with over 10,000 hours logged and I happen to own a 2-seat Kolb, and I believe the microlight/ultralight/trike/PPC realm of aviation has worked hard over the last two decades to increase safety and put some fun back in aviation. I know good writers are hard to come by (as evinced by the article in question), but journalism of this nature does more harm than good. Perhaps the author (unnamed) would best take a page from Sgt. Joe Friday and stick to "just the facts". The flying public, and your corporate sponsors, will greatly appreciate it. |
| Bob
Robertson
29 Jul 2001 |
Wizard of Oz Winged Monkeys It seems like your reporters and, more importantly, your editorial staff seem have the opinion they have a sense of humor. I'd suggest that you keep your day job of reporting on aviation matters. Honestly guys, "Wizard of Oz flying monkeys" does not make and sense! It gives the reader the opinion that the reporter and the editor that approved the copy might not have any experience covering aviation events (especially ultralight/lightplane events). If you had any idea of the amount of effort that goes into the building of an ultralight/lightplane you might just understand an ultralighter taking exception to being called a flying monkey. I viewed the pics gallery of Airventure coverage.. Your comments that accompany each picture just perpetuate the fact that you think you have a sense of humor. Your coverage of aviation matters is usually quite comprehensive and factual. That is much appreciated, but I am disappointed in your coverage of the ultralight area of Airventure 2001. I enjoy a good "guffaw" as much as the next person, but it has to be earned. AVweb responds... Bob, just say the word and we'll gladly refund the entire balance of your subscription fee. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Bill
Czygan
29 Jul 2001 |
Wizard of Oz Winged Monkeys I enjoyed your article describing Ultralight pilots as "Wizard of Oz' winged monkeys" but missed your coverage that called GA pilots "Octogenarian heart attack candidates in a spam can"! AVweb responds... Touché, Bill! Needless to say, that's why we spam can drivers are pressing so hard for medical self-certification. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Roy
Wright
29 Jul 2001 |
Wizard of Oz Winged Monkeys Whoever wrote the article for you on ultralights at Oshkosh should either be educated on all kinds of flying, become a Certified Private Pilot, an Ultralight pilot or be fired for incompedence. Before he ever writes another article about any kind of aircraft -- which includes standard glides, ballons and fighter planes and commercial airliners. AVweb responds... The writer was Liz Swaine, who is a superlative aviation journalist, an accomplished aerobatic pilot, and a longtime aircraft owner. In no way was her article intended to derogate ultralights or ultralight pilots, although a number of ultralight pilots obviously took it that way. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Michael
Grabbe
29 Jul 2001 |
AVweb's Coverage of AirVenture 2001 The last time I was able to attend Oshkosh was in 1998. Due to work requirements I have had to stay home and work every year since then. I just wanted to say THANK YOU for posting the wonderful images taken at Oshkosh. I really appreciate your coverage. Way to go folks! |
| Jerry
Bidle
29 Jul 2001 |
Wizard of Oz Winged Monkeys I was happy to see AVweb's coverage of Oshkosh fly-in and especially ultralights until I read how they were referred to as "Wizard of Oz' winged monkeys." I couldn't believe my eyes. How could any competent aviation oriented magazine more degrade this category of aviation. Furthermore the author was not disclosed so they may rightly receive the just credit they deserve within the aviation community. This short article has greatly discredited and caused irreparable damage to the ultralight community. For the sake of aviation if AVweb can not be more responsible for what it puts in type, please do not cover future Oshkosh Airventure or Sun & Fun events. |
| Bruce
Booker
29 Jul 2001 |
The Age-60 Rule and the Unions I was surprised by Senator Inhofe's statement at Sun-n-Fun (as reported by AVweb on day 6 of AirVenture) regarding the age-60 rule. Sen. Inhofe said that he supports changing the rule, but, "We don't have the votes right now ... the FAA and the unions are opposed to it." Pilots want the rule changed, and with good reason. Are their own unions, the organizations that are supposed to help them, really opposed to changing the rule? I expect opposition from the FAA -- they seem to oppose ever changing much of anything, including rules like this one that no longer make sense. But the unions are supposed to represent the pilots, to be their collective voice, to speak and act on their behalf. What gives? AVweb responds... Saying that "pilots want the rule changed" is not accurate. Older airline pilots are mixed on the age-60 rule -- some would like to keep working into their 60s while others would fight like hell to prevent their retirement date from being pushed forward. Most younger airline pilots favor the age-60 rule because it forces older pilots to retire and younger ones to advance in seniority faster. ALPA has always favored the age-60 rule, presumably because the majority of their membership favors it. The interesting part is that the FAA's pretense for the age-60 rule (which is in essence government-mandated age discrimination) is that pilots over 60 present an unacceptable medical risk to safety, but in fact there's not a shred of medical evidence to support this, and all the folks (including ALPA) who support continuation of the age-60 rule do so for reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with safety and everything to do with money. My contention is that the FAA has no business establishing such arbitrary age limits without any credible medical or safety evidence. If ALPA wants to negotiate a mandatory age-60 retirement clause in its contracts with the airlines, that's fine. (I imagine, however, that any such contract would be immediately challenged in court.) --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| L.
Spanglem
29 Jul 2001 |
AVweb's Coverage of AirVenture 2001 This daily coverage is very informative as well as interesting. Thank you! |
| Edward
G. Tripp
29 Jul 2001 |
Aviation World's Fair 2003 Picking nits, perhaps, but your item on the planned Newport News trade show contains a fairly standard attitude error: the definition of general aviation. Business aviation is GA. Much of commercial aviation is GA. As you well know, GA is all civil flying save scheduled air transport. Divided we fall. You folks are doing a great job, by the way. AVweb responds... Right as always, Ed. Thanks for keeping us honest. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Paul
Skaggs
29 Jul 2001 |
Wizard of Oz Winged Monkeys Come on folks, what the heck is this? "Wizard of Oz' winged monkeys". " love to party, fly and hang out, in no particular order" This is even better! Would sound to public as if we party get drunk and go flying! You people still with us or against us? or against us? Sounds like your reporter may have done a little to much party! Sorry I just don't get your intent! |
| Richard
B. Marshall
29 Jul 2001 |
AVweb's Coverage of AirVenture 2001 Your coverage of Oshkosh is great!! Very informative and well written. Keep up the good work!! |
| Bill
Burgner
29 Jul 2001 |
Aviation World's Fair 2003 Thanks for the coverage of Oshkosh. You do a good job. By the way the Eiffel Tower is already in Virginia. Kings Dominion has a large replica that stands out as you fly from DC to Newport News. Well, it does from my normal rotary wing altitude. |
| Larry
Davis
29 Jul 2001 |
Wizard of Oz Winged Monkeys While I appreciate the coverage of ultralights at Oshkosh, is it really necessary to describe them as "Wizard of Oz' winged monkeys". What kind of idiotic term is that? Could it be from a first-year journalism student? I mean, really! AVweb usually does better than this. AVweb responds... The story in question was written by longtime AVweb news writer Liz Swaine, who is both a career journalist with very impressive credentials and an accomplished aerobatic pilot and aircraft owner. Her turn of phrase was meant to be evocative, not perjorative, and we feel bad that some ultralight pilots took offense at it. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Donald
Maziarz
29 Jul 2001 |
Aviation World's Fair 2003 In reporting on Virginia's plans for an Aviation World's Fair in 2003, you should have asked where the money is coming from. The Virginia Department of Aviation has taken almost all of the funds that were targeted to airport projects and pooled the funds for the Fair. Essentially all projects around the state have come to a halt because the state funds are no longer available. You should let the public know what is going on in Virginia. |
| Tony
Ellison
28 Jul 2001 |
AVweb's Coverage of AirVenture 2001 I just wanted to let you know how much my wife and I enjoy your daily updates, We have owned a couple of aircraft, a Mooney M20C and a Cessna 150H over the past years, now being retired we find it difficult to keep up an ownership, however, we still fly one way or the other, having good friends who like us to fly with them. Not having the resources to go to Oshkosh we find the next best thing is to read about it and look at the pics on your site. Thanks so much.
|
| Jack
Butler
27 Jul 2001 |
AVweb's Coverage of AirVenture 2001 Love your coverage of Oshkosh 2001. I am unable to make the trip. You work is almost like being there!! |
| David
Schober
27 Jul 2001 |
AVweb's Coverage of AirVenture 2001 I'd like to compliment Rick Durden on his OSHtalk series, especially his interview with John Miller. I used to live in Poughkeepsie and have known John for over 20 years. He is a wealth of information and an encyclopedia of aviation history. What he shared with your readers/listeners and Rick is just the tip of the ice berg. His stories of the early days of aviation are almost endless and in the time I've known him very few have been repeated. His accomplishments range from test pilot for Seversky, flying the roof to roof mail in the autogyro, line captain for Eastern and United, riding right seat when Benny Howard took his first checkride at United after the accident with Mr. Mulligan, and the list goes on and on. In addition to his accomplishments in aviation, John is also a mechanical engineer and the holder of several patents. It's been a pleasure to have known and flown with him over the years.
|
| Patrick
Durgin
26 Jul 2001 |
AVweb's Coverage of AirVenture 2001 Kudos for excellent reports on a daily basis from Oshkosh. Love the photo's also. Keep 'em flying. |
| Ty
Pompei
26 Jul 2001 |
Single Engine Jet ... Just A Dream? I am a Private Pilot who subscribes to your email magazine, and what like to thank you for you and your staffs reporting&day in and day out. They do a great job, especially for someone who couldn t make it to Oshkosh this year. I am glad to read that Mavericks Twin Jet may utilize Williams or Agilis engines in the hopefully not so distant future, and keep the price under $500,000.00. But how about the rest of us single engine rated pilots, who have NO interest in obtaining a twin rating, and another engine to feed and maintain? Isn t there a manufacturer out there who realistically has a proven design for a SINGLE ENGINE jet that will utilize the Williams and/or Agilis engines, and will have it realistically on the market in the next 2-3 years? To be perfectly frank, a (TRUE) four place, single engine, pressurized jet for under $500,000.00? I sure don t think I am the only single engine pilot who feels this way, and as a business owner would think there would be much a needed market for this type of aircraft. Am I right or wrong? I would sure appreciate any information on this subject. AVweb responds... Ty, the main reason no low-cost single-engine jets are being developed is that Williams International has established a policy that they will not permit their engines to be used on any single-engine aircraft, presumably for liability reasons. There were actually a few Williams-powered singles in development at the time Williams announced their twin-only policy, and those projects were subsequently scrubbed. I don't know anything about Agilis in regard to the single vs. twin issue. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Mick
Fine
26 Jul 2001 |
AVweb's Coverage of AirVenture 2001 Thanks so much for providing this service, especially the live audio feed of Oshkosh ATC. Makes being stuck at work this week almost bearable...almost. |
| Donn
Booth
26 Jul 2001 |
AVweb's Coverage of AirVenture 2001 GREAT coverage of the first three days, looking forward to following the rest of the week Thank you for this service. Could you please have a 'day' (or part) of coverage of the seaplanes and amphibians AVweb responds... Rick Durden devoted one entire "OSHtalk" evening to seaplanes, relocating to the Oshkosh seaplane base for the evening. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Richard
J. Lecomte
25 Jul 2001 |
AVweb's Coverage of AirVenture 2001 If one can't be in Oshkosh reading OSH Air Venture 2001 is the next best thing. Enjoyed the pictures, especially the Connie. Good job! |
| Gene
Schermerhorn
25 Jul 2001 |
AVweb's Coverage of AirVenture 2001 I really enjoy your articles and coverage of the aviation world, and your daily coverage of the comings & goings at OSH are superb. Makes me wish even more I could have attended this year. I'm definitely planning now for next year. I noted your story that began:
Might I humbly suggest changing that headline to:
I know, I have a sick sense of humor. But then again, don't most pilots? Thanks for the great stories and keep your "umbrellas" up. |
| Eric
Krueger
25 Jul 2001 |
AVweb's Coverage of AirVenture 2001 AVweb's normally exceptional news coverage has really outdone itself with the OSHflash dailies. Great writing, good photography, ... fantastic job! I always want to be at Oshkosh, but your fine coverage has sharpened that desire for next years event. Thanks one and all! |
| Ed
Redman
25 Jul 2001 |
Sport Pilot Certificate Can you tell me where I might find information on why the FAA or EAA or anyone in their right mind, would allow people to fly without medical certificates? It seems to me that we are opening up the skies to people that can not pass FAA physicals so they can have their heart attacks at 3000 feet instead of on the ground. Driver's licensing in North Carolina and most other states only requires a vision test and nothing else. There is a "pilot" at my home airport that wants to fly illegal (too heavy, too much fuel capacity) ultra lights that has an un-correctable heart problem. The rest of the certified pilots would be at risk, as well as every one on the ground, if and when this guy flies. But at one time he was certificated so at least it would be assumed he knows the rules. What about the other want-to-be pilots that will be able to get in an airplane, be it a Cub or Aeronca, or whatever and fly right hand patterns, if any pattern, at a standard left pattern airport? Perhaps they will tell me these pilots will fly in only VFR weather and can convince me that there are no accident reports of VFR and IFR, certificated pilots that crashed scud running. As a supporter of the AOPA Safety Foundation, I obviously have a problem with car license pilots. AVweb responds... Mr. Redman, the accident experience related to medical problems in balloons and gliders which do not require a medical or a driver's license is the same as that for aircraft which require a third-class medical to operate. The accident statistics simply do not support requiring a medical certificate for non-commercial flying. --Brent Blue M.D., Senior AME, Aviation Medicine Editor Ed, there is no credible evidence that medical certification has any impact whatsoever on air safety. There are two reasons for this. First, medically-related pilot incapacitation happens so infrequently that it is a completely insignificant contributor to aviation safety statistics. Second, the medical examination prescribed by the FAA has almost no value as a predictor of sudden pilot incapacitation. Medical self-certification has been in effect for decades for glider and balloon pilots, and there's no evidence that this has presented any safety problem. The FAA proposed medical self-certification for recreational pilots four years ago, but the Department of Transportation shot it down for purely political reasons: they were afraid of public reaction if the story were picked up by "60 Minutes." --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Dennis
Whitehead
25 Jul 2001 |
Countdown to Kitty Hawk C'mon guys, this whole Wright Brothers thing has always been a fake and the Smithsonian knows it. Gustav Whitehead flew first in 1901 in Connecticut, and the Wright family bought off the Smithsonian staff ninety years ago to conveniently "lose" all the irreplaceable material Whitehead sent in to substantiate his claim. There are several sites on the web detailing Whitehead's well documented achievements. Even "60 minutes" did a special on it some years ago. Let's give credit where it's due. We should be celebrating Gustav Whitehead this year instead of counting the seconds to this bogus Kitty Hawk celebration. I sure as hell won't be there.
