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.
| Rodney
W. Champion
30 Jul 2002 |
TARDIS Radar Software Thank GOD Jane Garvey is gone. She single-handedly did more to prevent Federal Contact Towers from obtaining radar coverage to promote safety. Even after the NTSB wrote he a letter of recommendation to install TARDIS RADAR SOFTWARE in these small towers she refused to implement the change. There have been fatal midair collisions at these towers before and after the NTSB letter. Garvey had the TARDIS RADAR SOFTWARE at her disposal and refused to use it. I do not know how she sleeps at night with the knowledge that those deaths could have been avoided. Congress mandated that Garvey install 12 or more TARDIS systems in the towers that had the most deaths and press coverage. One of Garvey's last orders was to replace the TARDIS systems with a RAYTHEON system that will cost more money and does not have the field tested record that TARDIS SYSTEM has obtained. The question is what was Garvey's motivation? Is Garvey going to work for Raytheon or does she have stock in the company? Common sense was not a part of her decision making process. I have worked in nine Air Traffic Control Towers and I used TARDIS in the last Tower that I worked in and I just will never understand Garvey's logic. She went to great lengths to put up smoke and mirrors about need a certified radar system. That is a contradiction since the Controllers in these VFR NON-APPROACH TOWERS are not certified to use a certified radar even if the had one. In fact, the Controllers (at VFR NON-APPROACH TOWERS) are mandated to use the 7110.65 Paragraph 3-9-1. Uncertified tower display workstations shall be used only as an aid to assist controllers in visually locating aircraft or in determining their spacial relationship to known geographic points. To make it simple the excuses that Garvey used did not matter one way or the other they were simply excuses. I doubt that Garvey has ever heard of Paragraph 3-9-1 of the 7110.65 Air Traffic Control Handbook. The users of these small airports deserve an answer. What was Garvey' s motivation? CONGRESS mandated that the FAA develop a policy on TARDIS through AIR 21 and Garvey decided to kill the TARDIS RADAR SOFTWARE SYSTEM. That was not the intent of the Congressional mandate. This was an Administrator that had clearly violated the Congressional mandate. Since 9/11 a large number of people in different walks of life have decided to violate public trust and the law and Congressional mandates. The list of violators include CEOs, CFOs Bankers, Accountants, Brokerage Firms, and now it appears Administrators of Government Agencies. Why does Garvey get to walk away without an explanation of any of her actions? The tax payers will have to foot the bill. Garvey needs to sit down in front of a Congressional Committee and explain her actions. The good news is that the NSTB has lost a great asset and the FAA has gained a great Administrator. The mere fact that Ms. MARION BLAKEY has had experience working at the NTSB is of great importance. She will bring a new attitude to the FAA that probably never been seen. She also has been a critic of some of the FAA's problems and she will bring solutions. Ms. Blakey will also have no problem in fixing some of Garvey's problems that were left behind. GOD BLESS MS. BLAKEY. AVweb responds... Why would you blame Jane Garvey for this? No FAA Administrator makes technical decisions of this kind. The FAA technical people do, and they are typically career civil servants -- not political appointees like the Administrator and top Associate Administrators. I have a very hard time believing that this decision had much to do with who happened to be sitting on the top floor of 800 Independence at the time. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Mike
Neuman
29 Jul 2002 |
Overzealous Security Doesn't Just Affect People On Friday, we sent a complete computer (an ugly beige box, probably like what you have under your desk) to a prospective customer. They had been having troubles installing our pre-release product, so we decided to just send them an entire computer pre-configured. The computer went out standard overnight FedEx on Friday, and arrived Monday morning. The computer was *trashed*. I'm guessing someone X-Rayed the box and decided that "all the wires" were suspicious. They unscrewed and removed the hard drive from the computer case, then just threw it back in the box, unconnected to anything. They did the same with the case speaker (which was one of those molded-into-the-case ones that aren't removable), the processor (they just yanked it out of the socket, breaking retention clips), and the motherboard. All of the packing foam and bubble wrap was removed and discarded. In other words, they took a completely working, configured computer, disemboweled it, then stuffed the broken remnants back into the case and sent it on its way. At least the TSA hasn't yet implemented a similar procedure for humans... (But if they do, don't worry, medal of honor winners and little old ladies will be among the first selected) |
| Mike
Blommer
29 Jul 2002 |
ANR Headsets and Warning Horns I am having trouble hearing the stall horn in a Cessna 150 while wearing a passive headset. Will an ANR headset make it easier or harder for me to hear the alarm? AVweb responds... ANR will make it EASIER for you to hear the alarm. ANR attenuates only low-frequency noise in the 500 Hz-and-below spectrum. The horn is a much higher frequency and not attenuated by ANR. Since ANR attenuates so much engine noise (which IS low-frequency), high-frequency sounds like the stall horn are easier to hear. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Charles
Danley
29 Jul 2002 |
High Cost of Aircraft Insurance Just wondering if you guys are hearing much from aircraft owners about the cost of aircraft insurance. We just got our quote and it more than doubled for the same coverage. We fly a King Air 200, single pilot, and the cost went from about $10,000 year to little over $24,000!!!!! The reason given us by the insurance company was 9/11. I would like to know if this is typical for all aircraft owners, if not what companies are they using for insurance. AVweb responds... Yes, Charles, there has been a huge increase in aircraft insurance premiums, particularly for certain classes of aircraft such as taildraggers and owner-flown twins. When I renewed the coverage for my Cessna T310R last October, my premium from USAIG increased more than 50% from the prior year. Then I heard a few weeks later than USAIG had hiked their rates once again. Even more scary is the fact that only two underwriters were willing to bid on "smooth" coverage for my T310R this year, with six others either saying that they would only write $100K/seat coverage or saying that they were no longer insuring owner-flown twins at all. The reduction in competition almost certainly bodes ill for premiums in the future. A close friend owns a Bonanza and an old Cessna 195 taildragger. His insurance on the Bonanza went up modestly, but his insurance on the 195 went up 250%! I don't purport to understand the insurance industry, but my understanding is that 9/11 caused great disarray in the global re-insurance market (Lloyds, General Re, etc.), and that the effects of that spilled over into all sorts of areas in the general property and casualty insurance market. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| John
Townsley
28 Jul 2002 |
Skipping Through the Mine Field I read Michael Maya Charles' AVweb column on "too many TFRs" ("Skipping Through the Mine Field") with a great deal of interest. I agree there is a crying need to get information to pilots on the TFRs so not only can they plan their routes efficiently, but we keep the aluminum separated!!! As of yesterday evening there were over 140 fire fighting aircraft (not counting State machines) engaged in fighting fires in Oregon and Washington alone! I believe the tool exists to communicate the information pilots need to fly safe, we just need to get the word out!!! There IS a website to which pilots can go to get a graphical view of all current TFRs (fire, national security, and other). These are posted both 'in the raw' within each state, and also drawn on NOAA sectional charts. The TFR graphics are updated daily! Please go to: and check out the graphics. Links are also provided so you can get textual TFR information if you need it, direct from the FAA for each ARTCC. They can print out individual TFRs (on Sectional backgrounds), or look at an entire sectional at one time. Because of concerns like those expressed in MMC's column, the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management have initiated an effort to 'deconflict' the airspace around major fire events. Tools, like those mentioned above, are one prong of the effort. In addition, when things get really congested and fires are creating the need for multiple TFRs, Airspace Coordinators are being assigned to fire fighting teams to help anticipate and resolve communication problems with all airspace users (GA, military, commercial traffic, and fire fighting resources). To get a 'feel' of how many TFRs are out there, there is a bar chart that displays the current number of active TFRs, nationwide.
