AVmail

1. Our Airport Development Plan (ADP) contains an area designated as area D-5 which is a location for moving, if necessary, only some (not all) of our T-hangars known as the "New T's. The relocation, if necessary, may be needed in order to build an infield service road. I along with engineers, planners and consultants have been working on a conceptual layout plan for that project. Whoever said there wasn't an area available for a relocation is sadly mistaken. The area is located adjacent to Harbor Bay Parkway between the College of Alameda and the National Weather Service site. Other sites are also available if it's even necessary to move some of the T-hangars.

2. As the North Field Manager, I am committed to not only maintaining G.A. activity at Oakland International Airport, but improving the facilities at every opportunity that I can. The Port of Oakland, Oakland International Airport, has just completed an agreement to build another new General Aviation Hangar. We finished a ramp improvement project last year and have plans underway to rebuild and improve G.A. facilities, taxiways and ramps in the near future.

3. My office as well as others at the Airport are always available to answer any questions that you may have regarding this Airport. It seems the responsible thing to do is to check out your sources of information. Your readers as well as others deserve it. Printing unsubstantiated information, part truths or falsehoods is a disservice to your readers and the aviation community in general. I would like to know who said that Port officials said G.A. should relocate to Hayward?

I request that you print my response to the article.

Thank you for your letter, Larry, which we've published verbatim above. We've also put our "source" in touch with you so that the details and implications of the Port Of Oakland's new four-year plan can be fully explored and discussed.

I am thinking about attending Embry-Riddle as a flight student. Is there any more info on the problems with the new 172 they were having?

I wouldn't lose any sleep over it, John.

It is evident; from data garnered from the ATA as well as the FAA, that LAHSO works when applied judiciously to facilities encountering excess delay and capacity restraints. Witness the degradation in capability (and increase in delay) at PHL

Some opponents of the procedure argue that the pilot do not know if the aircraft can stop or hold short, especially in situations where the landing surface is contaminated with snow or wet with precipitation.

From my experience, every manufacturer has tested/evaluated the performance of the aircraft in all representative operational conditions, providing braking operational data for smooth and grooved runways, at varying gross weights. This data is predicated on the worst case scenario, where the captain makes a late decision to brake and stop.

When I left Ransome to work for Boeing in 1986, at that time, we had over 55,000 simultaneous landings using the LAHSO procedures at Washington National on intersecting runways 36/33 and/or 18/21. Prior to Ransome (as the TWA Express) ceased SALS STOL operations in DCA, they had approximately 75,000 simultaneous LAHSO operations, on dry and wet/snow contaminated runways, all without a single primary runway incursion. This data can be validated by the FAA Airspace Capacity Office. The danger is not obvious.....

We do not have the luxury of building additional runways, limiting the access by aircraft to facilities (thereby limiting the traveling public's access as well) or flying only on clear, dry days.

If pilots are trained to fly their aircraft, provided with the appropriate performance data, the facility can provide required landing surface data, and ATC can provide required spacing, LAHSO does work!

Robert, I've always been puzzled by the ALPA position on LAHSO, or its support for the compromise that it ultimately worked out with the FAA. It has always struck me that the ALPA/FAA "compromise solution" is a step in the wrong direction because it takes the responsibility out of the cockpit where it really belongs (and has always resided until now).

In fairness, however, I have no experience flying heavy jet transports. In that context, I'm not sure that the DHC-7 experience that you bring to bear in your note is entirely relevant to the thinking of the flight crew of a 747 who is issued a LAHSO clearance.

The FAA has decided to allow retired military controllers to apply for jobs in the FAA. I guess they feel that the experience they will bring with them will help out with the delays and other problems that they are encountering now. I can't believe this government. The majority of controllers retiring from the armed services probably haven't worked traffic in years. I'm not talking of early releases, but people who have put in 20 years! How is this going to help the situation?

I would like to hear NATCA's position on this. I'm sure they will whole heartily back this plan all the way.

Comments from an old CFI and DPE.