AVweb responds... Dennis, I don't suppose you're any kin to ol' Gustav, are you? --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Pete
Minges
24 Jul 2001 |
AVweb's Coverage of AirVenture 2001 For the first time in years, a medical problem keeps me away from Oshkosh this year. A very sad state of affairs, mind you. Nevertheless, upon bringing up AVweb on my trusty (?) Windows-driven computer, I found current information and some great pictures to brighten the day. This is simply to tell you how much I (and, I'm sure, thousands of others) appreciate the fine efforts of you and your fellow editors in providing the next best thing to being there. |
| Ford
Cooper
23 Jul 2001 |
Do You Really Want A Twin? I enjoyed reading Mike Busch's article on AVweb titled "Do You Really Want A Twin?" I have read, and re-read the article several times. I find it VERY informative. I noticed, however, that it has not been updated in quite a while. Is an update in the works? Do you think an update is needed? Are there other factors that should be considered since the original writing? AVweb responds... Ford, the only real changes are quantitative, not qualitative.
All these changes disadvantage twins more than singles, so they simply strengthen the arguments I made in the original article. Yes, I still own and fly my Cessna T310R. And yes, I still have serious doubts about whether my next airplane (assuming there is a next airplane) will be a twin. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| James
Fallow
20 Jul 2001 |
Book Review: "Free Flight". I just read Pete Yost's review of my book ("Free Flight: James Fallows' Vision Of General Aviation's Future"). Of the various people who have written about this, he's the one to explain my argument most clearly! Many thanks for Pete's care and fair-mindedness. |
| Mark
Krotz
19 Jul 2001 |
Stadium Encroaches on PHX Airspace AVweb wrote:
Pretty interesting, eh? That the biggest instigators/backers of wanting to place this stadium in the flight path is Mayor Neil Giuliano, et al, of the City of Tempe. The same people who are always raising such a fuss about KPHX. They complain about the "noise" and demand that departure and arrival patterns be diverted around Tempe. I wonder how many of these people enjoy the convenient flights out of KPHX?
|
| Barry
Schiff
19 Jul 2001 |
LAX Class B VFR Transition Route AVweb wrote:
This news item is sorely misleading. Firstly, VFR pilots have had two transition routes through the Class B airspace surrounding LAX. One is the Special Flight Rules Area that can be used to pass over LAX at 3,500 feet (southeastbound) and 4,500 feet (northwestbound). The other route, which FAA slammed shut last year, was the Shoreline Route that allowed aircraft to pass west of LAX at 2,500 feet at any time of the day or night (with ATC approval). The new transition (also requiring ATC approval), replaces the Shoreline route but is useable only between 0900 to 1100 Monday through Friday (a total of 10 hours per week). The new transition route is clearly a case of moving one step forward after having been forced to take 10 steps back. This is a blow to general aviation, not an improvement. Furthermore, a new provision will allow IFR aircraft to fly through the previously VFR-only SFRA. This is simply adding a hazardous mix to a "corridor" that has been operating free of incident since its inception. If there are any NMACs as a result of this new IFR provision, guess what? The SFRA will be shut down, which will effectively ban north-south VFR traffic through the Class B airspace.
AVweb responds... Barry, AVweb harshly criticized the FAA for doing this, given that the change resulted from a controller operational error on September 26, 2000, in which a FedEx Airbus A310 was cleared to 3000' instead of being restricted to 2000' and had a NMAC with a VFR aircraft properly transitioning on the shoreline route northbound at 2500'. Instead of simply dealing with the OE, the FAA chose to penalize General Aviation (who was the innocent party). According to a recent email from AOPA President Phil Boyer, the new transition route's initial operating hours are from 0900 to 1100 local time, but Boyer says that AOPA has a commitment from the FAA that these hours will be expanded as soon as Southern California TRACON controllers are trained and comfortable with the new procedures. No indication, however, how soon the expanded hours will be available, or just how expanded they will be. As a pilot who frequently transitions the LAX Class B airspace, always IFR, I couldn't agree with you more about the utter insanity of permitting ATC to route IFR aircraft through the SFRA corridor. I've had a couple of occasions where ATC stopped my climb at 4,000 (instead of the usual 6,000), and ran me right across the south end of the SFRA -- and I was NOT a happy camper. (The first time it happened, I phoned the supe at SoCal TRACON to register my displeasure. He had no sympathy whatsoever for my position, and explained quite firmly that this was absolutely SOP.) If ATC actually tried to run me THROUGH the corridor, I'd probably say "unable" and ask for a hold. I'm just not in that much of a hurry. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Byron
Blake
19 Jul 2001 |
Radar at General Aviation Airports AVweb wrote:
You're right about the lack of radar as many airfields, but don't assume that these are small fields or fields with few operations. Fort Pierce, Florida -- KFPR, a.k.a. St. Lucie County International Airport -- is one such field with a part-time tower and no radar. Ft. Pierce has mixed traffic: helo, single prop fixed wing and corporate jet. In addition, Ft. Pierce hosts a major flight training school. FPR is "close" to KSUA, KMLB and KPBI. There have been several midair accidents in or near FPR's Class D airspace. Whether they would have been prevented by tower radar is only speculation, but it sure couldn't hurt.
AVweb responds... Byron, as for whether those midairs could have been prevented by tower radar being "only speculation," the NTSB doesn't seem to think so. In the Board's Safety Recommendation to the FAA, it says in reference to a Fort Pierce midair:
In reference Waukegan, Ill., the NTSB says:
Sure, it's speculative in the sense that we can't know what would really have happened ... maybe even with a radar display, the controller might have missed the call somehow. But the NTSB made it pretty clear that a radar display would have made the collisions much less likely. --Mary Grady, Senior News Editor |
| Alan
Young
19 Jul 2001 |
Northwest EAA Fly-In It's certainly not hard to notice all the attention you pour on EAA AirVenture 2001 in Oshkosh week in and week out, but I was a bit dismayed over not seeing a single article in any of your past several weeks mailings concerning the recently finished Northwest EAA Fly-In 2001. I think you have the "Out of sight-Out of mind" syndrome for the Pacific Northwest. Here's a link in case you may want to get interested for next year: http://www.nweaa.org/
|
| Paul
Pillar
19 Jul 2001 |
Judson Brohmer One of the crewmembers killed in the F-16B crash at Edwards was famed aviation photographer Judson Brohmer. Judson worked at the AFFTC for years; his body of photographic work is enormous and has graced the cover of Aviation Week and other magazines repeatedly. HI brought us some amazing photos over the years with his remarkable talent. I flew with him often during my time at Edwards...he loved to fly, and always wore a huge smile...
|
| Don
Frame
19 Jul 2001 |
Runway Incursions I think that a part of the runway incursion problem is the piss poor airport diagrams most of us are working with. This is, in turn related to the fact that good data is very, and recurrently, expensive. This (stay with me) is in part related to the fact that there are hundreds of ABSOLUTELY PETTY changes made to that data all the bleeding time. Most of these changes could be safely made at six-month intervals, not two weeks, which would greatly reduce the cost of our data, and perhaps make it more common for people to have first rate (Jepp-quality) material. I would love to see the FAA or NOS or whoever realize that the most of the stuff that is changed could wait. I think there would be an improvement in the lives of pilots, safety (small and unquantifiable), and certainly a great drop is the cost of using current first-rate material. |
| Mark
Houston
19 Jul 2001 |
Dole Philippines Agplane Incident AVweb wrote:
Ag flying does not feature highly with your news but when it does it should be treated with the respect it deserves. The aircraft involved with the Dole operation sounds like an Ayres Turbo Thrush which is a heavy single turbine (PT6 or Garrett) aircraft and is a valuable work tool in producing food for you and me. Careful research and journalistic integrity might raise the perception of ag operations up to where they belong, not as an aerial cowboy show as some folk are keen to portray us. More articles on the aircraft and people in this great industry would be appreciated. AVweb responds... Mark, I appreciate your comments. I thought you might be interested to know that my OTHER job as a writer is very heavily involved in agriculture. I wrote the AVweb story you're referencing, and I can assure you that I meant no disrespect to agricultural aviation. I was simply taking a swipe at an idiot who deserves it. Anybody who would threaten to kamikaze a plane into a building, potentially killing a bunch of people, doesn't deserve any respect in my opinion. The only reason we don't cover more stories about agricultural aviation is simply because that segment is a very small percentage of our audience. However, that doesn't mean we won't cover them. If you have any ideas for stories you think we should cover, please let us know. --Brenda Carol, AVweb News |
| Tim
Olson
18 Jul 2001 |
Carbon Monoxide Detectors I read Mike Busch's great AVweb article ("Carbon Monoxide Detectors for Aircraft Use") in which he recommended the AIM 935 digital detector, and was just starting to think that soon was going to be the time to buy one for the Fall season. Now I see that he's revised his recommendation and now recommends the Senco Model ONE ...with almost the exact same wording. Are these made by the same company, or what's the story?
AVweb responds... Tim, I don't blame you for being confused. Here's the story: AIM Safety (a Vancouver, Canada, firm) was acquired about a year ago by Int'l Sensor Technology (a New York firm), who apparently bought AIM for its sensor patents. On June 1, 2001, IST announced (with no advanced notice whatsoever) that it was withdrawing from the consumer market effective immediately, and this included terminating production of the AIM model 696 and 935 CO detectors. Actually, it was just as well. From the time that IST took over AIM, the quality of the AIM 636 and 935 units headed rapidly downhill, to the point that by the time production was terminated, the damn things were failing new right out of the box! <sigh> The CO detector I now recommend for aviation use is manufactured by another Vancouver company, Senco Sensors. It's the Senco Model ONE, and specifically the version Senco manufactures for the European market under British standards which permit it to display CO concentrations down to 10 PPM. (Sendo also makes a UL-approved version of the Model ONE for the U.S. market, but that one is "blinded" below 30 PPM due to the requirements of UL-2034-1998.) You can purchase the "sensitive" (European) version of the Senco Model ONE online from Aeromedix.com. The price is $74.95. The Senco unit is considerably smaller than the AIM 696 and 935 devices, and so easier to mount in an aircraft. Its digital display is also larger and therefore somewhat easier to read. It uses a replaceable 9-volt alkaline battery that should be changed annually. The sensor itself is designed to last six years, and Senco provides a six-year free replacement warranty. The only significant area in which I feel the Senco falls short of the now-discontinued AIM product is that it lacks the AIM's sensor self-test capability. AIM holds the patent on this, and it's apparently a big part of why IST acquired AIM. Since IST pulled out of the consumer business, there is no longer any inexpensive CO detector with a self-testing sensor. The Senco does, however, provide a sensor test mode that permits you to manually test its sensor using a cigarette, incense stick, or other known source of low-level CO. There's a fellow in Missouri who is trying to acquire rights to the AIM 696 and 935 from IST and put the units back into production, but at this point there's no way of knowing whether or not that will happen. At this point, I'd say the odds are no better than 50-50 of that happening. Even if it does, I'd be reluctant to re-recommend the AIM units until the new outfit has been producing them long enough to establish some sort of reliability track record. What was your question again? <g> --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Paul
Mansfield
18 Jul 2001 |
If It's Ugly, It's British From the 12-July-2001 episode of the Klyde Morris cartoon strip:
UNFAIR!!!! Some of the prettiest aeroplanes (yep - check the spelling) ever made are British (mind you, I am - so I may not be entirely objective) - Spitfire, Mosquito, Comet, Concorde et al vs. GeeBee, F100, B24, Cessna 150 etc. It all started with the Wright Flyer - I guess those who saw it thought "hmm, ugly seems to fly well" and the rest, as they say, is history.... I reckon you and/or Brian Nicklas owe all British aviation enthusiasts an apology, or I'll just have to hire a Piston Provost and come and park it next to a Berkut -- that'll learn ya!!