|
| Mike
Muetzel
26 Jul 2002 |
Why GA Should Support Corporatized ATC The Reason Foundation's proposal calls for all jet aircraft in controlled airspace to pay ATC fees based on weight and distance, while non-jet GA planes would pay an annual membership fee proportional to aircraft gross weight. I understand Bob Poole to mean that prop aircraft operated under Part 135 would pay on a different basis than jets under Part 91. And Part 91 prop aircraft would be on a different basis than Part 121 jets. It makes no sense to charge different fees to aircraft based on the type engine the aircraft uses. It makes no sense to charge different fees to operators based on the flight rules (Part 91, 135, 121, etc) that apply. With the exception that heavy aircraft require more airspace separation that other aircraft, ATC costs don’t result from the number of passengers or the type or cargo on board, either. ATC costs result from using ATC’s equipment and trained personnel for a period of time. The Reason Foundation proposal would have the guy with a single-seat prop-driven homebuilt who flies IFR once a year paying an annual unlimited-use rate like the Caravan flying freight every night, while the guy in an ex-warbird single-engine jet pays by the flight just like the corporate jet and the B-777. Not sensible. Charging an ATC fee for services rendered should mean that trips would be charged by the hour in the system regardless of what the aircraft is doing or how it’s powered. That would mean the Cessna 172 flying IFR from LAX to MIA would pay a heck of a lot more than a B-747 on the same route, and that might be hard to sell. Sensible, equitable, but not politically salable. Why not make the airlines pay the fuel tax like everybody else, then adjust the tax rate so it pays for the system? That removes Mr. Durden’s valid argument that people will compromise safety by not using the system when they should, just to duck the tax. It places a sliding but politically salable cost on each operator using the system, since the percentage of variable cost on each flight that goes into paying for ATC will be about the same for the light plane or the airliner. I know it doesn’t make economic sense for the LAX-MIA Cessna driver to get twenty or more hours of ATC service for less than the Boeing pilot pays for six hours, but the Reason Foundation's plan will kill general aviation use of ATC services. And may kill general aviation pilots, too. |
| Ron
Rapp
25 Jul 2002 |
Reciprocal Certificates to ICAO Pilots Stephen Williams [AVmail, 23 Jul 2002] wrote:
Ding-ding-ding! I think he broke the code. |
| Jake
Brodsky
25 Jul 2002 |
Why GA Should Support Corporatized ATC Funny, Robert Poole says that Rick Durden sets up a straw man argument against privatizing ATC. However, his argument that "ATC Is Broken and Does Need Fixing" is no better. Citing James Fallows' book and Eclipse Jet sales projections as an indicator of air traffic volume in the near future would be a gross overstatement of future traffic trends. (ever see sales projections that weren't optimistic?) The Eclipse jet, were it to become a commercial success, might add some traffic through reduced operating costs. However, I suspect that many of these jets will be sold to those who are already flying something less efficient or lower performance. I doubt there would be enough pilots with the appropriate certification to bring traffic the levels Poole suggests. So Poole suggests a cabal of industry representatives managing a non-profit agency. How is this an improvement over the current alphabet soup groups spewing their advice to the FAA? I concede that the current ATC organization is suffering from very poor management at the FAA. The question isn't whether the current system is broken. The question is whether privatizing ATC would help. Were this proposal to happen, I suspect most of the people running this non-profit corporation would have to come from the FAA. After all, we don't have people with those unique backgrounds sitting in unemployment offices, do we? Let's face the real problem: there are too many ignorant bureaucrats running amok at the FAA and nobody seems to care enough to hold them accountable. Moving these folks in to a non-profit agency would be like re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Poole's proposal may not hurt, but I fail to see how it helps. |
| Terry
Cooper
25 Jul 2002 |
Why GA Should Support Corporatized ATC It's good to see that you published Robert Poole's article in rebuttal to Rick Durden's diatribe on privatized ATC. This certainly shows some openness and balance on your part. Mr. Poole's article describes a rational and reasonable approach to the problem, and a approach that closely resembles the system that we now have with Nav Canada. The system is working well so far, there are problems/concerns, however in general things are working. The only thing is that we are still paying a fuel tax as well as the Nav Canada fee ($60/year). The fuel tax isn't likely to go away as it's always been going to general revenue and the Gov't isn't going to give that up. As to Mr. Durden's article on the subject, I couldn't finish reading it, it was far too far out in left field and irrational. I hope that in future articles he returns to the quality of the past as I usually enjoy his writings. |
| Dave
Van Horn
23 Jul 2002 |
PB4Y Air Tanker Crash AVweb's coverage of the crash of the "vintage PB4Y flying boat" was incomplete. I would have expected far more coverage of what must have been a truly unique aircraft. The PB4Y Privateer, a Navy version of the WWII B-24 Liberator bomber is rare enough, but I can't even imagine the incredible amount of work that must have gone into converting one of these large landplanes into a flying boat. Perhaps you could favor us with some (unretouched, please) photographs of this undoubtedly one-of-a-kind airplane? Or perhaps you were just confused by the Navy's old designation system and mistook the PB4Y for a PBY-4 Catalina flying boat. AVweb responds... Dave, that's exactly what we did. <sigh> --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Stephen
Williams
23 Jul 2002 |
Reciprocal Certificates to ICAO Pilots There is a lot more to the FAA's suspension of FAR § 61.75 than first meets the eye. Firstly, this undermines the FAA's considerable efforts to open foreign airspace to American pilots. These negotiations are especially critical now because of the recent establishment of the Joint Aviation Authority. In combination with continuing restrictions on the use of foreign aircraft in U.S. airspace, this is disastrous. Although at first blush Americans might think this is something that doesn't impact them, it does. Secondly, § 61.75 is not optional on the FAA. Section 61.75 requires the FAA to issue these licenses. There is a mechanism for amending or rescinding the FAR's and so far the FAA hasn't followed that mechanism. Their decision to just stop issuing licenses "temporarily" is a clear violation of their obligations under FAR 61.75. If the FAA can ignore this FAR then they can ignore any other FAR that they like. |
| Jerrold
Vernon
22 Jul 2002 |
PB4Y Air Tanker Crash A PB4Y is certainly "vintage" but by no means is it a "vintage flying boat"!! A PBY is a flying boat and so is a PB2Y, but a PB4Y-2 is a Privateer, which is best described as being the single-tailed Navy version of the B-24 Liberator (the Navy called their twin-tailed Liberators the PB2Y-1). The Privateer is getting to be a pretty rare bird in the skies now, with only 3 or 4 left now flying with the Hawkins and Powers fire bomber fleet. I understand the recently-lost Privateer was N7620C, Tanker #123, one of the ex-U. S. Coast Guard machines. By my count, H &P should still have Tankers # 121, 124, 126 and 127 left. Tanker # 125 came to grief in British Columbia in 1975, was owned for many years by the Canadian Museum of Flight, and has been with the Yankee Air Force at Willow Run since the early 1980s.