Regarding the Tomahawk spin accident (AVflash 5.39), although I have no specifics other than those presented in the AVweb article, in my mind there is no question what happened. The root of this, as well as many other incidents and accidents that occurred, is Lazy Rudder Syndrome. What is Lazy Rudder Syndrome? Simply put, pilots attempt to drive the airplane solely with inputs from the yoke, with nary a thought of any rudder input.

As a designated pilot examiner for the past forty-three years, sorry to say, I have witnessed a general decline in basic stick-and-rudder skills, at all levels of certification. What is primarily responsible for this decline, the tricycle landing gear and yoke control?

When one leaned to fly in an aircraft with a conventional landing gear (taildragger), initially it was a challenge just to taxi the damn thing. However, with time ones reflexes became conditioned, so well conditioned that at the first hint of any directional deviation, one responded with appropriate rudder response without conscious thought. What is equally important, this conditioning carried over into flight as well.

However, learning to fly in an airplane with a yoke control this rudder-conditioning does not occur, as the aircraft has an inherent tendency to go straight while being taxied. When one drives an automobile and the vehicle deviates from the intended track, one subconsciously responds with a correction with the steering wheel. This also is a conditioned reflex.

Unfortunately, this conditioning carries over into flight. As a result, for example, when executing a stall recovery the pilot attempts to maintain directional control or pick up a wing with aggressive inputs with the yoke, but none from the rudder. As a result, the adverse yaw affect of the down-aileron tends to aggravate the yawing motion, not alleviate it. This can lead to an unwanted and often fatal spin entry, in spite of the various aerodynamic treatments that has been applied to recent aircraft designs (differential aileron travel, wing washout, etc.). In other words, the pilot attempts to drive the airplane as an automobile.

A pilot's attempt to "drive" the airplane becomes particularly evident and critical when attempting to executing a crosswind landing. Although understanding the mechanics of a crosswind landing, invariably Lazy Rudder syndrome will raise is ugly head when turbulence yaws the aircraft from side to side. Responding with inputs solely from the ailerons, not only doesn't correct the yawing motion, it actually aggravates the condition. This action removes the required crosswind correction which can lead to a landing incident or accident.

It should not be thought it is only the student pilot who is afflicted with Lazy Rudder Syndrome. It is demonstrated at all level of pilot certification and experience, including the flight instructor. Sadly to say, if the flight instructor suffers from this affliction, surely will those that he trains will suffer likewise.

Concluding, yaw is controlled with the rudder, not the ailerons.

Given the proximity of Palo Alto from San Carlos airport (7.1 nm), Palo Alto would the reliever airport of choice. Palo Alto is already tight. I've been held out of of the Class Delta airspace because there were too many aircraft on a number of occasions.

Palo Alto and San Carlos serve about 700 flights a day combined between the two. Van Nuys (VNY) does about 1500 a day. Now, considering Van Nuys has multiple runways, multiple taxiways, and airspace is very open (look at a chart of PAO, you will see it's under Class B, has a different Class D overriding about 3 miles of it's approach space to the preferred runway, and has Class C just 4 miles south, it's PACKED).

Palo Alto has a single 2500 ft. runway, one taxiway servicing that runway, three run-up T's, 99% capacity for tie-downs/hangers, and limited transient parking, it's inconceivable for this to happen. There is no room to grow because of a nature preserve on one side, and a popular golf course on the other.

I would say we are all doomed here, but that wouldn't be a positive attitude. Then again, NASCAN doesn't have a positive attitude and thinks that planes are what causes all the noise. I wish that they lived right by the freeway like the airport does. Then again, when they close the airport and build houses there, maybe we can get the freeway closed too.

To say the local pilots are incensed would be a mild understatement. I am a GA hangar tenant on the Oakland airport and did not know about the unveiling of the Port of Oakland's "Strategic Operations Plan 1999-2003" that "would turn the North Field ... into an area for commercial cargo operations and additional warehousing. (and ) All GA hangars would be 'relocated.'"

There seems to have been no local publicity on this. Your item apparently scooped the local media. From your article, it appears the information came from an AVflash reader, or has the Port made a press release?