AVweb responds... What do you expect, Paul? Klyde's an ANT, for Pete's sake! --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Robert
Chambers
18 Jul 2001 |
Earhart Mystry AVweb wrote:
Not to throw cold water on everyone's enthusiasm, but, I have lived in Tarawa Kiribati. I was flying for the local Airline. During W.W.II there was an enormous battle on the adjacent island, Batio, during that battle there were over 43,000 casualties on the ground not to mention the air battle that also occurred. It would not be that uncommon for an aircraft that has been battle damaged to crash on one of the local islands, the one in question. I have been Scuba diving in the area and you would not believe that amount of aircraft that were lost in that battle alone. For the people who relay want to know what happened to Emelia Earhard I commend their optimism, but raising all that money with the amount of battle that occurred in the area is a long shot. I truly wish them luck.
|
| C. F.
Ward
17 Jul 2001 |
T-34 AVweb wrote:
The T-34 ain’t a warbird. It's a Beech Debonair with glass hat. AVweb responds... Damning Debonairs everywhere with faint praise, this is. --Joseph E. (Jeb) Burnside, Executive Editor (and Deb owner) |
| Eric
Gravink
16 Jul 2001 |
Dealing With FAA Inspectors I have enjoyed reading the co-authored "Enforcement Survival School" articles by Eric Jaderborg and Phil Kolczynski. It is interesting to understand the same issues from two different perspectives. I wanted to get your general opinions with regard to interacting with FAA inspectors in General (i.e. prior to any violation or investigation whatsoever). Perhaps, let me step back a moment and explain where I am coming from. I am a Private Pilot with Instrument rating, A&P, and IA. I also teach a couple of aviation maintenance courses at San Jose State University, specifically, an advanced airframe course which prepares and evaluates students to take their oral and practical exams. In the lecture portion of this class, I spend considerable amount of time discussing interactions with the FAA -- when to talk to them and when not to. Each semester, I also invite one of the local inspectors to come into class and discuss the "certificate action process" and describe the events that the inspector goes through during such actions. Both of these lectures have been very well received. With respect to my advice to the students, I encourage them to work with the FAA in their day to day activities (such as advice before commencing any 337-driven activities). I use examples from my own experience, in that I use the FAA Inspector as a tool rather than an adversary. I have had occasions where I have made mistakes that the FAA was alerted to. Each time, the inspector has simply called me on the phone, told me to pull my head out and be careful next time. However, the same inspector has repeatedly violated my boss (at the time) for less severe infractions. The difference being, that he overtly fought the FAA any chance he got and, as a former colleague repeatedly states, "spits venom in their face." Using examples such as these, I advise the students to work closely with the inspectors and build a relationship of mutual respect and trust, so if a certificate action does come about, the inspector will want to find a reason not to violate you (I do want to make it clear that I do not advise them to proceed with a certificate action w/out seeking legal advice; quite the opposite in fact). To make a short story long, my question is really this: Does the interactions with the FAA as described above and my advice to my students (and future aviation professionals) make sound sense? AVweb responds... Short answer: Yes. What you're doing makes a great deal of sense. My advice is directed at a general audience. In order for that advice to be any good, I have to assume that any one of my readers may encounter any given inspector at any time. The safest course therefore is caution. Some inspectors take a harder or softer line than others, depending upon many factors. I want people to avoid the mistakes that will get them in trouble with even the hardest-line inspectors. Any inspector who values his oath will not ignore an obvious safety violation, even if the offender is a personal friend. I can tell you that I have avoided taking enforcement action against people I know would benefit from something less formal. But if I ever got a certified letter from the FAA, I'd still follow my own advice -- even in front of one of my former colleagues. I'd actually be doing him/her a favor by not giving them something they'd be forced to use against me. Their personal feelings about me don't cancel their duty to enforce the law as long as they are "riding for the brand." They can't hide what they know, or what I've told them, even if they've known me for 20 years. Also, as an inspector, I have confronted personal friends when I observed them doing something stupid. In one case, I took two people aside, individually, and said something to the effect that "if you continue to do this, and someone complains, or something bad happens, I will have no choice but to provide witness against you, no matter how much I like you. I don't want to be in that position, so please don't put me there. Stop it, now." I have to admit, I might have done something more formal if I didn't know the offenders. In fact, one of the incidents I described was exactly that type of situation. In that sense, you may be doing yourself a pragmatic favor by establishing positive relationships with FSDO personnel -- just as it might be a good idea to have a beer with the highway patrol officer that lives next door. I'd rather get a stern "pull-yer-head-out" from a friend than a 50-dollar ticket from a stranger. Inspectors absolutely love being used as a resource for things that have positive potential. Most get tired of being thought of only as a "black hat." Many of them have extensive industry experience that they like to talk about. Use it. I'd suggest you bring them around for more than the semi-annual "enforcement lecture." They know a great deal about certification and compliance techniques, regulations, and safety procedures -- and are usually happy to share what they look for on an inspection, a checkride, etc. I spent many hours at safety meetings, and I can tell you that I'd a hundred times rather do that than work a case against someone. Also, the more you pick their brains, the more you'll learn how they think; how they're likely to look at a situation. That would be worthwhile information, wouldn't it? Most of them have picked over dozens of accidents, and can tell you scores of details that might save a life someday. What a waste it would be if the public didn't use that. Finally, you probably have friends that think you're crazy for inviting the FAA into your midst -- otherwise you wouldn't be asking about this. Well, you don't let other people pick your friends for you -- don't let them pick your enemies, either. On the other hand, if you shot your wife and buried her under the rose bushes, you wouldn't discuss it over a beer with your neighbor, the cop. As long as you don't invite someone to violate you, you'll be fine. Thanks for writing, and thanks for reading! --Eric Jaderborg, ATP/CFI and ex-FAA Operations Inspector |
| Greg
Lee
16 Jul 2001 |
Pulse Oximeter Accuracy My sister-in-law bought a Nonin Onyx from Aeromedix.com after reading Mike Busch's AVweb review article. We compared it with a Nellcore N-20 at the local hospital and discovered that the Onxy read about three percentage points low. Any thoughts on the discrepancy, which is larger than you got in your tests? AVweb responds... Greg,Nonin's spec sheet lists the accuracy of both its Model 9500 "Onyx" (FDA-approved and sold by prescription only for medical use) and its essencially identical "FlightStat" (sold without a prescription for aviation and non-medical use) as:
By contrast, Nonin lists the accuracy of its hospital-grade tabletop Model 8600 monitor as:
which for all intents and purposes is identical to the FlightStat/Onyx spec. I believe you'll find that other hospital-grade pulse oximeters have similar accuracy specs. If two pulse oximeters are each rated as having accuracy within ±2% of full-scale (i.e., ±2 percentage points), then readings that differ by 3 percentage points would be possible with both oximeters performing well within their rated tolerance (e.g., one 1.5% high and the other 1.5% low). My own comparison testing did not yield discrepancies quite that large, but they're not out of tolerance. Pulse oximetry is necessarily an approximation. The results can vary by a couple of percentage points from the O2 saturation results from an invasive arterial blood gas (ABG) analysis. In fact, it's not unusual for the pulse ox SpO2 reading to vary a bit from one finger to another on the same patient. That's one of the reasons that Dr. Blue always recommends using the user's normal home SpO2 reading as a baseline for comparison, rather than some specific percentage value. For example, for aviation use, he recommends that supplemental oxygen be used to maintain an in-flight SpO2 level no lower than 10 points below the user's normal home SpO2 reading -- for optimum performance (especially at night), he suggests a level no lower than 5 points below the normal home reading. Such a procedure eliminates concern about oximeter calibration errors and differences between individuals. For maximum accuracy, Nonin does offer a pulse oximeter calibration device -- essentially a "dummy finger" that can be used to check pulse ox accuracy -- but typically such devices are purchased only by hospitals and large clinics that have large numbers of oximeters to test. You might check with your local hospital and see if they have such a device and would be willing to let you use it to create a "correction card" for your Onyx. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Jason
Fournier
16 Jul 2001 |
Electric Airplanes AVweb wrote:
Kudos to Mr. Dunn and others working to further much more efficient fuel cells for aircraft! It gives a whole new meaning to "plugging in your plane for the night." Is there a web site for his work? Perhaps Joe could do a profile on him. I envision a day not too many decades away when most of our inefficient internal combustion engines are replaced by more efficient electrical motors. (I wonder what the cockpit would sound like?)
AVweb responds... Advanced Technology Products has a web site at http://www.startstick.com/, but at present it makes no mention of the electric airplane demo planned for AirVenture 2001. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Boris
Robinson
16 Jul 2001 |
Electric Airplanes Regarding your story about the electric airplane, check out this site:
This company has developed (and is flying with) a very small 57 hp electric engine for their motor glider. The glider is top notch with an l/d of 56:1 with 20 meter span. |
| Mario
von Allmen
16 Jul 2001 |
Electric Airplanes I would like to pay your attention to the fact that there have been in Europe already a couple of electric powered airplanes -- at least three different ones come to my mind (all single-seaters, more sailplane-like), powered by batteries and solar cells -- in the last five years or so.
|
| Laird
Owens
16 Jul 2001 |
Electric Airplanes In regards to your story in this weeks AVflash about the "world's first electric airplane", you might find the following article about the Helios Solar (electric) powered UAV (Unmanned Air Vehicle) interesting. AeroVironment has been in the business of building and flying "Electric" airplanes for many years. It started with the human powered airplanes in the 70's and progressed to man carrying solar powered aircraft in the 80's. This company was started by Dr. Paul McCready. AeroVironment's Pathfinder Plus Solar powered UAV flew to an altitude of 80,200 (a record for propeller driven aircraft) in 1998, and Saturdays flight of Helios (it's first flight using solar power) flew to 76,271 feet. Helios will be attempting to fly to 100,000 feet next month. After that, it will be brought back to Simi Valley, California to be upgraded with Fuel Cells and Electrolyzers to allow it to fly, at first, for several days at a time. It is hoped that it will be able to fly for months at a time when the systems have matured.
|
| Harry
Roussard
16 Jul 2001 |
Electric Airplanes I understand there is an electric driven aircraft flying in Reid Hillview ( Calif.). The aircraft is (I believe) a Piper Cub. I saw it flying more than five years ago. |
| Avid
Sakrison
16 Jul 2001 |
The Wright Flyer Project Regarding last week's story on the Wright Flyer that "cannot fly." What a crock! The Wright Flyer Project doesn't appear to consider even the possibility that its modern-day calculations are wrong. The original Wright Flyer's design came out of dozens of successful manned and unmanned glider flights and out of very careful calculations, wind tunnel observations, and test flights. The Flyer stalled and nosed over on its first trial (Dec 14, 1903), then flew four times on December 17 without a mishap, in flights ranging from 12 seconds to 59 seconds. A gust of wind destroyed the airplane on the ground, presumably the same 27 mph wind that got it airborne in the first place that day. The next year (1904) Wrights built two new aircraft based on the original design and flew many more times at Huffman Prairie near Dayton. Those flights were not without mishap but it must be remembered that the brothers were teaching themselves how to fly and how to build a practical flying machine--at the same time. Much of their work was done in secret, to protect it from rivals. Piecing together what the Wrights knew and how they knew it is the principal and overriding task of anyone who would recreate their success--and the greatest challenge. Clearly, the Wright Flyer Project has so far failed in that regard. To cover its tracks by claiming that the Flyer "should never have flown" is to deny history and abandon historical integrity. If their computer model cannot "fly," the simulation is flawed where the Wright brothers' Flyer was not. The Wrights were methodical experimenters and self-taught engineers. It was their painstaking attention to detail and their imaginative and methodical approach to the unsolved problems that allowed them to succeed. Luck (and timing) played a part but their success was no accident. Their Flyer did fly--not once but several times. So far, the Wright Flyer Project has only a computer simulation which it says "cannot fly." Whose experiment and whose version of history do you trust?