|
| George
Sears
22 Jul 2002 |
Sport Pilot NPRM and Medical Self-Certification AOPA is petitioning the FAA to allow Rec Pilots to fly with a 'Driver License' medical. In the mid-90's, EAA had a petition to allow the Rec to 'self-certify' that they were 'healthy' (even if they couldn't drive). The EAA petition was a little cute, since a PP cert holder could exercise the privileges of a Rec Pilot, but this 'step down' Rec Pilot would have been able to enter controlled airspace, though probably with more restrictions than a PPC holder. This wasn't a radical proposal, since UL pilots can enter some controlled airspace with permission. Both AOPA and EAA strongly backed this proposal. It was included in the Part 91 reforms until the very end, when it was dropped. It's interesting, given the minutia of the petition, that the FAA couldn't have found some way to incorporate self-cert into a Rec Pilot framework. Consider that glider pilots can self-certify. A Rec Pilot without BCD and, maybe, limited to open spaces, or flying alone, would have been a start. There are UL pilots, and that requires no medical whatsoever. Of course, the UL ranks are full of people who are way over the a/c weight and other limitations for Part 103, and these people have often lost their medicals, or would never qualify. Obviously, many felt it was OK to fly a 'fat' UL, but not to fly in Part 91 without a medical, and this manner of thinking added more fat UL's, which exacerbated an existing problem. The FAA seemed to start a long and complex set of actions and reactions. What is Sport Pilot? Well, it appears to be a way to solve the fat UL problems, and SP includes the Driver License medical. Sport Pilot is a decent piece of rulemaking, in the sense that it addresses aircraft standards, pilot standards, and maintenance issues. Part 103 has limited airplane regs, and these have been ignored. The UL regs do not address pilot standards and there is no pilot certificate. Maintenance is not addressed in the UL regs, either. Sport Pilot was ultimately written after the 'umbrella of standards' scheme disappeared. The Umbrella would have been partly administered by aviation orgs, with some room to make regulatory changes. It apparently had no appeal to the FAA, and EAA never really pushed it. Of course, EAA was moving to higher and higher performance aircraft, and any of the sport aviation regs represented aircraft far from that arena. The new Sport Pilot proposal (NPRM) is much more of an EAA measure. The main thing EAA apparently wanted was a place to put a softened medical requirement. This is apparent because early drafts of SP circulated on a UL list to which I subscribed. The original proposal was Rec Pilot in many respects, including CFI's as the designated instructors. I recall suggesting to Reid Howell, an ARAC member who seems to have crafted SP, that this was never going to work. Shortly thereafter, the CFI-SP appeared in the drafts. (I don't claim to be the only to have complained about the CFI's, and it hadn't worked with Rec Pilot.) Anyway, it's clear that Sport Pilot was pushed as a way to get a reduced medical somewhere, covering more, or at least heavier, aircraft than Part 103. Sport Pilot addresses the 2 place aircraft, as well. The FAA has always been adamant that a pilot would need to show proficiency before being allowed to carry passengers. Carrying a passenger also influences the need for a medical requirement. This is all driven by the aging pilot population. The reduced medical is something that sorely needs to be addressed, somewhere, somehow. There's a certain lack of efficiency in the process. The fat UL's fall into the arena where USUA operates, and Sport Pilot addresses the fat UL, beyond the medical issues. Of course, Sport Pilot is not supported by USUA, or many UL operators. The main thing that moved SP forward was the medical, because it made SP a painfree way for existing pilots to have expanded privileges, if or when the medical cert cannot be obtained. The question is to what degree the medical issue overwhelmed the other issues. Certainly many of the UL pilots want or 'need' the medical requirement to go through, which is probably the dividing line in the UL community. Sport Pilot is well along the regulatory path. It's ironic that the FAA is now being petitioned to reduce the medical in Rec Pilot. If this petition is acted upon favorably, an observer could ask why major aviation orgs were focusing so much on Sport Pilot, to the extent they backed it, while USUA, the org involved with the SP type aircraft, did not? Why didn't AOPA or EAA redraft a proposal for a lesser medical in Rec Pilot, perhaps without some of the embellishment? Say, a year after the Part 91 hassle? Why didn't USUA follow up on the 'umbrella' scheme or try to change Sport Pilot? Obviously, the FAA made all 3 orgs a little 'gunshy'. Each had a proposal shredded. It isn't clear that USUA would ever have gotten the "Umbrella", but some of that structure seems valid. Sport Pilot addresses the UL issues, in an FAA administered context. Many don't like it. If Sport Pilot goes through, the 'umbrella' is probably permanently, uh, folded. Could Sport Pilot then foil AOPA's efforts to have a DL medical in Rec Pilot, something that is far more palatable, because larger a/c are included? Then everyone could feel cheated and abused. So... what if the FAA had simply approved the self-certified med in Rec Pilot, with Part 91? Would aviation be a little more rational and, just maybe, a lot less divided? I really hope that AOPA gets some relief with their petition. The FAA's rulemaking process is very difficult to understand. The evolution of UL's was obvious. Not only had the weight issue blown up, but also the 2 place UL 'trainer'. That meant the regulator had to act, and quickly. The FAA overextended the exemption process, which led to more abuses. People who wouldn't buck Part 91 openly flaunted Part 103. Regs is regs. In the case of the reduced medical, surely it was and is obvious that we are aging, and requests to extend flying privileges are an obvious consequence. The way these two issues became entangled, with a lot of unhappy people in the immediate vicinity, is a little sad. Does the FAA really need to be so opaque? |
| Steve
Thomas
22 Jul 2002 |
FLYING's Report on Whyalla I have to give John Deakin a round of applause for taking on the ATSB and FLYING (and anyone else who spouts pseudo-scientific hogwash). When I read Richard Collins' article in the May FLYING, I checked out the ATSB report on my own and immediately saw the ridiculous inaccuracies both the article and the ATSB were promoting. Unfortunately, I'm afraid that our "grass roots" LOP campaign has a tough hill to climb against all of these supposed experts. What I can report from flying my Cardinal with a normally aspirated IO-360, is that LOP is possible even with some "off the shelf" un-GAMI'd engines. I have taken the time to chart the EGT's and CHT's (with an engine analyzer) and can confirm exactly the leaning behavior Mr. Deakin and GAMI have been citing. The engine analyzer is invaluable and should be #1 on any aircraft owner's list of upgrades (at least for us fuel injected types). I can tell you that you'd never know from the "feel" of the aircraft that you're LOP except that the airspeed falls off a knot or two at the same MP & RPM. The CHT's are lower than at any equivalent power setting (considering fuel flow and airspeed). I can also report that my past mid-time engine has consistently come up with compressions in the high 70's when checked and propells my airframe at near book numbers up to 14000'. What I take extreme offense about is the characterization by Flying magazine, Lycoming, Continental, Cessna, Piper, Beech, the ATSB, the FAA, etc. that I'm too stupid to manage my engine properly. Gee I was smart enough to learn how to fly in the first place, and come up with enough money to buy an airplane, plus having an master's degree in aerospace engineering, plus being smart enough to read and think critically and weigh the scientific evidence, plus being smart enough to see thru the marketing and legal hogwash being thrust on me -- do all those things qualify me to be smart enough to manage my engine properly? What exactly do they think I'm going to do wrong? How about this for a suggestion, instead of Lycoming and Continental insulting us by giving us engine management techniques that at best pass only the legal liability, CYA test, why don't they offer an actual course in proper engine management, based on FACT and their own data (which confirms what Mr. Deakin says about LOP operation)? Isn't that one of the primary techniques of improving safety and reliability in aviation - educate? It's a bit like saying "the general doesn't know anything about how to fly, therefore it's impossible to teach them -- fly commercial where it's managed for you." AVweb responds... Steve, not to make excuses for Lycoming and Continental, but you need to keep in mind that successful LOP operation depends on two things that are neither required nor present in many piston-powered aircraft: (1) an engine with even cylinder-to-cylinder mixture distribution, and (2) accurate probe-per-cylinder EGT instrumentation. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Donald
La Porte
22 Jul 2002 |
PB4Y Air Tanker Crash I'm sure you will get plenty of mail on your blooper, but a PB4Y is not a flying boat. It is the Navy version of the B-24 Liberator. Its most striking difference is the single vertical tail and it can land on water ... once. Something like the B-307. AVweb responds... Cute, Don! --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Bob
Howie
22 Jul 2002 |
PB4Y Air Tanker Crash AVweb referred to the second crash of an aerial tanker as a "PB4y flying boat" when, in fact, I believe the airplane is question was the PB4Y-2 Privateer, a version of the B-24 Liberator bomber and not the venerable PBY-4 Consolidated Flying Boat, to which the newsbit referred. The Greybull, Wyoming firm contracting with the USFS for fire suppression operates several of the old World War II-era Privateers and all have been grounded by the FAA pending a review as to whether age of the planes played a factor in the crash. The same company also operated the C-130 that crashed last month. If I am correct, and I believe I am, then it's an understandable mistake and one easily made since few people, even some aviation experts, are aware that the PB4Y Privateers exist since only a limited number were built. AVweb responds... You are correct, Bob. We goofed. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Daniel
Bredvold
22 Jul 2002 |
PB4Y Air Tanker Crash I'm sure that you will get a bunch of notes but the air tanker that crashed in CO was not a vintage flying boat but a Convair Privateer - the US Navy patrol bomber version of the WWII vintage Consolidated B-24 bomber - a similar 4-engine landplane with a single tail. See www.hawkinsandpowers.com for a photo of the lost aircraft (Tanker 123) and the rest of their fleet. The C-130A tanker that crashed also belonged to this operator..... AVweb responds... "A bunch of notes" is the understatement of the year, Dan! --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Ron
Fisher
21 Jul 2002 |
FAA Administrator Jane Garvey AVweb's story on the new FAA Administrator was great, except for your "concurrence" on the "job well done" by outgoing Administrator Jane Garvey. Jane has destroyed the FAA in five years with the CIC program, being in bed with the Union (NATCA), her lack of knowledge of the flying industry, on and on! I have enjoyed my 28 years with the agency, will retire in 17 months, but she has single-handedly got us in a real mess. I hope our new administrator can turn us around.