Whatever, your item has sounded a BIG whistle, and has the local pilots ready to take up arms.

Can you tell me the source of your item, or ask your source to get in touch with me? We need to learn as much detail as possible to mount a campaign for protecting the interests of GA on the Oakland airport.

You've done a great service to GA by publicizing this issue.

Glenn, we've put you in touch with our source on the story.

Thanks for Mike Busch's report on CO detectors. I purchased the recommended AIM SAS-696D unit from Aeromedix.Com and am happy with its operation.

One question I have that I couldn't find an answer to in your AVweb article is at what indicated level should I consider searching for CO leakage in my aircraft? The indicator typically shows 35-55 in my Cessna 210. Is that level cause for concern? Do you have any reference material on this subject?

If it were me, Ed, any level above zero would be a cause for at least some concern, and I would make an effort to find where it's coming from. Various public safety agencies (OSHA, etc.) have established levels between 35 and 50 PPM as the maximum allowable in a workplace. However, that's based on being at zero feet AGL. The adverse effects of CO poisoning and altitude-induced hypoxia are cumulative, so logic dictates that the maximum allowable CO level in an airplane cockpit should be lower than it should be in the workplace.

Interestingly enough, the FAA has no standards on this, and has done no research that I can find on the effects of low-level CO contamination on pilot performance at altitude. I would like to see the FAA's Civil Aeromedical Institute (CAMI) in Oklahoma City launch a study on this subject, and publish some guidance, but so far they don't seem to be very interested.

If you read the summaries on the NTSB site, you will see that there have been very few stall/spin accidents in Tomahawks where there were not serious mitigating factors such as pilot impairment, over-gross conditions, or abrupt low level maneuvering. The aircraft's stall/spin behavior has been reviewed thoroughly and has been found acceptable. Please move on.

Also, if you want to appear as an unbiased source, you should leave out asides such as "The Tomahawk, dubbed by some the "Traumahawk"..."

Hundreds and hundreds of hours without an accidental stall/spin...

Kyle, we were pretty sure that comment would generate a lot of input -- and we were right. I have several hours of PIC time in the Tomahawk/Traumahawk/Tombahawk and have always found it an enjoyable and easy trainer to fly. I certainly would not want to discourage anyone who is contemplating taking their training in one. It is a relatively easy airplane to enter, the fuel selector is "right there" and hard to miss and it has good visibility -- all are important features in an airplane designed for primary training where it will spend a lot of time in the pattern.

Yet, as with almost any airplane -- including my Debonair -- the PA-38-112 has its quirks. One of them is demonstrated in the Tomahawk's low-speed handling characteristics where its lateral directional control has been found wanting by the NTSB. In plain language, it wants to drop a wing at or near the stall and their seems to be little control authority remaining for the pilot to do anything about it. Indeed, the NTSB has noted that the Tomahawk's "stall/spin accident rate is significantly higher than comparable trainer-type airplanes." According to AOPA Air Safety Foundation statistics, it's about twice as high.

Although many point to the aircraft's T-tail configuration as a source of problems, that does not seem to be the case. Instead, NTSB research points to the Tomahawk's relatively flexible -- or aeroelastic -- wing and its aileron design, the latter being one of the reasons for the stall strips affixed to the wing's leading edge.

In the wing's case, the NTSB found when investigating a 1994 fatal accident that early design decisions made the wing less rigid. In turn, the shape of the wing could change. According to the NTSB, one engineer "said he had inspected a PA-38 wing and found it to be very soft, and able to be torsionally twisted without substantial effort."

In the aileron's case, a blunt lower leading edge can create turbulent airflow at high angles of attack, thus reducing the surface's effectiveness and the pilot's control about the lateral axis. Again, the NTSB: The Tomahawk's ailerons "are marginal at slow speeds."

Would I fly a Tomahawk again? Absolutely. I'd just be a bit more careful with airspeed control than normal -- I wouldn't let it get too slow -- and if I had to stall it, I'd have plenty of altitude below me. And if it drops a wing, I'd use vigorous spin-recovery control inputs -- full opposite rudder, plus forward elevator.