|
| Charlie
Radford
16 Jul 2001 |
Electric Airplanes Sorry, they are about 20 years too late! The first electric powered man carrying planes were developed by Bob Boucher and Paul MacCready. In late 1979 Dupont sponsored Dr. Paul MacCready to attempt a man carrying solar plane. The first flight of the Gossamer Penguin on solar power took place on May 16, 1980 at Shafter CA . The Penguin was powered by the very same 600 watt solar panel that had been used on Sunrise II and a production version Astro Cobalt 40 motor. A three stage transmission using belts and bicycle chainsturned an 11 foot propeller at 120 RPM, while the motor turnedabout 15,000 RPM. The Dupont Solar Challenger That fall Dupont agreed to sponsor a solar plane that would cross the English Channel. Thus the Solar Challenger was born. This was a much more ambitious project. It took the crew at Astro almost three months to build the solar panels containing 16,128 cells and capable of delivering over 4000 Watts at altitude and 2500 Watts at sea level. Astro developed a 31/2 horsepower motor and built a 22:1 belt reduction unit. The Astro motor turned at 9000RPM and the prop turned at about 400 RPM. On July 7, 1981 with pilot Steve Ptacek at the controls the Dupont Solar Challenger made its historic flight from Pointoise France to Manston RAF base in Kent England. The URL for Astro Flight, Inc. is: http://www.astroflight.com/whoarewe.html |
| Karl-Erik
Gutenwik
16 Jul 2001 |
Electric Airplanes Don't forget at least a couple of German gliders with electrical power. |
| David
Bogart
16 Jul 2001 |
Lt. Shane Osborne Publicity I'm sure Lt. Shane Osborne is a formidable aviator and fine human being, but I'm also sure there was a copilot and flight engineer on board the crippled EP-3, and they most likely provided considerable help in getting the airplane down after the Chinese fighter rammed it. It bothers me that these guys are getting no credit for their contribution. If the Navy brass intends to groom Lt. Osborne for higher rank, that's fine, but he had some help and that should be acknowledged, and its a shame that the press, certainly the aviation specialty press, has not done that. How about breaking ranks with the herd and printing these guys' names with a "well done" of their own? |
| Stephen
Thomas
13 Jul 2001 |
Future of Hawthorne (Calif.) Airport I read another letter to AVweb suggesting that there is some justification to adding yet another shopping center in Hawthorne, in place of the airport. I base my aircraft at Hawthorne. I work in the South Bay area of greater Los Angeles and have for a number of years. I am highly familiar with the area. Let me disabuse anyone of the notion that more retail centers are needed in this area. Perhaps the Hawthorne city fathers perceive a need, but just because they want to generate tax revenue doesn't mean the people will patronize the stores (if you build it, they might not come), especially when there are all ready so many other options. Just west of Hawthorne airport (less than a mile), in fact the voluntary noise abatement limit for turning crosswind, is Hawthorne Boulevard. If you've never had the pleasure of driving down Hawthorne Boulevard, let me clue you in. It's a strip about 5ish miles long between the 105 freeway and the 405 freeway that is NOTHING BUT retail stores and restaurants. This is also the site of the defunct and vacant Hawthorne mall (testament to the need for more retail). Lest anyone think that this is just an anomaly in a sea of otherwise residential neighborhoods, there is also east-west running El Segundo Boulevard and about a mile south Rosecrans Boulevard both, also with a number of retail stores and commercial businesses. On Rosecrans, adjacent to the 405 freeway, there's a large shopping center that is all ready home to a Toys R Us, Home Depot, Best Buys (a large consumer electronics store) a large chain office supply store, a number of retail clothing stores and numerous other smaller stores. I believe just further west and still within the Hawthorne city limit is another budding retail area that all ready has a Costco and plenty of open space for more. Of course that's only within Hawthorne, that's not to mention the retail areas just to the north in Inglewood along Imperial Highway to the south in Lawndale and Gardena and huge amounts of retail stores to the west in Manhattan Beach along Sepulveda Boulevard and Rosecrans. This is all within about a 5 mile radius of Hawthorne Airport and just what I'm familiar with. I might add that there are two shopping malls, within another 10 miles to the south, inluding the very well appointed and popular Del Amo Fashion Center (a mall) in Torrance. Are we starting to get the idea how much another retail area is NEEDED? This is all within a 15 minute drive from the airport even in horrible rush hour traffic! So the other author asked if we pilots at Hawthorne would work with them to find one or more alternates that will work as well. Hmmm, why? I have a perfectly good airport, 10 minutes drive in rush hour from where I and many of the other pilots and aircraft owners work and a convenient reliever, base for a number of aviation related businesses (could be more if the city didn't discourage them), an airport that the majority of Hawthorne residents actually support, and a unique attraction for a city that otherwise would be, quite frankly, another run down, economically depressed cookie cutter suburb of Los Angeles with no attraction for the "rich boys with thier toys" that seem to be so vilified, yet bring dollars to the local economy. An airport I might add that the City of Hawthorne has eagerly accepted YOUR tax dollars to keep running (thru the FAA improvement dollars) with a CONTRACT with the FAA to keep the airport open at least until 2011. There are also encumbrances on land on which at least part of the airport is located that legally cannot be converted to other uses. Other factors are the somewhat historical status of the field, and also the potential environmental issues of converting this former Northrop, defense plant to other uses (Burbank vs. Lockheed and the L.A. Belmont school would be local examples of this type of mess). Let me disabuse everyone of another misconception while up on my soapbox. The rich boys hang out with their A36s and Malibus up at Santa Monica and Van Nuys. The profile of most of the aircraft owners and pilots I know at Hawthorne is much more middle class. Many of us work in the aerospace or aviation industry in the South Bay area. We have worked hard and have carved out precious resources to be able to afford our passion of flying. We like the community and the people at HHR, which for being in the middle of one of the most urban areas of the world is remarkably friendly and neighborly. We fly for recreation, travel, business, philanthropic endeavors, or just challenging ourselves with the next rating. The proximity of the airport to our jobs means we can maintain our aircraft and fly after work, when commuting is at it's worst, often staying in the community for dinner or other reasons when we might depart off (with our dollars) to our home community perhaps MANY miles away. We're not out buzzing the neighborhood with the latest bizjet. We're trying to be very conscious of the safety and annoyance concerns of the community when we fly our Cessnas and Pipers etc to where ever we're going. We're also quick to have a discussion with anyone who jeapordizes our tenuous status with the community and let them know what the preferred procedures are. I don't think any of this qualifies us as a group of bratty rich boys for whom this will be a minor inconvenience. I might add one more point for the city fathers of Hawthorne to keep in mind (if they're listening). The Class Delta airspace at Hawthorne and all the natty little Cessnas flying around have a very big impact in keeping the community QUIET. It keeps the LAX in and outbound jets from overflying the community. The boundary of the LAX Class Bravo airspace is less than a quarter mile north of the airport along the 105 freeway. Just north of that is the approach path on the ILS to 25L at LAX. If HHR goes away, I guarantee that they'll be routing the aircraft more over Hawthorne for certain operations, especially when runways 6 and 7 operations are in effect at LAX. As for me personally, if they close down HHR for yet another mall, I can guarantee you I'll never set foot in the mall, and my airplane and the discretionary dollars spent around it will be in El Monte, the closest airport that I can afford to live at. |
| John
Danforth
12 Jul 2002 |
Runway Incursions I wrote a proposal that was published in AVweb but was dismissed flippantly without giving consideration to its merits. I will repeat it here. Our street signage system is set up so that as you approach an intersection, you can see; a) what street you are approaching, and b) what street you are on. This is done by placing signs with the name of the streets at the corner, with the sign that names the street being placed so that it is aligned parallel with the street. If we put similar signs at all intersections on an airport, nobody need be lost. Nobody need be disoriented. And there would be no question what taxiway or runway you are about to bumble on to. It is idiotic to have different rules for the design of signage between streets and taxiways, other than height restrictions. At Detroit City Airport, where I am based, the signage is all modern. But as you approach any given intersection, you cannot tell at a glance which taxiway or runway you are on, or what the upcoming crossing pavement is, unless it is a runway. I think my idea is worthy of further thought, rather than being lightly dismissed, as it was by Mike Busch, who apparently doesn't understand the rules for street signage. The whole point is, if the signs show you where you are and what the cross street is, you will not be likely to commit an incursion unless you misunderstand your taxi instructions. Do I really need to back this idea up with a web page full of pictures? Is it that hard to understand? The whole idea could be implemented with a minimum of expense (I'm sure they can swell the budget, but hey, they're only street signs).
AVweb responds... John, I'm sorry you considered my dismissal of your idea "flippant." It was not. I've given this matter considerable thought. I happen to believe that your idea is seriously flawed. If you feel insulted because I don't agree with you, then that's your problem, not mine. In my opinion, the current FAA-standard signage used at airports is very well thought out, very easy to understand, and infinitely superior to the "street sign" model that you propose. I say this having had a good deal of experience using both airport signs at both small airports and at many of the largest and busiest airports in the country (including BOS, JFK, DCA, IAD, MIA, DFW, LAX and SFO), and even more experience using street signs while driving in numerous communities, both large and small. The problem with street signs (at least the ones I'm familiar with from NYC to LA) is that they display the street you're about to cross quite well, but make it difficult to tell what street you're on until you are abeam the sign and can read it out the side window. FAA-standard airport signs are far superior, in my view, because every sign at every intersection tells you BOTH what taxiway or runway you're on (in large yellow letters on a black background) AND what taxiway or runway you're about to cross (in large black letters on a yellow background if there's no hold-short line, or large white letters on a red background if there is). The FAA-standard signs do so in a manner that's easily readable long before you reach the intersection. Unlike street signs, FAA-standard airport signs are far larger and more legible, are color-coded so that their meaning is unmistakable, and are totally standardized throughout the country. If you're not completely comfortable with the FAA standards for airport signage, may I recommend AVweb's Brainteaser #5 interactive quiz? Street sign designers would do well to take a page from the FAA's book, not vice-versa. At least that's how I see it (both literally and figuratively). I'm not saying that all airports have perfectly unambiguous signage, but in my experience most have signage that is more than adequate. In my carefully considered opinion, the runway incursion problem cannot be rationally blamed on inadequate airport signage standards -- the real fault lies with pilots who don't read the signs and/or mishear or misunderstand their taxi clearances (and occasionally with controllers who issue unclear or otherwise defective taxi clearances). If you consider this a flippant rejection rather than a thoughtful response, that's too bad. One of the risks of writing a letter to the editor is that the editor may choose to respond ... and perhaps even disagree. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Danny
Smith
12 Jul 2001 |
LASIK Surgery and Monovision Dr. Brent Blue's article on LASIK was very informative. I am currently being screened for LASIK. I have worn hard contacts for about 30 years, so my vision has not stabilized yet. I have been back in glasses for about six weeks and been tested for prescription several times. They want my vision to be stable before doing the surgery. They say I am a good candidate but that one needs to wait about 4 weeks for every decade they were in hard contacts. It can take that long for the eyes to go back to their natural state. I am 47 and use reading glasses, but like Dr. Blue, I can read without them but it is uncomfortable. Eventually, after healing from surgery, I would like to pass a second-class physical. My question is, if Dr. Blue had it to do over again, would he let them do monovision? AVweb responds... Danny, monovision to me seemed like a compromise I did not want to pursue. I like being 20-20 without glasses for distant vision and figure that I can live with reading glasses. (I buy them online by the dozen!) One good thing about monovision LASIK, however, is that you can try it and if it does not work out for you, you can always go back and convert it to regular correction. (It's only money!) --Brent Blue M.D., Senior AME, Aviation Medicine Editor |
| Scott
Winn
12 Jul 2001 |
Becoming an A&P Mechanic I am a Software Engineer, and a Student Pilot with a passion for flying. I am also very interested in obtaining my A&P, however I haven't been able to find very much information about the process. Almost everyone I have talked to indicates that it isn't really possible unless I'm willing to work full time at an apprenticeship. I can't do that without giving up my computer career (which I am not willing to do). My goal is to build my own experimental, complex, high-performance airplane. I know that it is going to take me many years to accomplish and it is even going to be a few before I am able to start. However, the process of learning, building and being creative is really what attracts me to the task. In the meantime, I'd love to get FAA A&P certification. My question is if you can recommend a good resource for gathering information for obtaining an A&P without having to commit to it as a career. I'd like to approach it like I did my private; large amounts of self-study combined with the proper required training. This enables me to be more prepared to know what to ask, and have an idea of what things I don't know when I am paying for instruction. AVweb responds... Scott, I happen to be right in the process of earning my own A&P ticket right now (I'm shooting to have my certificate by Fall), and am quite up-to-speed on the requirements and procedure. Earning an A&P certificate is essentially a three-step process: Step One -- Meet the experience requirements of FAR 65.77:
The FAA interprets the 18- and 30-month requirements as meaning full-time employment as a mechanic. For part-time wrench swingers like me, the experience requirement may be met by documenting an equivalent number of hours of maintenance experience, based on 160 hours per equivalent month. So for the A&P ratings, you have to document 30 x 160 or 4,800 hours of experience. This interpretation is spelled out in the FAA Aviation Safety Inspector's Handbook (Order 8300.10, Chapter 22, Paragraph 7) which reads:
Step Two -- Take and pass the knowledge tests: Once the FAA has signed off on your experience, the next step is to take the three knowledge tests (formerly known as written tests, but now administered by computer): AMT General, AMT Airframe, and AMT Powerplant. There are excellent study guides available to help you prepare for these tests. (I'm studying for these exams right now, and hope to take them in two or three weeks). Step Three -- Take and pass the practical exam: After you've passed the three knowledge tests, the final step is to take the oral and practical test with a Designated Mechanic Examiner (DME), who is the AMT equivalent of a Designated Pilot Examiner (DPE). I've not been through this ordeal yet, but I understand that it's typically a full-day affair (or more) during which the DME grills you with all sorts of questions and asks you to demonstrate a variety of mechanical skills. I'm looking forward (with some trepidation) to going through this myself in a month or two. Michael Maya Charles has been there and done that, of course, and I'm sure he can fill you in on what's involved (see below). In my case, I've been doing virtually all the maintenance on my Cessna T310R for the past 13 years. During that period of time, I've taken off one month a year (typically March) to work full-time on the airplane during the annual inspection, logging an average of 200 hours per year for that alone. The rest of the year, I do oil changes, spark plug maintenance, and miscellaneous maintenance as required, averaging perhaps 8 or 10 hours a month. Even all that was not sufficient to meet the 4,800-hour requirement, but fortunately the FAA was also willing to include the time I spent as a Cessna Pilots Association "tech rep" assisting other Cessna owners with their maintenance problems, plus the time I spent teaching maintenance-oriented courses and writing maintenance-oriented articles, and even the time I spent attending maintenance training courses myself (such as the week-long class I attended last Fall at the Teledyne Continental Motors factory in Mobile). The FAA will credit hours spent building an experimental airplane toward the required experience of FAR 65.77. But keep in mind that even a Lancair IV-P (the most complex kitplane I can think of) is rated at "only" about 1,800 build hours, Even if you double that figure, you still fall well short of the 4,800-hour experience requirement for the A&P. The bottom line is that while it's definitely possible to earn an A&P "the hard way" without attending an approved A&P school, it takes a very long time to amass the required hours. One possibility worth considering is trying to find an approved night school A&P course that would permit you to take approved training while continuing your day job. My good friend John Frank (executive director of Cessna Pilots Association) earned his A&P that way many years ago. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief (and soon-to-be A&P, I hope!) Yes, the hours to get a mechanic's license are many, and it will take you years to do it part time, but these are great skills to have. One of my earliest mentors, who started me (at age 15) in his shop told me a month ago, just before he died, "I think every pilot ought to have an A&P." He's right, as always. I'll pass along what the manager of the FSDO told me when I met with him to determine how to get my A&P. "Study the books, including 43.13, and the Jeppesen mechanic book -- they're excellent. Then go to one of the 'quickie schools' and knock out that written in a few days." His advice was excellent. With our busy schedules, it's hard to find time to study enough to be properly prepared for the FAA Knowledge exams. I would do that again -- if I had to take the writtens. They're not easy, and like most FAA exams, often don't have as much relevance as they should. Mike's right: The practical test is a FULL day affair and you will be asked A LOT of questions. Every mechanic examiner is different, but mine asked me questions designed to get a little deeper than the "textbook answer." He really wanted to know if I had my head screwed on straight, a quality that every mechanic should have. In my many 30+ years of taking FAA orals, I would say that this one was the toughest, hands down. But when I walked out of there with that new certificate in my back pocket, I knew that I had EARNED the right to call myself an A&P. It ain't easy getting this license -- but then, would you want it to be? If all this appeals to you, and we haven't scared you away, then we'll quietly cheer you on from the sidelines. If you simply want to know more about this mechanical stuff in which you trust you life, you can get the mechanics books from Jeppesen or one of the other textbook makers, and get a copy of the FAA bible, AC43.13XX and learn a ton. You might also consider the "Repairman's Certificate," awarded by the FAA after showing proof of work performed on a homebuilt aircraft. Good luck! And let us know what you decide. --Michael Maya Charles, 2562776 A&P |
| Steven
Bussolari
12 Jul 2001 |
Largest Homebuilt Aircraft? AVweb wrote:
The Daedalus human powered airplane, a "homebuilt" constructed at MIT, had a wingspan of approximately 112 feet, which would appear to be somewhat larger than the Vickers Vimy biplane you refer to in your article. AVweb responds... Considerably larger, but considerably lighter. In any case, our story said "Vimy supporters claim..." --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| David
Reinhart
12 Jul 2001 |
Lancair's Columbia 400: Looking For Higher For some reason I've been reluctant to voice my opinions about Windows NT as the operating system for real-time control applications but now that the dam has opened I'll jump in. There is no way on God's green earth or blue sky that I will fly in actual IFR in an aircraft using NT to run the glass panel, at least not without a full set of backup steam gauges. I manage a QE environment (which includes just about every major operating system there is) for a major software developer and NT is, in many ways, the least stable OS we have. Not to mention the fact that changes in one of their service packs made our product crash faster than you can say "blue screen of death". I have one Hewlett-Packard HP-UX (a UNIX variant) server out in my lab that hasn't crashed or been rebooted in 318 days. That kind of dependability is unheard of from NT. Yes, with only the one application running there is much less worry about in terms of resource constraints, code being stepped on by other apps, etc., causing a crash but I still don't like the odds. The local cable company carries NASA TV during shuttle missions and I was amazed to hear one of the astronauts discussing a problem with a laptop running Windows. They were trying to resolve a serial port conflict on orbit! This is software you want to be your life on? |
| Norm
Winningstad
11 Jul 2001 |
Lap Around Oregon AVweb wrote:
The Monday, 9 July News Briefs mentioned a flight for charity that landed at "all 96 public-use airports in Oregon....taking 33 hours and covering 2822 nautical miles...." Needless to say, I am most pleased that they raised over $10,000 for charity. But their record either never happened, or was beaten immediately (*_*) depending on when their flight took place. Together with David Swan, we flew "Tour Oregon", covering the 96 public use airports (same as their claimed 96) PLUS a public-use heliport (the downtown Portland Heliport, 61J.) I say "never happened" if they did it after we did; we flew starting after lunch Friday, 15 June, from Hillsboro (KHIO) and finished after lunch Monday, 18 June, at KHIO. If they flew before we did, then we beat their record on two basis, we flew one more airport and one more heliport, and we did it in 28:32 hours rotors-in-motion. We did it with an Agusta 109A MkII helicopter, since I calculated that there was considerable savings in time over a stiff-wing by the helicopter's ability to come to a full stop, and then take off without having to back-taxi for take-off after the roll-out, and we could depart virtually on course. If we saved 3 minutes per airport, that would be about 5 hours saved. I also calculated that we would give back 4 hours, due to an airplane not needing to refuel so often. As it turns out, we did one more airport and heliport, and did it 4.5 hours faster (the Agusta cruises at 150 knots, a BIG help!) Planning was the big part of the trip. I spent a couple of months with EXCEL charts, and, with the special all Oregon-on-one-side airmaps, furnished by Gerald (Jerry) Eames of the Oregon Department of Aeronautics. I worked out the necessary Jet-A sites, and the places to spend the night and eat lunch. The helicopter flew flawlessly for the whole 2,632 nautical miles (we can fly a VERY tight pattern, and used GPS navigation for a savings in miles flown); in fact, our only problem was the total mechanical failure of my zipper tab (^_~)
|
| Gerald
Torres
09 Jul 2001 |
Decomissioned Military Bases and Air Traffic Congestion I was wondering why the major airlines don't use some of our civilian converted military air bases. I know of a big beautiful air base in southern California, Southern California Logistical Airport. (Formally George Air Force Base.) Some of the largest aircraft in the world fly in and out with cargo, but there are very few flights there. All of the traffic fly in/out over the desert. No noise problem! Couldn't American, Delta, Southwest put a hub there? AVweb responds... Some of the decommissioned military bases (e.g., El Toro) are perfectly near population centers to make them ideal sites for major air carrier hubs. The local NIMBY-minded residents fight tooth and nail to prevent that from happening, despite the fact that civilian operations will make lots less noise than the military ones did. (NIMBY = "not in my back yard") Other decommissioned military bases (e.g., George) are far from population centers and lack the infrastructure to permit large numbers of people to get to and from the airport conveniently. American, Delta and Southwest could certainly throw a big party there, but most likely nobody would come. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Rick.
Climie
09 Jul 2001 |
Wright Flyer Engineers AVweb wrote:
This story about the "Wright Flyer simulator" raises another question: Are these aeronautical engineers in some way related to those who "proved" the bee could not fly? Undoubtedly flying Wright's first machine was difficult, especially since the design featured canard. However, it is even more difficult to get all the minute and subtle details properly incorporated into any simulator. Also, others have surely build and flown copies of Wright Flyer. AVweb responds... And even the most faithful simulators are substantially more difficult to fly than the actual airplane. Ask anyone who does regular recurrent simulator training. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Joe
Kenney
09 Jul 2001 |
Grand Teton & Yellowstone Man! I'm glad you're finally doing something to get the word out about Craig Thomas' proposal to ban helicopter and fixed-wing tours over Yellowstone and Grand Teton parks. I've tried to talk with Thomas, and he's completely unwilling to listen or even consider that he's wrong. I have a radio talk show and was interviewing him about this very bill and he got about half nasty and suggested that I didn't know what I was talking about. He even suggested that scenic flights weren't allowed at other national parks, but got very quiet when I handed him a copy of the new regs for the Grand Canyon. This is the senator who is in favor of snowmobiling in Yellowstone, but opposed to flying over Yellowstone. How's that for inconsistency?
|
| Victor
Arzuaga
09 Jul 2001 |
Dual Vacuum Systems For an aircraft to be certified IFR, does it require a backup vacuum system? I heard rumors but haven't seen any documentation to clarify.
AVweb responds... In the U.S., thousands of airplanes operate safely under IFR everyday without a backup vacuum system or any other secondary means to power their gyros. There is no regulatory requirement for a backup system to power gyros in newly designed or certificated airplanes operated under IFR. --Joseph E. (Jeb) Burnside, Executive Editor |
| Julie
Stewart
9 Jul 2001 |
Temporary Flight Restrictions I'd like to remind pilots that fire season is upon us and it is wise to consult NOTAMs for Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFR's) and to also stay away from any smoke (at least 5 NM and report to your local FSS). Fire fighting aircraft may already be on the scene. I was the Airspace Coordinator for the wildfires in Florida in 1998 and led a team of 13 Airspace Coordinators during last years fire season (where one of our TFR's in Montana/Idaho was 20% larger than the state of Delaware). Last years fire season was three times our 10 year average. Hard to say yet what this year will bring.
|
| Bill
Harper
9 Jul 2001 |
Future of Hawthorne (Calif.) Airport In the 7/9/01 issue of AVflash at the conclusion of a short blurb on the most recent threat to Hawthorne Municipal Airport, a writer commented, "In case you haven't been to LA recently, rest assured that the locals don't *need* another shopping center". Unfortunately, I'm afraid that the writer was seriously in error. California cities desperately *need* more shopping centers and car dealerships, not to directly serve the buying public, but to finance city government. What the writer may not know is that, thanks to the consequences stemming from Proposition 13, the primary source of discretionary funding for California cities is sales tax revenues. Property taxes no longer serve as the source of funding for essential city services including police and fire protection since they are earmarked for schools and other uses by the state legislature. In a desperate attempt to get the revenues to pay for essential local services, cities all over the state of California are bending over backward to lure retail consumer sales outlets and car dealerships into their communities so that they will have sales tax revenues to cover the cost of city operations. In the days before proposition 13, properties like Hawthorne Airport were a prime target of real estate developers intent on adding still more houses to the urban landscape. Since, in those days, property taxes fueled the furnaces of city government, city councils and mayors courted caved in to the demands of large-scale home builders and even courted them when a blighted area needed to be redeveloped or the lack of new housing threatened to limit city growth. Today, people and the houses they call home are inconveniences that cause demands on city governments that they are hard pressed to satisfy. More people means more police, and more houses means more fire protection personnel and facilities. Since the property taxes can't be used to pay for the things that are demanded, city governments are reluctant to approve new residential developments. Retail sales complexes and auto dealerships now have the same attraction that housing developments once had for essentially the same reason. Sales tax now fires the furnaces that keeps California city governments powered-up, alive and well. Instead of condemning the Hawthorne city councel for looking longingly at the airport property for much needed relief, encourage pilots to work with them to find one or more alternatives that will work as well. AVweb responds... Here's an alternative: Reduce the size and cost of government, just as the California voters who passed Proposition 13 intended. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Harry
Roussard
9 Jul 2001 |
Future of Hawthorne (Calif.) Airport Did you know there is a HUGE mall about 1 mile from the Hawthorne airport near El Segundo Boulevard which was built about 25 years ago and this is totally empty and boarded up? So why building a new mall within 1 mile rather than rebuilding the one that is already there. Also, Hawthorne is not the prettiest part of the Beach Cities in Los Angeles, lots of poverty and crime. I just wonder what is happening. You should ask the Hawthorne folks about it. |
| Rex
Hardy
9 Jul 2001 |
Future of Hawthorne (Calif.) Airport Hawthorne Municipal Airport (HHR), now the target of developers of a shopping center, has a very considerable historical background dating from several years before the City of Hawthorne took it over. The field was originally built as "Northrop Field" - immediately adjacent to the factory buildings at the Northrop Company. Many notable first flights took place from the strip, including those of the P-61 Black Widow and its successor, the F-89. Thousands of production test and delivery flights were made from the strip. The big Northrop Flying Wings B-35 and B-49 made their first takeoffs there, flying thereafter to Muroc (later Edwards Air Force Base) for further testing. Several former Northrop pilots (I am proud to be one) still alive can remember the old pilot shack there and the many flights they made from that field before it became a municipal airport. I'm sure the old hangars on the South (Northrop) side of the strip still contain evidence of those WW II and early postwar years. Do they really need another shopping center? How about a memorial to Jack Northrop? |
| Alex
Pope
9 Jul 2001 |
Wright Flyer Aerodynamics The Wright Flyer had lift and thrust, it should fly. It was unstable, that does not mean it should not fly, it means the control system, (the pilot) must compensate with very active control. Just because a group of good bicycle riders cannot ride a unicycle, doesn't mean that a unicycle can't be ridden. How much time did these pilots spend with the proper training, if proper training even exists. The Wright Brothers spent a lot of time training and preparing for their flight. They had experience with earlier versions. That first successful airplane was not easy to fly. They did make a lot of changes and improvements after their success because they knew that they did not have a "good" airplane yet. Flying a good simulator should be like beating a very difficult video game. Flying a good reproduction should be a very risky venture.