AVweb responds... Ron, perhaps one's perspective on Ms. Garvey's tenure as FAA Administrator depends on whether you're in the agency or a certificate holder regulated by the agency. As one of the latter, I rather enjoyed her tenure. (Hint: When you're a certificate holder, "less is more.") --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Mike
Edgington
18 Jul 2002 |
Reciprocal Certificates to ICAO Pilots It appears that in the past few days the FAA stopped all FSDOs and DFEs from issuing FAA PPL certificates on the basis of an ICAO license (under FAR 61.75). While this is unlikely to affect the majority of your readers, it will penalize the many pilots from overseas (particularly Europe) who chose to fly in the "welcoming" U.S. environment either as part of a vacation, business trip, or to build cross-country hours before embarking on a professional license in their home country. This is also another quiet step on the road to more draconian restrictions on existing FAA license holders. I look forward to the inevitable half-hearted justification of "security." Perhaps Fox News were about to run a story on "foreigners allowed to fly over U.S. homes"? AVweb responds... Since 9/11, there has been a steady erosion of freedoms in the U.S. in the name of homeland security. It remains to be seen how far the public will allow this pendulum to swing before it says "enough!" I hope not much further ... but I shudder to think what would happen in the wake of another successful large-scale terror incident in this country. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Gordon
Hughes
18 Jul 2002 |
Yes, Pogo, The Enemy Is Us Rick Durden's column "Yes, Pogo, The Enemy Is Us" is a good demonstration that the skills required to get a private pilot license are not sufficient for reasonable public safety. Unfortunately, since the beginning of aviation, a solid minority of private pilots have endangered themselves and others around them. One of the Wright brothers' first passengers was the first airplane fatality. And in a century of aviation, the accident types have a scary monotony: running out of gas, VFR into IFR weather, stall/spin. In my own 30 years of flying single engine airplanes (mostly in a turbo Mooney 231), I have come to think that this minority is around 5% of us. Many people fear to fly in private aircraft, and they are correct -- because they have no way to tell whether a pilot is in the 5% dangerous minority. This makes 100% of us look dangerous, and makes the public lean towards shutting general aviation down, as happened after 9/11. So what's the solution? One step might be a new (voluntary) "Safety Rating" pilot certificate certifying that a pilot has passed training in advanced safety, emergencies, best VFR and IFR flight practices, and takes annual flight safety tests. The airlines follow safe piloting rules, they require frequent recurrency and emergency training, and they have almost perfect safety records -- and the public agrees. Their level of training and testing is given at FAA-authorized schools like FlightSafety International, and is far more rigorous than the FAA BFR test requirements. I'm suggesting a voluntary "Safety Rating," NOT saying we all have to get ATP licenses.
|
| John
Aspinall
18 Jul 2002 |
AOPA's Call For "Drivers Licence Medicals" Concerning AOPA's assertion that "medical conditions are rarely causal factors in GA accidents": Do you suppose this could in any way relate to the fact that ALL pilots must pass an aviation medical exam, which requires certain minimum medical qualifications, depending upon the type of pilot license? Without these requirements, do you suppose the assertion will still apply ten years from now? Well, I guess AOPA has all the brains, eh! (Now there's a giveaway) AVweb responds... John, that's the same kind of misguided circular logic that the FAA has been using for decades to justify the Age 60 Rule for airline pilots. There is no credible evidence that the existing FAA medical certificate requirements result in a measurable improvement in safety, nor that the existing aviation medical examinations have any better predictive value for pilot incapacitation than a driver's license questionnaire. In this regard, I agree with AOPA. Furthermore, your assertion that all pilots must bass an aviation medical exam is simply false. Pilots of gliders and balloons have been allowed to "medically self-certify" for decades, and there has never been any safety problem to prompt the FAA to rethink its policy in this regard. Finally, the FAA itself actually recommended expanding medical self-certification in its massive NPRM to overhaul FAR Part 61 some years back. Public comment to the NPRM enthusiastically supported this, but the DOT vetoed the FAA proposal ... undoubtedly for political rather than scientific reasons. (How do you suppose Dan Rather or Peter Jennings would have spun a story about about the FAA dropping its medical requirements for pilots?) --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Sherry
Snyder
18 Jul 2002 |
Stratoliner Will Fly Again AVweb wrote:
I feel compelled to point out a couple of errors in your story: First, there is no Seattle Tribune. It either The Times or the Post Intelligencer. Second, Elliot Bay is the Bay of water that downtown Seattle over looks. The plane took off from Boeing Field which is just south of downtown Seattle. Paine Field is where Boeing Everett is located and is something like 40 miles to the north. Maybe a Jepp chart would be helpful? AVweb responds... We got LOTS of reader mail about this, Sherry. Nothing gets our readers riled like misplaced geography. If we could only find a way to integrate our GPS and word-processing software! --Mary Grady, Senior News Editor |
| Rabe
Marsh
18 Jul 2002 |
America West Pilots "Plead Innocent"? No criminal defendant pleads "innocent" to the charges, as you reported about the America West pilots. The plea can only be "not guilty" or "guilty" or "no contest." A plea or verdict of "not guilty" is not the equivalent of "innocent." It is misleading to substitute the word "innocent" for "not guilty" because innocence is never an issue in court, never has to be proved, nor can it ever be the result of the trial. It is only two additional ASCII characters to get it right. AVweb responds... Rabe, you are absolutely right. I was taught long ago by the old newsroom copy-desk curmudgeons that "pleaded innocent" was the preferred style. Your query got me thinking, though, and I sent an email to Bill Walsh at TheSlot.com, the czar of copy-desk curmudgeonry:
And here's what Bill Walsh wrote back:
From now on, we'll say "not guilty." Thanks for pointing out our error. --Mary Grady, Senior News Editor |
| Bernie
Samms
18 Jul 2002 |
Japanese Supersonic Airliner Model Crash From what I saw on the TV the model was attached to a rocket launched from Woomera Rocket Range, and it was the rocket that "went ballistic," not the model. In fact, the model was to be released in the upper atmosphere and fly back to earth as a test. Rocket technology can go very wrong obviously, but the supersonic model was at most something that was pretty innocent in this -- and calling the test of the model a failure is a bit like "shooting the messenger."
|
| Paul
Hekman
17 Jul 2002 |
First Come, First Served? Here's a tidbit from the Chicago Tribune this morning on a congressional hearing to re-organize the FAA :
I'd love to see the traffic movement at O'Hare (preferably from a considerable distance) if takeoff priorities were continuously re-allocated based on Souls on Board. Wow, a creative mind could come up with a dozen really interesting variations on this theme. Even regional jets might never even get on the runway during thunderstorm season, especially late in the day when all the international flights are taking wing. We're in potential deep trouble when the lawyers start re-organizing the FAA. |
| Paul
Taylor
15 Jul 2002 |
FAA Warns of Temporary Furloughs AVweb News recently reported on the current status of the DOT budget, Sec. Mineta, and Administrator Garvey. You stated that without additional funding, "thousand air traffic controllers" would "face temporary furloughs of five to eight days by the end of the fiscal year...". There are many additional FAA employees that are also affected by this shortfall. Sec. Mineta's letter to Rep. Rogers, the Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Transportation, of the Appropriations Committee stated that, "...the FAA would have to furlough 35,000 Air Traffic Services employees..." This includes Systems Specialists who, on a daily basis, install, repair, maintain, operate and certify over 40,000 facilities and equipment used in air traffic control and national defense. Without these people, air traffic controllers, who you continue to give complete headlines, would not even be able to key their microphones.
AVweb responds... Paul, thanks for pointing out that controllers would not be the only FAA employees affected by these temporary furloughs. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Patrick
P. Pihana
12 Jul 2002 |
Thanks From The Troops Dear AVweb Team, please accept my thanks for the great work you do at AVweb. I'm on my second deployment to Operation ENDURING FREEDOM, and once again AVweb is keeping us informed on the issues and concerns affecting the aviation world. Your broad coverage and honest reporting keeps us informed, and gives us hope we'll always be able to enjoy the wonders of flight. Again, thanks to your staff and organization for a job well done.
|
| Ramon
L. Van Sickle
12 Jul 2002 |
Status Quo for Stage 2 Jets at Naples (Fla.) This is very frustrating indeed. But the FAA generally does not move decisively unless pushed. Right now, Naples is the only one pushing. As Naples' attorney Peter Kirsch recently wrote: "The restriction at Naples is important not only because it is the first but also because it is the subject of several challenges, the results of which may prove precedential of other airport operators to address local noise issues." This is dangerous, and the challenges, brought by NBAA were ineffective and incomplete. They simply did not convince the Court that it was in their political interest it issue a decision that went against the political correctness of noise reduction. In other words, the Court ruled on political grounds, instead of legal, economic or technical matters. The only way for the FAA to move in our direction on this is for every reader to write to the FAA and state that this measure is unreasonable, arbitrary and discriminatory. With enough pressure from "our" side, the FAA just might study this enough to justify overturning Naples. Mail and FAX a short (1 page) letter to:
Send copies to:
Everyone should also consider sending a donation to:
Try to send at least $25 (more if you can) This organization understands what is going on here better than any other, but needs money to hire the attorneys and consultants to fight for our side.
|
| Stephen
J. Collinsworth
12 Jul 2002 |
Graphical TFR Info The FAA's website does have Graphic presentations of TFR's. Go to the FAA's website at www.faa.gov, then click on the "Graphic TFR's" next to the "Alerts." And voila, you're at a list of TFR's. Click on any one of them and you get a graphic of the appropriate VFR Sectional along with the text of the applicable FDC Notam which you've selected. Now, gee whiz, why didn't I think of that???