Note: The comments herein attributed to the NTSB are taken from the board's report into a 1994 fatal accident the full narrative of which can be found at: http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/chi/lnarr_94A097.htm

First of all, Richard, it's the National Enquirer, not the National Inquirer. (Now stop that, Mike!)

Like you, those of us on the AVweb News team are fallible. We make mistakes, just as everyone does. When we get a story wrong, most of the time it's because it was a late-breaking story that occurred close to our deadline, and we either had to kill the story or go with the best information we had at the time. When we go with the story, sometimes we get better information hours or days after our publication date, in which case we do a follow-up to correct or clarify the story. Unlike some other publications that bury their errata on page 23, it is our usual practice to give equal prominence to the correction that the original story received.

Our readers tell us that they subscribe to AVweb for two main reasons: (1) our aviation news is more useful and timely than what they get from other sources, and (2) we aren't afraid to say what we think, even if it offends some people. Our commitment to reporting the news in a timely fashion creates a constant struggle. If a deadline is approaching and we don't have all the information or confirmation we might like, do we go with what we've got or do we delay the story for a full week? It's often a tough call. More often than not, we make the right call, but sometimes we screw up. And then we eat humble pie in public.

When I spoke to Jeppesen by 'phone last spring, they told me they were giving some consideration to continuing the NavData updates for the Mac, but that they were definitely NOT going to update the Mac version of the software.

As of this summer, I have been told that Jeppesen has formally decided to disenfranchise Mac users altogether. They will NOT issue new Mac software. They will NOT update Mac NavData. The have effectively rendered my investment in their product a total loss.

Still, they did offer to give me the Windows version of their FliteStar Version 8.

At first I tried running it under Windows emulation software. It was far too large, and ran far too slowly.

Next I ran it on a PC based machine. Its performance is terrible. My problems with it are many.

First it is riddled with errors. For example, take a look at the Airport Information page for Teterboro. It lists ATIS as 132.2. The actual frequency is 132.02! Teterboro Clearance will not respond if you call them on 128.5 as listed in FliteStar. They might answer on 128.05, since that is the correct frequency. These are only two of the errors I found in the first 30 seconds of browsing the software.

In addition, the flight planning engine is incredibly "buggy". Try planning a flight from KTEB to KPYM. Ask the new and improved FliteStar to do it IFR GPS direct. You will wind up in Plymouth New Hampshire. This error is repeatable. Some scenarios ship you to New Hampshire, then bring you back down to Massachusetts. At least you get where you're going. But you get there an hour and a half late!

I spoke to Jepp. tech support (after half an hour spent on hold). They told me they were aware of the bugs in the Flight Planning engine. They said they had been addressed in a patch available on the Web. I downloaded the patch and installed it. New Hampshire persists. Perhaps I will fly there and see what all the fuss is about.

In all fairness a few features of the new software are nice. I like the fact that it draws the areas affected by Sigmets and Airmets on the chart display. I like configuring the chart to resemble an Low Altitude Enroute chart.

However, many other "improvements" make the package less than ideal. The new "trip kit" feature prints little that is useful. The older output was simpler and straightforward. Trips have become more burdensome to program, and more difficult to decipher. After playing with the new version for several hours I returned to the native Mac version and found its intuitive simplicity a refreshing change.

FliteStar used to be "the little flight planner that could." You entered a few meaningful pieces of data. You clicked. It did the rest. No longer. The new software seems to be a large hulking "kluge" littered with misinformation, typos and bugs.

I know you have reviewed flight planning software packages in the past. Perhaps you could revisit the subject in light of the FliteStar fiasco.

I certainly understand your concern, Mark. But since such "non-standard" pattern entries are perfectly acceptable under FAR Part 91, and since they're done all the time in practice, don't you think there's something to be said for documenting and discussing them in the AIM so that pilots are aware that aircraft may be using such procedures? In fact, perhaps it would make sense to "standardize" such procedures so that at least all pilots would wind up flying them more-or-less the same way.