|
| Ted
Saylor
9 Jul 2001 |
Lancair's Columbia 400: Looking For Higher Bill G. may rue the day he allowed NT to be used in flight-critical aircraft avionics. If one of these planes was to crash in IFR weather, you can be sure that any intelligent attorney will realize that Microsoft has one of the deepest of pockets. It will be child's play to demonstrate the "blue screen of death" (a term ANY WinNT administrator is familiar with) to the jury. What will be left out, of course, is that the aviation version is missing many of the components that make NT so complicated and crash-prone - like user installed programs. I (as a UNIX administrator and no fan of Microsoft) have confidence that the FAA has mandated through (and maybe way-beyond to cover their butt) testing to make sure the system is reliable, but I'm sure Microsoft will get sued anyway. If the EAA'ers are looking for alternatives, maybe they can get the slashdot'ers (www.slashdot.org) interested in a real-time Linux based system. |
| Sonam
Gyato
9 Jul 2001 |
Some People (Just Don't Belong in the Air) After reading Howard Fried's most recent Eye of Experience column, I have to say that I found it almost pointless and bordering on racist! Howard makes an example of this person -- making up a caricaturist name and making no doubt that we're talking about an Asian here. He busts a checkride -- does that make him worthy of mention in the article? How many white male students of Howard's have busted checkrides? Does he mention any of them? He requests that his bust be expunged from the record -- does that make him worthy of a mention in the article? I would think that others have made that request and it's their prerogative. just as it's FAA's prerogative to refuse them. Then finally Fried writes: "For the next several years, we would hear Dr. Chaing's distinctive Chinese accent on the radio as he blundered about in the IFR system in the local area." Now if I ever read a a bald-faced racist statement on paper, that's it! I'm not sure what bothers Fried more: the fact he's got a Chinese accent or that he's "blundering." The fact that he's been "blundering" around in IFR for "several years" means that he's at least competent enough to be alive until now. Many Commercial/ATP white male pilots have killed themselves in such conditions. The FAA mandates that pilots should retire on reaching 60. There ought to be a law for someone to be forced to retire from penning trash when their brain atrophies and their baser instincts are left open to bare. AVweb responds... It is quite obvious, Mr. Gyato, that you misunderstood both my meaning and my intent. There is indeed a valid point to the column, and as for racism, there isn't a racist bone in my body. With respect to the "made up" name, the gentleman's real name is quite similar. I have a high degree of respect for this man. He is a Ph.D. in math and a professor of mathematics at a large university. The fact that he is Asian has nothing to do with the problem he presented other than the fact that his language is difficult to understand. His problem was that he believed that when he met the minimum experience requirement for the rating, he was entitled to the rating, disregarding the fact that a skill requirement must also be met. The fact that he busted a checkride is not an issue. That he insisted on having the bust expunged from the record is. After being told that the bust would not be removed from his record, he wrote to the FAA headquarters demanding that it be done. This is indeed unusual. To be accused of prejudice really bothers me. One of my closest friends is a black man. And I have had several awards from the 99s International for my work with women pilots, including a plaque in the prestigious International Forest of Friendship. I'm sorry if the column offended you, but the misunderstanding is yours, not mine. No one else in the numerous responses the column generated found it to be so. --Howard J. Fried, Columnist (Eye of Experience) |
| Mike
Palmer
8 Jul 2001 |
2001 Air Race Classic The following letter was sent to those responsible for the 2001 Air Race Classic: I was flying into Williams, AZ airport two weeks ago. Our first hint of "trouble" was some gals chatting on the unicom freq of 122.8 at Williams, while we were trying to make traffic calls. From their banter, I gathered they were some kind of ground crew / race umpires, BUT 1) I doubt the FCC would be too happy about using unlicensed radios on unicom (I really don't care about that, but maybe you should) and 2) the practice of tying up 122.8 with race chatter is unsafe and extremely unprofessional. Why aren't the 99's using cheap ($40 a pair) FRS radios from Best Buy to talk between themselves? Tying up unicom with personal communication while others are trying to announce their traffic positions is going to cause an accident. [Since this letter, I've been told the FAA sanctioned this Unicom use. But that's not the FAA's bailiwick, is it?] Once on the ground, we noticed a racer flying over the field (but not over the runway) inside the pattern at or below pattern altitude at race speed. Can you think of a worse place to be (an airport traffic pattern) going fast? This is just plain stupid. This is not safe, and I wonder what the FAA would say about this? The race rule should have contestants fly 1500 AGL over the center of the airport or some such thing, far away from us innocents who are trying to fly by the rules in the pattern. The racers really ought to stay out of the airport traffic pattern if they're not landing. [Since this letter, I've been told the FAA sanctions this practice. Really? Flying at race speeds through an airport traffic pattern? At the minimum, there ought to be a NOTAM about this (there wasn't any I saw on the DUAT briefing) and if the FAA is going to allow this, then the field really ought to be NOTAM closed during the race.] Then, as we were ready for takeoff, some gal reported that she was 5 miles out, inbound to the checkpoint (or something like that), but never said what direction she was coming from, NOR did she mention what field she was at! I guess she figured that everyone in the world knew about the race, and could read her mind. As you probably know, professional pilots are supposed to announce "Williams traffic, this is Cessna XXX, 5 miles southwest of Williams, planning on yyy." Giving altitudes would be nice too. I strongly suggest the racers to use standard phraseology as outlined in the AIM. Then, if they want to add additional information, you can do that too. (Although 122.75, the multicom frequency, would be preferable for ancillary comments.) The final straw was after we departed. We heard yet another nebulous call (no airport mentioned, no direction or distance out from the airport, and no altitude or intentions given) and guessed that it must've been another of the racers coming into Williams. So I called out with our position, heading and altitude, but never heard a report back from any of the racers, only to have to dodge two of them about a minute later during climb out. As they didn't take any action at all, they apparently didn't see us. (About 1000 ft horizontal, same altitude.) Guess they were too busy with heads down looking at GPS to find the airport and too busy trying to win. The fact that they flying at race speed within an airport traffic area only makes things worse. Again, they need to stay high above the airport traffic pattern. As you can tell, I'm really ticked about this. This was the most unprofessional flying that I've witnessed in 25 years and 6000 hours. (A student pilot can be forgiven, since they don't know any better.) For an organization that is trying to show that women can fly just as well as men, this is a PR nightmare. From this experience, I and my female pilot friend (who was PIC for this flight), are convinced that 99's are lousy, unsafe, unprofessional pilots. If someone dies due to their unprofessional practice, the nightmare will be worse. Can you please wake them up? [I've since been told that the Air Race Classic (a woman's race) is not affiliated with the 99's, even though there was an announcement about the race on the 99's web site. www.ninety-nines.org/arc.htm Sounds like a liability shell to me.] AVweb responds... Mike, as far as I can tell, most of the air races are held just like this. They have checkpoints set up inbound to the airport and clock their official time at a point along the runway. All the racers are doing is what they've been instructed to do. Seems to me that your wrath should be aimed at those who write the air race rules, not those who are taking part in the races and following those rules. --Liz Swaine, AVweb News |
| Kevin
Brown
7 Jul 2001 |
Enforcement Survival School While I very much appreciate all the time and effort Eric Jaderborg and Phil Kolczynski are putting into writing their very informative "Enforcement Survival School" articles, I don't understand how exactly they're all that relevant in today's enforcement environment. The reason I say that is that the FAA has recently been given the power (by the Merrell case, as described in Phil Kolczynski's article "A Dangerous New Precedent in FAA Enforcement Law") to interpret the regulations as it sees fit on a case by case basis (in other words, no consistency between cases is required). That makes it a foregone conclusion that should your case wind up in an enforcement action, you will lose and there isn't a damned thing you can do about it. It doesn't matter how good your attorney is. It doesn't matter how strong your case is, or how weak the FAA's case is. It doesn't matter who's right. The FAA has all the power now -- they can literally say that their interpretation is that FAR XX.YY forbids an action that the court agrees you took (which could be anything, like you taking off ... you had to have done that in order to fly, right?) because of ... well, they don't have to actually give a reason, do they? The judge will have no choice but to say "okay, he's guilty" and that'll be that. So given that environment, isn't it better, safer, and easier to just admit guilt (even if you're not), express regret and great interest in remedial training or some other similar course of action, and leave the results in their hands? Aside from augmenting this with an ASRS form, what else can you do that will make any real difference at all? How can the advice you've been giving us (with the exception of how not to deal with the inspector) in these articles possibly make any difference at all? In fact, given this environment, why hire an attorney when you're just screwed regardless of what you do? I mean, you can either hire an attorney, spend boatloads of cash and perhaps take the case all the way to the NTSB only to have the judge say "yep, he's guilty" when the FAA says something to the effect of "we interpret washing the aircraft as maintenance that requires an A&P license per FAR XXX.YY, and since he doesn't have that...", or you can file the ASRS form, say "guilty as charged, I'm really sorry, I really want to learn how not to do this, please help me," forego hiring the attorney, and at least save yourself boatloads of cash. Given the two choices, and given that the outcome of the first choice will (because of Merrell) always be at least as bad as the second, what would you do? AVweb responds... Kevin, you make some good points and raise appropriate questions. I would say that if your enforcement defense case depends on an interpretation of the FARs, then in light of Merrell, you might be better off negotiating a sanction with the FAA instead of spending your money on a defense attorney. It really depends on the particular facts of your case. You should get the advice of an experienced enforcement defense attorney before throwing in the towel. I have had situations where the airmen disclosed in confidence to me that he committed the violation. Where the sanction sought was not too severe, I have recommended that the airman accept the sanction and not hire a lawyer. But Merrell can't necessarily be used as a trump card in all cases -- it is not a foregone conclusion that you will lose. Many cases do not depend on an interpretation of the FARS. Many of the FARs are not really ambiguous. Most cases depend on the facts. One must scrutinize what happened and answer the question: Did you violate an FAR under the particular factual circumstances? Good enforcement lawyers are skilled at applying facts to the law and can help an airman where the facts are such that he might have violated an FAR. Further, the lawyer can help get the sanction reduced even if there was a violation. I know my article about Merrell emphasized FAA power and pointed out the unfairness of the Merrell decision. I intended that my article create a sense of frustration. I was outraged by the decision. Other FAA enforcement lawyers have written to me and shared similar sentiments. But the adverse precedent of Merrell should not be interpreted too broadly. As I pointed out in the article, a committed airman with adequate monetary resources should hire a good attorney to challenge the decision in a case with the right facts. We have an expression in the practice of law: "bad facts make bad law." --Phillip J. Kolczynski, Aviation Law Editor |
| Bob
Shainline
7 Jul 2001 |
Fire the FAA In response to Ron Taylor [AVmail, 7 Jul 2001], Mike Busch wrote:
Quite to the contrary, I was a former PATCO controller who worked at the Naples, Florida Contract tower from 1990 to 1997. The complement of the Naples tower for most of that time was five former PATCO controllers. Naples ATCT, during the busy winter season, is one of the busiest VFR towers in the country. We made less than $15.00 an hour for most of that time, but the pilots continuously complimented us as being one of the best air traffic control towers in the country. Had Naples tower been an FAA tower there would have been at least 12 controllers making about $25.00 an hour and I guarantee they would have not moved more tin than we did.
AVweb responds... Apples and oranges, Bob. I fly out of an airport (SMX) with a Level 1 contract tower, and have no complaints (most of the time, anyway). Unfortunately, none of the broad proposals for ATC privatization call for simply turning the ARTCCs, TRACONs and IFR towers into contract facilities while leaving the current funding mechanism intact. To the contrary, they all involve creating a new user-fee mechanism to support ATC Inc. It's the user-fee aspect that causes me to oppose ATC privatization proposals, not simply the idea of staffing facilities with contractors rather than civil servants. To change the subject, Bob, let me ask you a question. Concerning those 5 former PATCO controllers who worked Naples (Fla.) ATCT for $15/hour: How do you think they would feel about working at, say, Cleveland ARTCC for that same $15/hour? --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Ron
Kabalin
07 Jul 2001 |
Sandel SN3308 Electronic HSI I'm curious to know why Mike Busch installed a Garmin 530 in his Cessna 310, in light of the fact that he stated in his review of the Sandel SN3308 that the Sandel's moving map quality was so good? Why have two displays when one is sufficient? I ask the questions because I am contemplating installing a Sandel, and it seems to me that any GPS unit would work, display or not. AVweb responds... Fair question, Ron. The Garmin 530 map is very different from the Sandel SN3308 map. The Sandel map displays aviation fixes and airspace better than the Garmin, but the Garmin displays terrain features (roads, bodies of water, state boundaries, etc.) and the Sandel does not. The Sandel map is heading-up, while the Garmin map is track-up (or north-up if you prefer). With significant crosswinds, the difference is quite significant. Quite apart from its map capabilities, the Garmin 530 is simply the best GPS navigator around for IFR operations. Compared with the UPSAT GX50 which used to be my primary navigator (and is now relegated to #2 GPS status), there's simply no contest. You're quite right to say that any GPS unit will work with the Sandel, display or not. I flew the Sandel with the GX50 for two years and the combination worked just fine. But after flying for six months with the GNS 530/SN3308 combination, it would be rather unpleasant to think about having to go back to the older setup. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Gary S.