AVweb responds... Stephen, we might need better directions, but so far "any one of them" appears to slightly overstate the case. Either after clicking through on the TFR or after reading "Please note that graphics for three Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFRs) are now available:" I only came up with three... --Glenn Pew, AVweb News |
| Tom
Mosher
11 Jul 2002 |
Airport Security In contrast to Olivier Deplagne's recent experience [AVmail, 04 July 2002], I have to relate a recent security story: Departing CVG on Delta recently, a man boarded the 767 and loaded his guitar case into an overhead bin. Later a woman, trying very hard to remain pleasant, appeared on-board hand-carrying a very expensive-looking violin and bow. Her explanation: Some official insisted that she would have to check her violin because it was oversized for a carry-on. The bare instrument was, however, small enough, so she checked the empty case, and hand-carried the violin in her lap all the way to PDX. Perhaps a little bit of consistency and intelligent judgment is too much to hope for in the post-9/11 era.
|
| David
Gerber
12 Jul 2002 |
No Jokes on America West I saw the piece re the expulsion of a pax 'coz she asked if the tech crew had been tested for "sobriety". In the light of recent events, I would have thought that it was a fair enough question! Getting rid of her under those circumstances seems like "shooting the messenger" to me, but it sounds typical of Am.West's way of doing things, if the stories & first-hand experiences I've read and heard are anywhere near true. And we complain about Qantas' behavior these days!! Wow...
|
| Charles
A. Davis
11 Jul 2002 |
RNP RNAV Approaches In reference to July 11 Briefs article "FAA To Simplify Instrument Approaches," Seattle-based regional carrier Horizon Air, sister carrier to Alaska Airlines is also currently working towards RNP certification. The company plans to certify its Dash 8 400's (70 seat turboprop) and CRJ 700's (70 seat Challenger bizjet) to meet RNP qualifications. Additionally, plans for the company's remaining Dash 8 200's (37 seat turboprop) call for LNAV/VNAV certification. These FMS-based approaches allow aircraft to fly on ILS style precision approaches at airports with no ILS. Horizon is also in the process of certifying its entire fleet for CAT IIIa operations (approach minimums of 50 feet and 600 RVR). The company's Dash 8 200's have used the HGS (Head-up Guidance System) for several years allowing for lowered approach minimums. Soon the newest aircraft arrivals will also be as capable. Not bad for a regional! |
| Rudolf
Mortimer
11 Jul 2002 |
No Jokes on America West So, the passenger asked if the crew had been checked for sobriety and was removed from the aircraft because "she was considered a security risk." America West according to you interpreted this to be a safety threat about which the woman should not make a joke. You apparently also think her remark was "threatening". I think the question the woman asked was a good one and she, as a passenger, has every right to ask if appropriate precautions for the safety of the flight were taken. That includes making sure the crew was not impaired. Did the airline take any such steps? I doubt it and I doubt they routinely or ever make any such checks. It should come as no surprise that commercial (and general aviation) pilots consume alcohol and some fly while still affected. Among the general population about 10% of those who use alcohol are problem drinkers or alcoholics. Pilots, commercial or other, are no exception. The proof is that airlines have programs for their pilots to weed them from their uncontrolled drinking that are innocuously called "pilot assistance programs" and that, as again happened on July 3, an America West crew was found to be operating an aircraft under the influence of alcohol. Crew impairment from drugs/alcohol is a serious matter and needs to be fully exposed. The airlines and the pilots unions like to sweep it under the table and they do not know the full extent of it. The lady who made the remark on the Am West flight had a point. That she was considered a security risk suggests to me that the airline and the security forces are paranoid and, in this case, mistaken and hiding their own ignorance. It is interesting that billions are spent on checking passengers. What is spent and done to check the cockpit crew?
AVweb responds... Sometimes we can go a little too far down the road of veiled sarcasm, Rudolph, and it can take a reader like you to point out when those times are. In this case, it appears you've documented the exact line of thinking we were attempting to suggest when we described a safety concern as "threatening." Sorry if our [attempted] humor was misleading, --Glenn Pew, AVweb News |
| Jeff
Boatright
11 Jul 2002 |
No Jokes on America West In response to your piece, "NO JOKES ON AMERICA WEST," in which you reported that a passenger was removed for asking an attendant whether the pilots had been checked for sobriety: why the bias in favor of AW? The passenger had every right to be concerned. If, however, she was not serious, if she was joking as the AW spokeswoman intimated ("Safety is no joking matter,"), possibly that was her way of dealing with nervousness caused by being on an AW flight. Forcing the passenger onto another flight was simply punitive. If she was a real security risk, how does placing her on another flight make her less of a risk? It doesn't. AW never really thought she was a security risk. This was a simple case of a passenger embarrassing the airline and the airline retaliating. AW removing her as a security risk is the joke. Your buying into the safety explanation erodes my opinion of your judgement. Your statement, "... where, presumably, she kept her concerns about the safety of the flight (and other threatening comments) to herself" indicates to me that not only are you willing to buy into the bogus safety issue, but you're willing to shill for AW. If she made other threatening comments, report THOSE. I guess she didn't really make other threatening comments, because if she had, _those_ would be comments that AW would be highlighting and _those_ would have been reported by you. After all, safety is no joking matter.
AVweb responds... Jeff, our reaction to the incident was much the same as yours. Apparently our sarcasm was too subtle, misleading you into thinking that somehow we considered America West's expulsion of the passenger to be appropriate. Rest assured we didn't. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Neal
Cohen
11 Jul 2002 |
No Jokes on America West With respect to the woman removed from the America West flight for asking if the crew was sober: Yes, saftey certainly is no joking matter. But to consider her a "security risk"? Come on now! These airlines are now using 9/11 to be bigger assholes than they ever were! |
| Chris
Van Hoof
10 Jul 2002 |
GA Security Paranoia in South Africa It seems as if the GA security paranoia has reached South Africa. Our CAA (Civil Aviation Authority) has just published AIC S056/02 July 2002, in which our (RSA) State uses its powers to disable GA in (just about) the complete Johannesburg area. The restriction of GA freedom, from 01 to 04 September 2002 for the World Summit on Sustainable Development. It is utterly ridiculous to blindly follow the current USA trend of restricting General Aviation. This is a major part of our country's income producing sector. It was the COMMERCIAL AVIATION SECTOR and their incompetent security applications (even in our own country, as has been published in various local magazines) that were responsible for the catastrophes in the world. (particularly the NY 11 / 9 tragedy) The South African G A sector (nor any other countries) should not be blamed nor penalized for these events. Nor do we have a history of such behavior. The fact that a small plane of about 1000 Kg will do ultimately less harm than say an explosives packed pickup, seems to be beyond the general thinking ... nor do we have a history of such behavior either. The restrictions could be reduced from the complete Special Rules Area to the Sandton CBD only, alternatively straight lines from the extremities of the FALA CTR to JSV. That way the SA general flying public, Charter companies & Flying Schools can still operate, while they have their security. Any plane taking of within this area, could in any, case not be shot down over this densely populated area without causing a major catastrophe. Probably more damage than a terrorist could hope to achieve with a small plane. What is going on in our world? |
| Cliff
Johnson
10 Jul 2002 |
Ditching Near Ft. Pierce, Fla. AVweb wrote:
My question: At what point in the flight did the aircraft "begin" to run low on fuel? AVweb responds... Now there's a thought-provoking question! --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Steve
Sampson
9 Jul 2002 |
Carnahan's Family Reaches Settlement AP reported:
This just makes me furious! We're in for another round of insurance premium increases and people dropping out of this hobby/recreation/sport all because the legal system let's us blame everyone else around us when we make mistakes. We all know that flying can be dangerous! It isn't necessarily, but it can be. When things go wrong, we can lose our lives, and possibly take others with us. We can perhaps insure our lives in the event that something untoward happens but . . . to sue the aircraft and systems manufacturers when a vacuum pump fails, is just ludicrous! (assuming there isn't a known issue and a fraudulent coverup!) When I did my instrument rating, much of the flight training was around flying on a partial panel. I'm glad I haven't had a "real" episode, but nonetheless, it is a core requisite skill. We should all therefore remain current on how to do it. If we get it wrong, we'll probably die! In this case, we (or more correctly, our families!) will collect on the insurance policy. We shouldn't look to sue everyone else we can find. If we can't handle the "risks", we shouldn't be flying!