The alternative, of course, it for the FAA modify Part 61 to make all pattern entries other than the standard 45-to-downwind illegal. While there's a certain logic to this approach, my guess is that any attempt by the FAA to do so would be met with a huge hue and cry. Frankly, absent convincing proof from accident statistics that the use of such non-standard entries is a significant cause of midair collisions, I myself would not favor such a heavy-handed regulatory approach.

I was shocked to read about the tragedy the happened during a Tomahawk checkride in Warrensburg, Ill.

I am a student pilot and am checked out for solo flights on a Piper Tomahawk. I'd like to get more information about the airplane's limitations and perhaps share them with my flight instructor and owner of the flight school.

I know that most schools prefer using Cessnas as trainers, does that fact have any thing to do with safety considerations?

Jay, the FAA has determined that the Tomhawk's flight characteristics are safe, and we agree. However, any experienced Tomahawk instructor will tell you that the PA-38 has far less forgiving stall/spin characteristics than other comparable trainers, and statistics show that the PA-38's stall/spin accident rate is significantly higher -- twice as high, according to statistics from the AOPA Air Safety Foundation.

It is essential for students who fly the Tomahawk to receive adequate training in stall avoidance, and many (including me) believe that training in spins and spin recovery is important (although the FAA does not require such training for any but CFI applicants).

My advice to you would be to ask your instructor to give you a day or two of spin training in the Tomahawk. Then go fly the plane with confidence, and enjoy yourself.

I've had my EVAC-U8 smoke hood for a month or so, and have made at least a half-dozen roundtrips with it. Security has never said a thing, although I seem to get more than my fair share of the "explosive detection swab test" that they claim to be random. (I was "picked" on three out of four flights over the Labor day weekend.)

First, the Flying Club in Moncton (now the Flight College) has been operating the PA-38 since they were new in 1980, or thereabouts. When I left in 1989, the school had already replaced the wings on two aircraft that had reached the 11,000 hour life-limit. To this day the Tomahawk remains a backbone of their fleet. They have never had a stall/spin accident in this time.

There were some early teething pains for this great little trainer. I can show you the extra rivets at the top of the T-tail where the stiffeners are as a result of early incidents. Reach underneath the instrument panel and you can feel the extra stop on the end of the control column. If you pulled all the back and lifted up on the column, it had a tendency to jam in that position. AD's issued for both early problems solved each. Experience showed that an extra set of stall strips on each wing (I think they were originally an option) gave more warning of an impending stall.

Spin training has been an integral part of the Canadian PPL and CPL syllabus for many years, at least until recently. If you had done any teaching during that time, you will have some experience with spins. There can be no doubt, when you stall the T'hawk and introduce a little rudder, it will spin quite readily. Hold the inputs and it will continue to rotate quite rapidly. After the spin is full developed, it can take up to a turn-and-a-half to recover with normal spin recovery technique. It can be a little disconcerting to hold full opposite rudder and control column for that long and have nothing happen. When the rotation stopped, it was often abrupt. Compare those characteristics with a Cessna and you can understand why folks may be a little nervous. I have never experienced any untoward behaviour from the PA-38 in this regard.

What can you do to have a better experience stall/spin in the T'hawk? 1) Climb high. Piper says 5000' AGL. It takes awhile in the summer, but it's worth it. 2) As in any aircraft, get good quality instruction from a school that has experience with the aircraft. 3) Do a good security check inside the cabin before you start. 4) Enjoy!

Overall, I enjoyed flying the Tomahawk. Cabin size, visibility, reliability and great flying qualities made it a joy to fly. Take one for a flight and see how much fun it is.

Talk about sensationalism! It's obviously alive and well at AVweb. I thought you guys were above the needless hype and scare tactics of the normal non-aviation rags, but I guess not! In AVflash 5.39 you published the following article:

"Two more" since when? When was the last confirmed stall/spin-related Tomahawk crash? The Tomahawk was cleared of any suspicions of "its alleged propensity to enter unrecoverable spins" by the NTSB over two years ago after additional intensive studies! You should have known this, for it's in the public records at the NTSB. This is truly an unreasonable effort to ONCE AGAIN give the Tomahawk a bad reputation without the benefit of any TRUTH or LOGIC! So, I'm very disappointed with what outwardly appears to be "unresponsible reporting" on your part.