James
7 Jul 2001 |
Japanese Not Immune to Air Rage AVweb wrote:
As a Captain for a major U.S. airline, I was rather offended at that remark. As you might expect, I have a somewhat different take on the situation. It is my observation, as someone who is "out on the line" rather than sitting behind a desk writing inflamatiory copy for an on-line newswire, that there has been an overall "dumbing down" of the average flying public since deregulation. In addition, the growing "rudeness" of the population in general seems to shine its brightest when they get on an airplane. Perhaps it is the metal detectors that secretly sucks out any good manners that they previously had. I have a solution to the problem: Let's quadruple the ticket prices to get them back in line with where they were in "real dollars" before deregulation. That would help keep some of the problem passengers and the obnoxious electronic journalists off the airplanes. Perhaps they can use the money they would have spent on air travel to buy tickets to a WWF SlamDown.
AVweb responds... Gary, that certainly is an out-of-the-box approach to the problem. Kick out the riffraff and make air travel the province of the elite, like it was back in the good old days. Gosh, the more I think about it, the more I like it. Now if we can just convince air traffic controllers to wear ties to work again... --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Ron
Taylor
7 Jul 2001 |
Fire the FAA As we all know, the FAA's track record over the past twenty years has proven their incompetence and they continue to operate under the Reagan rule of keep spending the taxpayers money on a deteriorating system...no matter what the cost. Now, for you to say that there is no one in the private sector that could run this system better than what we have experienced, is totally false and please do not compare the American Enterprise system with the Russian Government. The FAA does not manufacture the technological equipment, all they have to do is to make a competent decision and select the best system, out there, for the money. The FAA's primary function is to provide a public service with qualified management, within their budget, which they have failed to do. The FAA bureaucracy has had more than enough time and opportunities to fix the screw-ups, but has continued to waste valuable time, money and technology by refusing to take corrective action to keep pace with the increased air traffic demands. Why not fire the FAA and let someone in the private sector give it a try for 20 years or so, and if they can't make it work, then just maybe we can ask they FAA if they would like to have their old job back.
AVweb responds... Ron, it's certainly not a matter that the private sector couldn't operate the ATC system more competently or efficiently than the FAA. Without all the intrinsic constraints, politics and bureaucracy of a government agency, how could it not? Of course, half of the air traffic controllers presently working would quickly be on the unemployment rolls, replaced by computers and free-flight technology that should have been implemented twenty years ago. But as a user of the system, that's not my concern. I oppose privatization of ATC for the same reason that I oppose privatization of highways or police. To wit: I'm convinced that it would spell the end of grass-roots-level General Aviation in this country. A privatized ATC system would inevitably be optimized for those users best able to pay for its services. Folks like me would be relegated to flying Microsoft Flight Simulator. (No offense meant, Bill.) --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Carl
Sharon
06 Jul 2001 |
FAA NACO Chart and Approach Plate Subscriptions I have been using the subscription service for several years. The plates and charts have always been on time. Since the FAA took over that service, earlier in the year, I have received no charts with my plates, or or no plates with my charts, or sometimes nothing at all. After calling them after each release date, it was supposedly resolved. Yesterday I received the approach plates but not enroutes. I am waiting for a call from the lady. We're on first name basis!!! Have you heard of other people having problems with the subscription service since the FAA took it over. This could be the makings of an article or editorial!
AVweb responds... Carl, I made a quick informal survey of the AVweb staff, and none of us seem to have experienced the problems that you have during the transition from NOS/NOAA to NACO/FAA. I guess you're just lucky. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Name
Withheld
06 Jul 2001 |
Klyde Morris on the Airbus A380 Your derisory cartoon is an obvious "sour grapes" approach to Airbus' domination of the market. You should not be so obvious! Ever come across the word "challenge" in aviation? You have decided something is insurmountable -- not a great attitude and one that shouldn't be encouraged!
AVweb responds... Frankly, I do not care one bit who has "domination" of any market. What I do care about is the creation of crowd-killer machines such as the A380, which can not be evacuated safely. I find it highly disturbing that Airbus has plans to build a machine that makes Airbus itself so uncomfortable in the simple act of sending a passenger down an evacuation slide that rather than risk hurting or killing a test subject, they will now attempt to show through "mathematical models" that it actually won't hurt or kill an evacuating subject. Here's my use of the word "challenge" -- I'll challenge Airbus to fill one of their A380 crowd-killers with a full passenger load and then safely evacuate the entire group within the current CAA and FAA limitations. How's that for my use of the word? I was actually done with the A380 cartoons for the present time, but your message has re-inspired me... "challenge" eh?... what a good idea! The A380 death challenge... no, wait... the A380 crowd-killer challenge! Those will be great cartoons! Too bad summer vacation schedules demanded that I have next week's cartoons in early... See ya' in two weeks. --Wes Oleszewski, author, Klyde Morris cartoon |
| Ray
Tackett
05 Jul 2001 |
Japanese Not Immune to Air Rage Dunno why the Japanese should be special in this regard...
|
| Gary E.
Miller
5 Jul 2001 |
Lancair's Columbia 400: Looking For Higher I thought Dave Higdon wrote a nice review about our local hometown product. Still, I had to check whether it was April 1st when he said "Microsoft's almost-bulletproof Windows NT." The next moment, my NT workstation crashed. Really. Not that big a coincidence because it does that several times a day. Even Microsoft does not run its critical apps on NT. One of my clients reboots hundreds of NT servers every night because that helps keeping them from crashing during the day. No need to do that on hosts running competing OSs. Love the look of the new technology, but no way I want to risk my life behind WinNT flight instruments when I see it crash hourly in my work.
AVweb responds... What's the big deal, Gary? Don't you know about CTRL-ALT-DEL? <g> --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| John
Fulton
5 Jul 2001 |
Aircraft Noise I have been following the comments and editorials regarding the wide range of noise and aircraft rules that are being implemented as a result of public backlash and feel that I can offer a unique perspective. I am an aircraft owner, instrument rated pilot and I also own lakeshore property. I can tell you that there is little that is more annoying than a seaplane doing touch and goes on an otherwise quite and peaceful lake. I am a pilot and I understand the need for touch and goes. If it drives me insane, try and imagine what it does to non-pilots. Many pilots will say "well, boats have motors, etc." Yes this is true, but boats don't usually "stay in the pattern" -- they are either going somewhere or sitting still, while the planes touch down and the apply full power all the way around to mid-base, over and over and over. The simple solution is don't do this. Move around the lake, go to a different lake, anything, but do not do this over and over again in the same spot. I think the issue is that simple in the majority of cases. Now I can easily be slammed by the folks who say the "airways belong to everybody," "the lakes are open," etc., etc. But if we do not want more regulations on our activities, then we must begin to think and act as if we care about the noise that we make. We cannot continue to look at every complaint and discussion about aircraft noise as if they are the enemy, because this is not always the case. As in any endeavor it only takes a few rotten apples to spoil the entire lot. |
| Mike
Sutton
5 Jul 2001 |
Japanese Not Immune to Air Rage As a commercial Airline Pilot I am constantly baffled by the subject of Passenger Rage. In your recent story (above), you make comment about "we wonder when the airlines are going to take a look at what they're doing to make these people so mad." While some airline personnel contribute to the problem, I have found that in the instances it has occurred on my aircraft it is largely due to a passenger who feels that he/she does not have to follow the rules that the rest of us live by. The passenger who grabs the Flight Attendant by the throat because he can't get a carton of milk at the end of a 14-hour, 424-passenger flight. The passenger that personally stops at me in the cockpit doorway and thumps me in the chest while saying "F@#$ you, you made me late." The fact that we made him 12 minutes late by deviating around a line of level 4 thunderstorms 30 miles wide, 75 miles long doesn't seem to matter. The man that sneaks into the liquor carts and STEALS 24 miniature bottles of liquor over a six-hour flight, consumes half, and then starts yelling at the Flight Attendants because THEY made me come back and ask him to "quit intefering with the duties of a flight crew" thereby embarrassing him. Granted not all the incidents are this severe, but the type of passengers that are flying the system have some pretty lofty expectations for their money these days and we get tired of being the brunt of their frustrations just because we offer them fish or chicken and they wanted prime rib; we wanted to get an FMC fixed but they wanted to leave now; we wanted to wait for the weather to clear off the end of the departure runway, they wanted us to takeoff downwind. As a side note, a good friend of mine just ended his career at the gate while filling out the paperwork for his flight. Seems the person who stepped up to ask him where a particular flight was leaving from didn't like his answer of "I'm just a pilot and can't open the gate to pull up the computer, I don't have a key". The man just took a swing and with his big gold ring took a nice piece of the Captain's eye OUT. In retrospect, I suppose the thing the Captain should have done was run down the jetway to get the agent meeting the inbound, helping this man but ticking off the 184 people waiting for his flight to leave as close to on time since he would now be running behind. It's not ALL our fault you know. AVweb responds... And if it's like that on a wee Boeing 747, I bet you can't wait until they upgrade you to the Airbus A380. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Joe
Lupton
5 Jul 2001 |
Dual Vacuum Systems AVweb wrote:
I found this article very interesting and have a related experience. When I was working for an FBO back in the 70s, I was due to fly from GSO to CLT to a GADO to take a Part 135 checkride in a Cessna 310. It was very cold and after starting the engines, I noted one of the vacuum systems indicator reb buttons was not indicating normal. I radioed back into the office and talked to the Chief Pilot. Since it was a VFR day and forcast to stay that way, and getting a checkride was hard to schedule, we elected to continue. I had no problem going to CLT and at the beginning of the checkride, I pointed out the problem to the FAA inspector. He said he would be acting as a co-pilot, so I told him to alert me if he noted a change to the indicater. Well, after completing the precision approaches and single engine procedures, I started noting a difficulty maintaining a heading with wings level. The other vacuum system had failed also! The rest of the check ride was a full blown partial panel exercise. (I Passed the checkride!) The problem was a failed nylon shaft from the accessory section to the pump, probably due to the very cold conditions. Both shafts failed within three hours of each other. What are the chances of that happening? Well, it did and it can happen again. Maybe it already has.