|
| Bob
Berlyn
8 Jul 2002 |
NOTAMs and TFRs Recently, July 4th, 2002 I planned a short trip from PVD the 1B2 (Katama, on Martha's Vineyard) for a day at the beach. I am aware of the very justified warnings from the AOPA and the EAA to check for TFRs. So I dialed up DUAT and checked the weather along with the TFRs. I discovered that this is a daunting task, with reams of paper being spit out of my printer. In any case I did not find any for my planned route. Just to be on the safe side I called Flight Service to check. Flight service reported to me that I was correct, NO TFRs along my route. Now I felt obliged to take the extra precautions, being an ex airline pilot, active flight instructor with over 11,000 hours. I did not want to end up on the nightly news. Any way, as I started the airplane at PVD and listened to the ATIS it indicated a TFR directly on my route of flight. Just to the southeast of PVD VOR apparently for a 4th of July parade. The TFR was really not a problem and I understand why it might be issued. My point is that if someone did not happen to depart PVD, they apparently would have no way of knowing that the TFR existed at all. If TFRs are going to be a fact of life (and apparently they are) doesn't the FAA have an obligation to disseminate the information?
AVweb responds... They used to kid me about always filing IFR, even in CAVU weather. Since 9/11, the kidding has largely stopped. It's just too much like work to fly VFR anymore. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Ken
Johnson
8 Jul 2002 |
B757/TU154 Midair Any of your readers who have had the dubious pleasure of flying anywhere in Europe can attest to the fact that the mid air collision between the TU154 and the B757 was inevitable. The air traffic control system in Europe is so fractured and each country guards it's own airspace with often irrational vigor. The European Union (EU) is supposed to unify and streamline business and commerce between the member countries. Until an air traffic system is developed that has uniform rules and requirements administered equally throughout the EU it is just a matter of time before there is another mid air between aircraft where the crews cannot understand the controllers, are not sure who's airspace they are in and which rules they are expected to follow. I know someone is going to say, "English is the universal language of aviation". All aircraft are not treated equally in Europe. If it is a French crew on a French aircraft the French controllers speak French. If your in Germany, the controllers speak German to the German aircraft. If you are in Italy, they speak Italian to the Italian aircraft, etc, etc, etc. Unless you are multi-, multi-languaged, you do not understand half of what is transmitted over the air traffic control system in Europe. Now throw in the various accents when the French are talking to the Spanish or the Italians are talking to the Germans and it is a miracle that there are not more mid-airs or near misses. I am sorry 71 people had to loose their lives but if the EU does not get with the program, more people will die. The world is moving on and if the EU wants to be part of it they best catch up. Otherwise they can go back to the Dark Ages and live in their individual little fiefdoms and aviation (and progress) can bypass them. |
| Michael
Sitver
08 Jul 2002 |
GA as a Security Threat This weekend I had the opportunity to visit the Hiller Aviation Museum in Palo Alto, CA. Among the exhibits was an enlarged reproduction of a news magazine cover from 1913. The subject of the featured article was, "Can Airplanes destroy the Panama Canal from the Air?" The article was published in response to Robert Fowler’s motion picture taking mission which he flew along the length of the canal. Widely considered the first successful use of an airplane for photo-reconnaissance, the flight got Fowler thrown in jail for compromising the security of the canal -- his film was confiscated. I had to chuckle at the similarity between that magazine cover and today’s alarmist headlines concerning the potential threat posed to our nation's security by General Aviation. I guess the media at large has never been kind to us, nor have they been particularly well informed. |
| Larry
O'Brien
8 Jul 2002 |
Restrictions on General Aviation The enemy is us. I believe this topic should really be hit HARD. The way things seem to be going, the only way we can hope to continue to fly with an 'open sky' policy is our vigilant attention to policing ourselves. I am worried that some 'nut-case' will try to make a statement with a private plane and then we will all go down -- again. WE ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO CAN PREVENT THIS. Not only is it our responsibility, but we have to get the word out so the public KNOWS we are doing it!
|
| Steven
Weintraub
08 Jul 2002 |
GPS in the IFR System Jeremy Jankowski's article "GPS in the IFR System" perpetuates one of the most common misconceptions about how GPS works. GPS does not work by comparing the time in satellite internal clocks to the time in your receiver. Your receiver does not have the capability to keep time to anywhere near the required precision. Instead, GPS works by comparing the times broadcast by the satellites. For example, if your receiver simultaneously receives signals from two satellites that indicate the same time, you must be equidistant from those satellites. If you receive such a signal from satellite A 6 microseconds before you receive the one from satellite B, you must be approximately 1 nm closer to satellite A than to satellite B. So GPS does NOT give any distance information from individual satellites, but instead gives the DIFFERENCE of distances from pairs of satellites. Of course, the satellites also transmit position information, telling your receiver where they are. Thus 1 satellite gives NO position information. 2 satellites localizes you to a surface (a hyperboloid, which is the surface consisting of points X such that the difference between the distance from X to a fixed point A and the distance from X to a fixed point B is a given constant d, or a plane in the special case d=0, when you are equidistant). 3 satellites localizes you to a curve which is the intersection of two surfaces, and 4 satellites to a point, the intersection of a curve and a surface. Thus you need 4 satellites, not 3, to determine position. (If you are using barometric information as well, then your elevation put you on a sphere, thereby providing an extra surface. Thus, with this information, the number of necessary satellites decreases by one, so that you can determine position by 3 satellites plus barometric information.) AVweb responds... Obviously! Everybody knows that. <g> Thanks for the excellent explanation, Steven. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Ken
Smith
8 Jul 2002 |
N.J. Background Checks For Flight Training Have any of these brain-dead politicians ever wondered how a flight instructor, when asked to give a biennial, is supposed to access law enforcement data banks? Will everyone with a flight instructors certificate be authorized to do this? I assume when the flight instructor is having his own biennial he can check his own background Do politicians have their lobotomies before they run for office or is it a perk after the election? Sheeeeeeeesh!!! |
| Bill
Kelley
7 Jul 2002 |
N.J. Background Checks For Flight Training I know I may be taking this to the extreme, but as I read this Bill it seems to me that this Bill would make it illegal for an Airline Captain to give guidance, recommendations or advice to his copilot during a flight over NJ unless they have complied with the requirements of this Bill. FAR Part 61.167 gives pilots who hold ATP ratings instructor privileges in "air transportation service in aircraft of the category, class and type as applicable, for which the airline transport pilot is rated". If a flight crew from Texas is landing in N.J., where the airline has a facility, and the Captain says to the copilot I would add an extra 5 kts in these conditions, could this then be considered providing flight instruction. I think it could be and as the airline has a facility in N.J. and their pilot was instructing his copilot, exactly as FAR 61.167 is intended to give him/her that privilege, this bill would give N.J. jurisdiction. This kind of thing is exactly why so many interstate commerce acts have declared that the regulation of air commerce is the jurisdiction of the Federal government not individual States. If this Bill passes will my Federally issued pilots license based on flight instruction received in R.I. without a N.J. background check be valid in N.J. At first glance it appears as if it would, but for how long if this usurping of Federal Authority is allowed to continue. Where is the FAA and the Federal government in all this? Why haven't they responded to New Jersey and Michigan with Federal Lawsuits to protect their authority under the interstate commerce acts. |
| Donna
McGinnis
7 Jul 2002 |
Restrictions on General Aviation SUA in Stuart is almost completely locked down. Along with a zillion feet of 6' fencing, our security badges being produced and about to be distributed to the pilots, students and airport employees. It has been and interesting couple of months watching the fence crews do their installation and designated entry gates. I think we are only about 10 days past the schedule total complete lockdown. We will all have our large ID badge (color coded no-less). Vehicle permits are only on a need to basis. Student badges (yellow with big STUDENT on them must be accompanied by a green (instructor/employee with ramp privileges) badge. Renters/owners will also have a yellow badge. Each passenger will have to get a badge from the FBO's and shall (that operative word) be accompanied by a yellow renter/owner badge. The airport employees that have NO ramp privileges get another color badge, but if they do have to get out to the ramp, they shall be accompanied by a green badge person. Got it? Confusing? (I think it will work though if you think about it for a couple months) A lot of owner/pilots will now be getting a bit more exercise by walking to their aircraft rather driving and leaving their car near the aircraft. The 9-11 changed the world similar to the degree as W.W.II did. For those who wish to see for themselves what their little-ole friendly airpark/port is going to look like the in not too distant future, come for a visit. We are 40 miles north of Palm Beach International Airport on the shoreline.