We all need to remember that needless spreading of negative press (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt: FUD) hurts us all! Why not just say "A student pilot and the FAA designated examiner giving a private pilot checkride were killed when their Piper PA-38-112 Tomahawk crashed recently near Warrensburg, Ill?" That's the FACTS as we know them, and no CAUSE has been cited by the NTSB yet. In fact, I didn't see the NTSB us the word "spin" anywhere in ITS quote... only you.

Let's see if you guys have the balls to follow up on this item, either now, after the NTSB final report reveals the actual CAUSE of the "nose-low, counterclockwise rotating dive toward the ground."

Any number of factors could have caused that condition; mechanical failure, a medical condition on board, etc. In fact, for all we know it could have been piloted by one of the Kennedy family members! Come one guys... let's be fair to the airplane! Its stall/spin characteristics are NO WORSE than any of the other aircraft in the Piper family!

In our Chapter we have four Tomahawks owned by four different guys with many different flying habits, and NONE of us have ever encountered any stall/spin difficulties with any of the four birds. And I, personally, have put two different Tomahawks through sheer hell trying to get them to do something bad, but they just won't do it.

We also have performed hundreds of "EAA Young Eagles" flights with our Tomahawks, and haven't had any INCIDENTS with any of with them, let alone a crash. The same thing cannot be said about the Cessnas and Grummans participating in the Young Eagles program.

Sorry we struck a tender nerve, Ed. We'd be the first to agree that the PA-38 is fun to fly, and safe when flown properly. The fact remains that the Tomahawk has far less forgiving stall/spin characteristics than virtually any other popular training aircraft. AOPA Air Safety Foundation statistics show that the PA-38 has twice the stall/spin accident rate of comparable trainers. The NTSB has repeatedly criticized the aircraft's "lateral-directional characteristics at or near stall speed."

The FAA says that it considers the PA-38's stall/spin characteristics acceptable, and we wouldn't disagree with that. Nevertheless, the accident statistics show that it's not hard to get into serious trouble with this aircraft unless the pilot is well-trained in stall avoidance and has practiced spin-recovery techniques (something not normally taught to private pilot candidates). Although the FAA does not require it, most modern single-engine aircraft will recover promptly from a spin by themselves if the pilot simply releases the controls. Experts tell us that the Tomahawk requires vigorous application of spin recovery control inputs, including full opposite rudder and full down elevator.

The late Neil Williams (British and European Aerobatic Champion) was ending a practice session when he heard and felt a fracture of the top cap of the main spar. He instantly rolled (the correct way) inverted and flew back to his home field. Here he made an inverted approach, rolled (again the favourable way) upright on late finals and placed the aircraft on the ground as the wing folded. It has to be said that only the instinct of a highly experienced aerobatic pilot, enabled Neil to make the right decisions with respect to the nature of the fracture, and also the knowledge that the rest of the wing spar would hold on long enough to get back.

Neil Williams was killed in 1977 in an unexplained crash of a Heinkel he was ferrying from Spain to England.

Since I don't fly turbine equipment, I've never actually had an opportunity to see how the headsets perform in that environment. The ANR headsets should do a good job of reducing propeller noise in turboprop aircraft, but turbine exhaust noise is at a higher frequency and would be attenuated primarily passively.

Can you supply any corroborating details or references for the report that you currently display regarding an alleged rudder "hard-over" on a Unite 737, approaching DEN on 9-17-99. I have not been able to find any source, outside or inside United Airlines that is aware of this incident.

Kim, the best information we had at deadline last weekend indicated that both the captain and FO reported an uncommanded rudder movement. However, information we've received since then from a reliable source within UAL (who asked not to be named) indicates that the original story was probably misleading.