AVweb responds... Joe, the AD that the FAA was proposing did not deal with vacuum pumps. It would have established a 10-year life limit on the vacuum manifold, the little Airborne-manufactured gizmotchie that contains a pair of rubber check valves and allows one pump to continue providing vacuum to the system after the other has failed. The owner groups pointed out, correctly, that the proper functioning of the check valves can be determined easily by the pilot on each flight, simply by starting one engine first at the beginning of each flight and shutting down that engine first at the end of each flight, observing the vacuum-fail indicators in both cases when only one engine is running to make sure that exactly one vacuum-fail indicator is showing and that the vacuum gauge is in the green arc. The owner groups argued that it makes no sense to impose a life limit on a component whose proper functioning is so easy to verify. To its credit, the FAA agreed and announced that it was scrapping the AD idea. Instead, they issued an SAIB advising pilots of these aircraft to perform the check procedure on each flight. Oh, and belated congratulations on passing that checkride! --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Tom
Tucker
5 Jul 2001 |
Grand Teton & Yellowstone AVweb wrote:
I would like to suggest that you include peoples email address in AVflash. In this case Sen. Craig Thomas (R-WY). If enough of us let them know what we think of their proposed legislation I believe it would do some good. AVweb responds... Tom, here's the contact info for Senator Thomas:
For future reference, a relatively complete congressional email address list is available at http://www.avweb.com/other/congmail.html. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Lorna
Alexander
05 Jul 2001 |
ReliefBand Anti-Nausea Device I just ordered a reusable ReliefBand device this afternoon. But how does the thing actually work? What actually goes on? Let's say that I turn the dial from 1 to 3. What intensifies? What physically happens to the wristband thingie that touches my skin? And how does this intensifying increase the nausea-suppression powers of the device? AVweb responds... It's been long known that nausea can be supressed very effectively through Chinese acupuncture by using a needle to stimulate the median nerve of the wrist. In essence, the ReliefBand accomplishes the same thing using transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) of the same median nerve. ("Transcutaneous" is a fifty-cent medical term meaning "through the skin.") The dial on the ReliefBand controls the intensity of the electrical impulses on the electrodes of the device. This adjustment is provided because some people's skin is thicker and/or less electrically conductive than others. Studies have shown that the sensation of nausea is produced when the normally slow, rhythmic peristaltic waves of the muscles of the stomach wall become rapid and chaotic. Stimulation of the median nerve (through acupuncture or TENS, for example) has been shown to restore the normal peristaltic rhythm to those muscles, and eliminate the the sensation of nausea. Like many remedies in medicine, nobody is precisely sure why this works ... but there's no question that it DOES work. If the ReliefBand is properly positioned on the wrist and the level properly adjusted, you should feel a very mild tingling sensation in your little finger. If you don't, you should re-check the positioning of the electrodes, and if necessary turn up the output level a notch. --Brent Blue M.D., Senior AME, Aviation Medicine Editor |
| Stephen
Vineberg
5 Jul 2001 |
Cayman Caravan Ditching Reader Bill McClure [AVmail, 28 Jun 2001] wrote:
Imagine the chuckle I got from this after having done a "cross-country" flight yesterday on the way to getting my pilot's license. The reason for the quotes around "country" is that I am on Guam. A little speck of land in the middle of the edge of the West Pacific Ocean. The first leg of my cross country is from PGUM (Guam) to PGSN (Saipan). I'll save you the effort of digging up a sectional. It is 112 NM direct over nothing but water. The borderline between the Pacific Ocean and the Philippine Sea. The return trip takes me to PGWT (Tinian ,,, yes, THAT Tinian) 11 NM over water. Then on to PGRO (Rota) 54 NM over water. Then back to PGUM, 49 NM... Most of which is, again, over water. It really amazes me the number of pilots who are deathly afraid of flying over water. It's almost as if they're afraid that Neptune himself is going to reach up and smite them out of the air. Personally, if I were to find myself accidentally stuck in the clouds or in an airplane that is going down I'd much rather have the relatively smooth surface of the ocean below me than a row of houses or power lines or any of the many other things one could run into when they are making a forced landing. |
| David
Dwyhalo
04 Jul 2001 |
Sandel SN3308 Electronic HSI I was reading Mike Busch's article on the Sandel 3308 and was wondering if he is still as impressed with the unit as when he installed it? I have a 310 myself that is undergoing a panel retrofit and I am trying to decide on a new HSI. I have heard of a number of failures in the projector lamp of the Sandel unit. Has Mike experienced any difficulties with the unit? If he had to do it over, would he still use it? AVweb responds... David, I am every bit as impressed after two years as I was on day one. I have had almost no trouble with my SN3308. Actually, I did develop one very minor glitch about a month ago (occasional spurious marker beacon annunciations on the SN3308). When I called Sandel customer support, they overnighted me a loaner, fixed my unit (found a cold solder joint on the PCB), and returned my repaired SN3308 just over a week later ... all at no charge. Yes, I was impressed. Since Sandel went to the newer-style lamp and upgraded the lamp power supply and diagnostic software, I've heard of only one actual in-flight lamp failure ... and that occurred in an aircraft where the lamp was way past replacement time software had been warning the pilot for months that the lamp needed to be replaced. I'm sure there have been other lamp failures that I don't know about, but it certainly isn't a frequent occurrence, especially if you take the required lamp replacement interval (one year or 200 hours, whichever comes first) seriously. I've been told by Sandel president Gerry Block that if you dim down the lamp brightness a bit from full-bright, it can double the life of the lamp -- so I make a practice of keeping the dimmer a bit below max except for those rare occasions when full brightness is required because the sun is in a bad position. I also make a habit of carrying a spare lamp in the airplane, just in case I have a failure on the road. I've never needed it, however, and don't expect I ever will. If I had it to do over again, I'd install the SN3308 in a heartbeat. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Julian
Omerberg
3 Jul 2001 |
Runway Incursions After reading all these letters-to-the-editor about confusing signs and runway incursions, these pilots should be reminded that there is a simple, non-technical solution: If you don't know where you are going and don't understand the clearance given simply ask the controller for progressive taxi clearance and let him/her hold you by the hand and guide you. AVweb responds... You've got that exactly right, Julian. You don't suppose that the problem lies with the fact that most pilots are still male, and most males hate to ask for directions? Just a thought... --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Gary
Schoepflin
03 Jul 2001 |
ReliefBand Anti-Nausea Device We were gratified to discover that there is a place that sells the ReliefBand and that recognizes that it may not work for everyone. My wife has had motion sickness problems for many years. She usually has problems on a cross country commercial flight and is invariably affected by flights in small planes, and sometimes by riding in the back seat of a car, and (so far) on all cruises. For us the ReliefBand is well worth the cost if we could have some assurance that it will be as effective as Bonine, an over-the-counter drug which she has found to be very helpful. Our problem is this: we do not have a small plane readily available and a cruise (we have one scheduled for November) does not seem like a good time for a trial. We are wondering if you have some "experiments" to suggest that might give us a fair trial of the ReliefBand before that time (to take advantage of the money-back offer if it fails to work for her)? If she were to get "car-sick" (which I think we could arrange) and then activate the ReliefBand, would a reversal of the nausea indicate that the ReliefBand will likely be effective for her on a cruise? Is a "reversal" of ongoing motion sickness a more stringent test than simply preventing motion sickness in the first place or are the two things quite independent? AVweb responds... If your wife is susceptible to car sickness, that would certainly provide a good test of the ReliefBand for her. If it suppresses her car sickness, it will almost certainly be effective with other forms of motion sickness (e.g., sea, air). "Reversal" (as you term it) is the normal way the ReliefBand is used. Most users wear the device during the entire trip but do not turn it on until the onset of nausea is detected. For most users, the feeling of nausea subsides within a minute or two of turning on the device. Consequently, there's usually no need to activate the device until the onset of symptoms, and turning it on only when actually needed helps extend battery life. For maximum effectiveness, it's important to position the device correctly on the wrist -- a tingling sensation should be felt in the middle finger -- and to use the conductive gel supplied with the unit. The ReliefBand is effective for the overwhelming majority of motion sickness sufferers, but it doesn't work for everybody. Your notion of giving it a trial prior to leaving on your November cruise is a good one. --Brent Blue MD, Senior AME, Aviation Medicine Editor |
| Douglas
Garrou
3 Jul 2001 |
Unsubscribing to FLYING Magazine If you think Americans lack determination, I suggest you try canceling your subscription to Flying magazine. I discontinued my subscription several months ago, after I concluded that, in addition to advertising, Flying largely consists of (a) stale aviation press releases by the advertisers, many of whom are selling gadgets at a price equal to my lifetime flying budget, and (b) other irrelevant Big Iron and "superpilot" nonsense. For what it's worth, I also discovered that I could usually get the magazine for free in the U.S. Air Shuttle lounge at LaGuardia. Anyway, since then my wife and I have been the subject of a campaign of telemarketer calls (at least seven to date, probably more) and mountains of junk mail trying to entice me back. Nothing we say or do seems to register with Flying's minions ... I tell you, these people will not give up. I'm worried that next they might decide to have me tailed. Or perhaps they'll send the flying monkeys, like in the Wizard of Oz. Go ahead, call me paranoid -- you haven't seen these people at work!! If anybody out there in aviation land can get Flying off my back, I'd sure appreciate it. In the meantime, I've developed a whole new appreciation for the (free!) online resources at AVweb. I don't want to unsubscribe -- but at least I can!!
AVweb responds... Wonder if those folks are any kin to the telemarketers from MBNA who always phone right at dinnertime to find out why I haven't yet signed up for an AOPA affinity credit card? --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Ron
Rapp
2 Jul 2001 |
Oceanside (Calif.) Airport John Ratchford's comment [AVmail, 28 June 2001] that GA pilots sometimes transgress is not without merit. It's impossible to paint everyone with the same brush, so I'd be more than willing to admit that a jerk or two might be present at the airport near which he lives. But no matter how long he worked at Boeing or what he did there, I'd have to question the wisdom of buying a house 2000 feet off the end of an existing airport runway and then expecting that aircraft are not going to fly over your home. I found his comment that 9 out of 10 pilots were flying over his house instead of turning away to be especially telling. Could it be possible that 90% of the pilots out there just buzzing his house for no reason whatsoever? Pilots, by and large, do as much as they can to mitigate noise. Just because an airplane flies "low" over your house doesn't mean the pilot is some jerk that thinks he owns the world. There are a number of perfectly valid and safety-oriented reasons this might happen. For example, at high and/or hot airports, any heavily loaded GA single is going to have a less than stellar climb rate. Even T210s don't rocket into the sky under those conditions. Prudence dictates that you don't turn away from the runway until you've reached a safe altitude, regardless of the noise abatement proceedures in effect. A Cessna 150 with full fuel and a student and instructor on board is going to be pretty close to the ground after only 2000 feet, and with a low rate of climb, who can blame a pilot for not wanting to divert any of his vertical lift component into the horizontal? And if the engine is running hot, the pilot might choose to lower the nose to aid cooling, or richen the mixture (which can reduce power and again, lower the climb rate). Or perhaps the pilot is trying to maintain VFR minimums when there are some clouds present. Or maybe the pilot is on some kind of instrument departure proceedure. And if the pilot is under the hood, he can't avoid overflying your house even if he wants to. Maybe he's keeping the nose low to aid in forward visibility. Pilots may simply be somewhat inattentive to what they're flying over, not because they don't care, but because safety dictates that they place priority on communicating on the CTAF, watching for traffic, scanning the engine gauges, and occasionally listening to that CFI guy in the right seat before they do anything else. There are a multitude of reasons he might be experiencing noise, especially when, according to his assessment, 9 out of 10 pilots are causing the problem. Perhaps if he made a trip to the airport and talked to a few instructors and GA pilots he could get some sort of explanation for why this is happening. Perhaps even a demo flight so he could see in person. I think he would also find that airport users are sympathetic to his plight (after all, we all deal with noise of one sort or another near our homes) and interested in maintaining the best possible relationship with the neighbors. I know I am. |
| Clare
Neufeld
02 Jul 2001 |
Runway Incursions I got to wondering whether it might be possible to use some lighting technology to assist in PILOT awareness, when the verbal communications and information regarding possible intersection conflicts have not been shared with the appropriate tower or ground control folks, etc. Why not use the lighting technology I've seen in places like Denver, where the night centerline is lit up like a Christmas tree, for landing or departing aircraft? If each controller, having given the 'green light' to an aircraft on a given runway were required to flick the light switch (say white or green) for the runway in use, it would result in conflicting intersecting runways to automatically turn up a RED light on that same centreline lighting system. Each runway would have the red/green lights turned on in sections of 1000 ft each, approaching the required runway length needed for T/O or landing for that paticular aircraft. As they approach a converging intersection where both are in use, the RED lights would be showing a minimum 1000 ft from the intersection . . . or more for the aircraft type using the runway 'cleared' for use, later than the one being intersected. Aircraft needing 2,000 feet for takeoff could still be seeing white/green lights for that distance, with conflicting traffic operating on the converging runway, IF the runway intersection is at least 1000 feet beyond the 2,000 ft required to clear the specified height at the intersection, AND aircraft ops information, would indicate that they could stop well within those 1,000 ft should a takeoff be aborted. This might also be automated, something akin to ARCAL, to respond to the transponder codes given to the departing or landing aircraft, thus providing a timely change from 'active/protected' to 'available' to 'active/protected', alternating from runway to runway, aircraft to aircraft, type to type, on a first come, first recognized and protected basis, as distance (DME) information is computed by the system.
AVweb responds... As you indicated, lighting of this sort is used at major jetports ... and incursions continue, particularly at those airports. The cost of retrofitting such lighting at smaller airports is prohibitive. I continue to believe that far lower-cost and lower-tech solutions are available. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Lanny
Tonning
02 Jul 2001 |
Airline Delays -- The Blame Game Weather recently set off a series of events that caused a delay for me. This is not unusual in the summer storm season, as annoying as it might be. What bugged me was the stewardesses - in their understandable desire to placate a plane full of PO'd passengers - blaming ATC along with the weather. Unless I've been reading the wrong information, the ATC system is moving more tin than ever before. The problem is that we have a lot more planes going into a fixed number of airports and the same number of runways. ATC can get a lot of planes from point A to point B but then it is simply the matter of how cramming them down a finite pipe of air to the ground. I think that if stewardesses are going to be assigning blame at all, the public gets the wrong impression and we will wind up attacking the wrong problem. What the public believes drives public policy. And if the public believes it can have more air travel without more airports and more runways then ATC will get the blame. That isn't going to fix the problem. The airlines, in the meantime, are going to keep taking hits regardless of what the stewardesses say because people are not sitting cheek-to-jowl in a delayed ATC center. The airlines should mount an aggressive information campaign in conjunction with the type of efforts AOPA and AVweb are making to educate people. Their future, along with general aviation's, is at stake. |
| Marcel
Dufour
1 Jul 2001 |
Reduced Vertical Separation Minima The FAA, and internationally the powers-that-be, want to reduce at once the vertical separation of aircraft flying above FL 290 straight from 2000 feet down to 1000 feet. This will cost the aviation community billions of dollars. Wasted dollars. As usual, the powers-that-be take their decisions without any consideration for the huge expense that is involved in certifying each airplane, and without consideration for more sensible ways of improving things. No consideration for GPS and future systems to come, still more accurate, that will be able to consistently provide true altitude information with accuracy better than 50 feet, any altitude. No consideration for next generation TCAS, which should use such accurate altitude information. No consideration for intermediate solutions, like providing 1500 feet separation between FL290 and FL410, gaining two extra flight levels in the process, at no cost. (Or one additional free flight level should this solution be restricted to the layer between FL 290 and FL 350). If the present altimeters are OK for ensuring a safe vertical separation at FL 290 against aircraft flying at FL 280, sure the same altimeters sould provide a safe vertical separation at FL 350 against aircraft flying at FL 335. No consideration for improved lateral separation, that is becoming a safe alternative thanks to GPS / INS association. Just no concern, no imagination. |