|
| Jake
Brodsky
05 Jul 2002 |
Mary Schiavo on the GA Threat Scary Mary's at it again. Just when you thought she had learned her lesson and found something more rewarding to do with her life, Mary Schiavo proclaimed:
I wonder who she's talking about when she says "YOU'RE going to have to control the aircraft." (emphasis mine) Surely she's not advocating some sort of ground-based remote control, is she? Could you enlighten me on the context of this quote? AVweb responds... Sure, Jake. The context of the quote is that it was said by Mary Schiavo. --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Byron
Blake
4 Jul 2002 |
Fossett's Round-The-World Balloon Flight AVweb wrote:
Wow. Now AVweb has joined the ranks of CNN. I never thought that would happen! Too bad it did. Poor Steve Fossett can't get a break. Here's a rich fat cat (suddenly that's a crime? I thought this was free trading Capitalist America... maybe not.) trying to promote aviation; if it just so happens his ego gets a boost so what? What pilot doesn't have an ego that needs a little stroking? Okay, so it was a trial by error. It was a long drawn-out trip around the old planet, I don't see you guys doing anything unique, or interesting to promote our occupation or hobby. Next time our industry needs some help maybe we should ask some third-world dictator and not AVweb, AOPA or any of the other groups in the U.S. All they seem to do these days is bitch, whine and make excuses. Geez. AVweb responds... Could you repeat that, Byron? Sorry, I dozed off... --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Olivier
Deplagne
4 Jul 2002 |
Airport Security Just to let you know that a month ago, while returning from a family trip from Washington DC, I uneventfully went through security check at BWI with a (very nice) 3x2 feet glass-framed picture (of Annapolis Naval Academy) and a big (Georgetown University) golf umbrella shrink-wrapped together. It had to go through the x-ray machine but nobody asked me what that was made of, obviously they figured out. I was very glad indeed to keep these fragile items from being thrown away (and certainly destroyed) with regular checked-in luggage and thanked the inspectors for that. Right behind me, my son (12 years old) and daughter (8 years old) were both searched and asked to open-up their back-packs, operate Game-Boys, take off their shoes, belts and so on. When we caught our connecting flight in Toronto, same thing happened. Except the inspector checked with her supervisor if I could board with that carry-on item wholly made of glass. Not saying inspectors don't do their job : on the contrary, I think they handle it VERY wisely : I could have drawn attention with my unusual hand-luggage thus allowing my kids to board the plane with booby-trapped Nintendo or running shoes. On the other hand, inspectors have been kind enough to let me safely bring these items back home. And it would have been quite difficult for me to break the glass frame and hijack these aircraft before being obliterated by other passengers. Not saying security checks should not be real tough, just saying when security inspectors are trained, wise and use common sense, they are pretty good ! |
| Will
Gray
4 Jul 2002 |
NOTAMs and TFRs One of the problems facing the pilot in his planning for a flight is obtaining a briefing that is complete, accurate and understandable. The NOTAM system is at the core of this problem. To be fully informed, a pilot must review The Airport/Facility Directory (AFD), the Notices to Airmen Publication and of course the D, L and FDC NOTAMS. Have you ever missed the fine print in the AFD that said "airport closed," I have. I filed a flight plan and briefed myself using DUAT information and reviewed the AFD but missed "airport closed" (nothing like human error). The system accepted my flight plan to a closed airport, I received a clearance to the airport and flew to the destination, not knowing the field was closed until the approach controller advised that the field was closed. This may not be a problem for Part 121 operators, but Part 135 and Part 91 operators who fly to many unfamiliar airports on short notice, as required by their passengers, face this problem daily. Add to this problem the expanding world of the Temporary Flight Restriction (TFR) and you have a difficult situation to resolve. I use a flight planning software that accesses DUAT information and plots TFR's on the software planning chart, but there is no way to know of TFR's that are established between the time I complete my planning and the time I fly the trip. My solution is to fly IFR all the time and let the FAA controller solve the problem for me. The VFR pilot has to clear himself from all Prohibited, Restricted and TFR airspace. The introduction of ADS-B datalink services may be an answer. I have three suggestions;
|
| Will
Gray
4 Jul 2002 |
RVSM Big Sky, Little Airplane -- RIP. With the almost universal use of GPS-based FMS systems driving our flight directors and autopilots, and now highly accurate altimeters needed for RVSM, we have removed all of the "slop" from flying that made "big sky, little airplane" a positive factor in aviation safety. When two modern aircraft cross a fix on autopilot at the same altitude, the only thing that prevents a collision is the difference in the time of their arrival at the fix. The U.S. State Department and FAA have allowed the European Union and ICAO to push RVSM operations into service without the benefit of a fully functional ADS-B type system to permit more accurate location of all aircraft in the airspace. ADS-B information would permit computer development of a very accurate 3D velocity vector for each aircraft. This would permit computer prediction of conflicts with great reliability and early enough to prevent aircraft from being at the same place at the same time. The U.S. must retake the initiative in world aviation planning. We fly more airplanes and carry the more passengers than any other nation on earth. We must be the leader in development and deployment of systems like RVSM. ADS-B implementation should be complete and in place before we jump into RVSM. A fresh look at the airspace plan may well indicate that reduced lateral separation would add to safety -- maybe J-2 should actually be four tracks only five miles apart instead of one single track. It is time to move away from VOR based airways -- this system forces aircraft into the same airspace: bad planning for collision avoidance. Our planners need to think outside the box -- industry is good at such thinking, the government is not.
|
| Charles
Zaloom
4 Jul 2002 |
Firearms In The Cockpit I have not yet heard anyone bring up the fact that line pilots were required to be armed to carry the US Mail and were generally issued little pistols. I don't know when mail carrying lines and the post office stopped this practice, but I believe it was the '50s or '60s. The precedent was set and a long history compiled up to that time.
|
| Michel
Charette
4 Jul 2002 |
Restrictions on General Aviation Almost every issue of AVflash contains references to statements from public figures about the so-called "horrifying security treat of GA airplanes".... Will someone stop this crazy paranoia? Come on! The threat of GA? How about those millions of cars, trucks, even pedestrians? That is also a big threat! They should find ways of controlling all that, right? Don't they see where that leads us??? I see many agencies simply profiting from the events to scare ordinary people as a cheap way of finally getting the fundings they always dreamed about. I also see the American public caught up in a spiral of fear, fueled by spectacular statements from people seeking personal credit and news media wanting to sell more air time or more paper. This plays into the hands of those who wanted to scare the American people with the 9-11 horror. It works! Heck, they don't even have to do anything else, the media (as always) is doing it for them. Hey, they even give them new ideas with all the details! Total security does not exist, except perhaps in a police state... I strongly believe the organizations representing GA should set the record straight publicly for the general public and soon otherwise our freedom to fly will be gone real fast. Not in aircraft publications, we are already convinced of the safety of GA! Please stop the craziness! Just a fellow pilot from Canada with an outside viewpoint of the whole debacle.