The later information indicates that the flight experienced a significant roll excursion inside the outer marker. Upon landing, the captain apparently reported that he believed the episode to have been a wake turbulence encounter, but the FO felt that it could have been an uncommanded rudder movement, so the crew wrote up the incident and cited both possible explanations.

I loved Mike Busch's article about "P-factor." I can now consider tip tanks for my A36 Bonanza!

On a recent cross-county trip, I noticed a distinct beeping sound. At first I thought the beeping might be coming from my radio. Then it dawned on me that I had a CO detector (which I lay in on the floor on the passenger side). I noticed the red warning light on the unit was flashing, and the unit was reading about 380 ppm.

Just prior to the trip, I had a new muffler installed. Turns out the exhaust intake-manifold connections were not well-sealed, and I had a major exhaust leak. I could smell nothing, and don't know how I would have known about this leak without the AIM detector. Keep up the good work!

As a result, the rate of decent is not 3 degrees or 250 to 300 feet per mile, but require a much greater descent rate than permitted on an IFR approach. Most aircraft are below 1,000 feet across very populated areas. By the time they are 6.3 nm from the threshold, power has to be applied to maintain flight.

This was all done in an effort to make LGA a "four runway airport." Note the three "almost-midairs" this year: each time, it occurred over the LGA runway 4-22 and 31-31 intersection, between an aircraft on takeoff and another that was landing.

JFK's traffic was expedited to increase flow. This airport has also had three "almost-midairs," including a Concorde through an AA 767 fuselage as their paths crossed. It is very interesting watching a 747 (or any large turbojet) or the Concord "scud running" to keep the runway in view.

I've been using a Nonin Onyx pulse oximeter since last December and found it very useful. I do have a small problem. Perhaps you can offer some pointers.

Twice now, I've reached for the oximeter in flight, only to find in inoperative, seemingly with dead batteries. The first time, I though perhaps the original batteries were weak when I purchased the unit, and installed a new set of Duracells. I hoped that "A pair of AAA alkaline batteries is good for 12 hours of continuous operation, or about a thousand 45-second spot checks" as described in AVwebs review of the product. It was dead when I reached for it yesterday. I assure you it hasn't done a thousand 45 second checks, more like maybe 50.

The unit is stored in a pocket of my flight bag, with its lanyard wrapped around it. The bag lives in my truck and is subject to typical outdoor temperatures. Am I doing something wrong?

Craig, as it states in the manual, a small current is used even when the unit is not in use. It has to do with the instant-on circuit. Keep in mind that the Nonin Onyx was designed for clinical use, where it would be most unusual for the device to remain unused for an extended period of time.

Look at the OAG schedule book. O'Hare permits 135 operations per hour. Given that, why do they permit 60 scheduled departures between 7:00am and 7:10am. It is gridlock looking for a place to happen. (Its been a few years since I checked this, so my numbers are probably off a bit.)

The hub and spoke system works in some respects, but it also creates delays when everyone tries to arrive and depart at the same times. I'd rather spend more time in the terminal than in a cramped airplane on the ramp or in a holding pattern.

The biggest gripe I have is the lack of legroom. I shouldn't be subjected to getting kneecapped because the guy in front of me wants to recline. Forcing people to sit for hours in a near fetal position so the airlines can add a row of seats that only occasionally are needed is not fair. On American, when the seat is reclined, it can break the top off of a laptop computer. I can't even extend my arm out far enough to read a novel or catch up on paperwork.

Sort of like having a "Factory Seconds" warehouse that's bigger than the factory, don't you think?

I wanted to drop you a quick note to say much I Agree with Rick Durden's column "An Instructor's Obligation." I can't bring myself to say I enjoyed it because of the subject, but it speaks the truth.

I am a 1300-hour CFI, and I have met several pilots in the category that Rick speaks of. One is now no longer in aviation because of my critique, but he is alive. One is dead, but not from an aviation accident ... he took unnecessary risks in his private life too. And the last one is flying a Learjet. He is the one that bothers me most. I pray every time I talk to him that he doesn't kill himself, and if he does, he doesn't hurt any one else either.

I had always enjoyed flight instructing, although I am not teaching in GA airplanes now. I sometimes miss it.