|
| Douglas
Corneil
04 Jul 2002 |
Restrictions on General Aviation What do all these TFRs really do other than make a complicated system more complicated? Are the bad guys really going to avoid a no fly zone? I think I read these words in your news letter once "It is much easier to punish the innocent". So in an effort to look like we're doing something let's make life tougher on all the law abiding citizens. |
| Mike
Hudgins
03 Jul 2002 |
Restrictions on General Aviation AVweb wrote:
I wonder if there is any sanity on the horizon, or at least scheduled for discussion in Congress. There has to be some way to identify "good guy" aviators, then allow them to do what they want -- i.e fly VFR. This craziness of assuming anything flying is heading for the white house loaded with high explosive has got to be reined in. I hope AOPA and to other alphabets, rather than hunkering down on the defensive ("Don't violate anything or we'll look bad...") are trying something proactive. How in the world can a Cessna pilot hurt the reputation of an entire industry, when the entire industry is the very personification of responsibility? Did we actually elect all these kneejerk bozos who are now afraid of a light plane's shadow? Not to mention our alphabet leaders who are not fighting back? Suppose an ultralight armed with six hand grenades and a bowling ball attacks the white house. What exactly is an F-16 supposed to do about it? Suppose a trained terrorist clears a security checkpoint stark naked. Could he find maybe a hundred weapons between the security checkpoint and the gate? Could he find another couple dozen on the plane? If he's trained, would he need a weapon anyway? So why are we taking knitting needles away from little old ladies? Suppose each airplane is equipped with a sky marshal, a bullet-proof cockpit door, and an armed pilot? Could we then do away with the security checkpoints completely, thereby saving billions in bozo pay to people who can't do their jobs anyway. |
| Peter
Goldstern
03 Jul 2002 |
B757/TU154 Midair The level of xenophobia and ignorance demonstrated in the initial news reports border on being frightening. The first reports blamed them foreigners (Russians) for not responding to 3 calls to descend in addition to intimating that part of the problem was that they don't speaka the eenglisch to good. After all the 757 was flown by Anglos so it couldn't be their fault. The Russian's' problems were confirmed by a list of Tu-154s which had been involved in accidents which I guess proves that some models are more likely to be hit broadside than others? Interesting but useless reporting to feed the hordes of National Enquirer readers. Later one report after another stated that there was only one controller in the "Tower". Now we all know that the landscape is dotted with towers no doubt with controllers running around scanning the sky with binoculars which turns out to be rather ineffective in the dark. I don't remember the details but several years ago an air carrier (Cross Air?) did a CFIT while under the control of Zurich (Approach?) without any intervention from ATC. Seems to me that possibly the Swiss ATC isn't quite up to standard? On a positive note Swiss Skyguides did issue a Press Release on July 3 at 1030 in which they state "Should it emerge that a fault lie with Swiss air navigation services, they will of course shoulder their responsibility..". That is a commendable statement to make in these days where rationalization prevails up to the highest levels. |
| Byron
Blake
3 Jul 2002 |
C-182 Incursion into P-40 A few weeks ago a C-182 inadvertently entered Prohibited Airspace P-40 surrounding the White House. The next thing you know AOPA comes out and criticizes the FAA for failure to provide graphical images of the TFRs. What a second! P-40 isn't a TFR. Its permanent. So is P-56. So are all Prohibited Airspaces. A graphical representation wouldn't have given the pilot more information, as P-40 is already charted on the Sectionals and any half wit pilot transiting the area has got to know at least one prohibited airspace is located there. Yes, I agree with AOPA that the FAA could make our lives a whole lot easier and probably safer too by providing graphical images for TFRs, especially since FSS briefers already have them. Yes, they have a point. But AOPA has distracted us from several issues:
People say that TFRs come and go -- that maybe -- but they often occur at the exact same location. TFRs for sporting events occur at your same local stadiums located in the same spot. TFRs for nuke plants occur at the same nuke plants. TFRs for model rocketry, most ballooning events and other special uses occur in the same places for the most part. AOPA has been into this "its also the Feds" fault mode for awhile now and personally I'm sick of it. This not what good pilots do. They accept their responsibility, bitch and moan to their friends, and move on. We're less than 0.30% of the entire population and a heck of a lot smarter than them. Let's live up to our reputation and stop being wimps.
|
| Pierre
F. Crosetto
3 Jul 2002 |
ATC Manpower Shortage Just read your article on the potential ATC shortage citing GAO's study. As a 26-year veteran (retired) of that organization, I view any report by GAO with a jaundiced eye. The very nature of the organization dictates that the reports will be as dooms day as possible, or they don't get published. When a study is launched, it is commonly at the request of a congressman or woman who "wants to find out more about a subject." In reality, this usually means he/she wants support a position of his/hers. I might add, only one requestor's signature is required, unlike studies by the House Appropriation's Surveys and Investigation Staffers, in which I also served, where two signatures, one from each party, are required before a study is launched. The GAO is supposed to remain independent and produce unbiased reports. However, an examination of the congressional requests will reveal that most of the work the office does is at the behest of a small percentage of congressmen/women; those who continually get the "right results" of their requests. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that coming up with the "right results," the more sensational the better, gets more studies published, more congressional requests, and ultimately, more promotions. A little like the news media in general, wouldn't you say? As to NATCA's position -- surprise, surprise! A union that wants massive hiring, i.e., large increases in membership, power, DUES! This, by the way, is the same union, or a clone of it , that had its members walk out on signed commitments in the 80's, deserting their duties and ignoring the safety of thousands of passengers. They even predicted catastrophe as a result of their actions but proceeded anyway. Thank God they were wrong. Surely, we shouldn't trust what they say any more now than we could in the 80's. Speaking of the walk-out in the 80s, the ATC system lost a much larger percentage of their population virtually over night and the system was able to adjust without incident. What's the big deal about 33% over a period of years? With its shortcomings, we have the safest, most efficient ATC in the world. Let the FAA do its thing and forget the GAO and NATCA. Dr. Pierre F. Crosetto |
| Robert
Lewis
3 Jul 2002 |
Fossett's Round-The-World Balloon Flight Just a comment on what was to be a round-the-world balloon flight: Appears as though the flight was conducted solely within the Southern Hemisphere of the planet Earth; and some 19,000 miles doesn't really demonstrate going around our world which has a circumference of some 25,000 miles. So which world are we talking about? |
| John E.
Jenista
2 Jul 2002 |
Restrictions on General Aviation I note all the restrictions on General Aviation since 911. Several airports are closed (perhaps permanently) TFR's abound, and new ones are created almost daily. However, the only damage incurred by a General Aviation aircraft since 911 was little more than broken windows to that building in Tampa. On the other hand rental trucks and automobiles have been used for many terrorist attacks, resulting in the loss of many lives; but the driving public suffers no restrictions at all. Further, one aircraft accident spawns nationwide headlines; while 40,000 automobile deaths per year is not even worthy of comment. This illustrates that General Aviation is the most over-regulated, overpriced, and under-appreciated facet of our society. Maybe, if there were a Federal Automobile Agency issuing restrictions similar to those of aviation, the driving public would realize what we are up against. |
| Ben
Hinkle
1 Jul 2002 |
Graphical TFR Info I am the Flight Standards and Airspace Coordinator for the BLM National Aviation Office and we now have a new informational site: http://airspace.blm.gov. This site has an interactive map and TFR list that plots graphical TFR information, updated twice daily, seven days a week. The BLM is the first government agency to map all Temporary Flight Restrictions onto current charts.
AVweb responds... Nice work, Ben! --Mike Busch, Editor-in-Chief |
| Dale
Carlson
1 Jul 2002 |
Restrictions on General Aviation I wonder if the 9-11 events are just an excuse now to accomplish what "they" have been wanting to do for years...get GA out of the way. Ground all those little airplanes taking up valuable airspace and causing safety problems. My view is that if the government was really serious about terrorism, rather than let the terrorists beat us -- which they have done by taking away more and more of our freedoms -- the President should issue an ultimatum. This will be the American response to acts of terrorism within the borders of the United States:
Then we can remove the TFR's, the fences/TV cameras/pax screening at GA airports, and direct non-flight plan flying ... if that is what we want to do. Might even take a flight around a nuke plant for the heck of it. If we can't do these things, the terrorists win anyhow simply because they will have made our country into a mirror of theirs with absolute government control. Trucking industry be ware, once the C-150s are all grounded because of their ability to haul huge loads (100 lbs maybe on a good day) of powerful explosives huge distances (200 miles a hop), trucks will come under the heavy handed regulation of the anti-terrorist movement because they can only haul 40, 50, 60,000 lbs of stuff that can blow up and can go anywhere these days. |