Captain Scoggin, the source of our unreliable information was the the Air Line Pilots' Association. According to ALPA, that amount would simply make up for inflation and various other concessions made in 1996. In opening their talks with Delta, ALPA asked for "significant" pay increases, more job security, better retirement benefits and a voting seat on the carrier's board. It certainly is possible ALPA could decide to ask for more ... or less.

The following occurred during my last high elevation field t/o in Samaden, Switzerland. I was flying a Piper Arrow IV, equipped with an "Auto Gear Extend."

After normal acceleration and rotation it was impossible to get up the undercarriage, though we selected "Gear Up". The only abnormal indication was the red Gear Unsafe Warning Light coming on. With very poor climb performance (due to additional drag by the gear down, note that Samaden elev. is 5600 ft.) we managed to avoid obstacles and reached 7000ft QNH after some minutes. We made some 360s to recycle the gear and to find another solution. After 20 minutes of 360s and no gear up indication (still very poor performance, i.e. full power and about 75 to 80 KIAS in level flight and in clean configuration, except of the gear) we decided to return to Samaden and go trough the Emergency Gear Extension Checklist. Without any problem (except of the poor performance) we made a normal landing at the field.

The investigation of the aircraft didn't bring up any kind of damage or improper function of the aircraft itself. After some investigation in the maintenance, it came out that the "Auto Extend Pitot Tube" (left hand side of the a/c) was improperly adjusted and gave too low airspeed indications. So the Auto Extend function refused to get the gear up, due to "too low" speed.

Arrow IV AFM: "The device (auto-extend function) also prevents the gear from retracting at airspeed below approx. 75 knots with full power, though the selector switch may be in the up position. This speed increases with reduced power and or increased altitude."

The only solution to prevent myself from additional poor climb performance due to extended gear at high elevation airfields, is to override this function. ("Auto-Extend Override Switch")

My question: Why does Piper implement such a function like to prevent the gear from retraction at full power? (At t/o I like as less drag as possible, don't I?)

I'm sure some other pilots occurred the same problem. It seems to be a "hidden danger" to me.

Thanks in advance for any advice.

There have been numerous such incidents reported, and they always demonstrate that the pilot was not sufficiently familiar with the equipment he or she was flying. I have more than 100 hours in these airplanes, and I can tell you that any Piper Arrow checkout worth the name discusses and demonstrates the auto-extend system and the need to override it in the case of any high-performance takeoff maneuver, air work or any other situation when high power/low airspeed is expected. It is a very simple matter to override the system (some Arrow pilots do it routinely), requiring only sliding up a position indicator on the trim/flap lever console between the front seats and using the plunger to "pin" the indicator in that position.

Find yourself a good instructor with lots of Piper Arrow experience, and get a thorough checkout in the airplane.

The people in the trenches may not look at the entire war zone, but they generally know how to keep the water out of their back yard! I am a controller at Atlanta Center, often the busiest center in the world. We are in transition from a physical system built in the 60's to one built about 10 years ago. Anyone who is a pilot and has changed aircraft types can understand that it takes time to learn where every knob, instrument and gauge is -- every cockpit is different, if only by an inch or two. Our old buttons are now computer entries and it is going to take time for us to become proficient on this new equipment, so we may need extra spacing.

We at Atlanta Center know we are very efficient at moving aircraft and our ego implies that we are the best (other ATC facilities have the same attitude, by the way) and we are proud of that distinction. The thing is we (the controllers) know the most efficient way to move airplanes in our sectors. For Ms. Garvey to imply that someone who has never seen our sector or walked in our shoes could possibly know what we need in terms of miles-in-trail in ludicrous!!! Ask any controller -- not NATCA, but any average controller what they think of Flow Control or the "command center" and their abilities.

Where do the airlines or pax think that the airplanes are going to end up? If every highway was a landing strip, do you think there would still be a rush hour? Has the Department of Transportation alleviated any rush hour on our highways daily with no delays ever? Aren't they building bigger and better highways? Why hasn't that alleviated delays? What gives anyone the idea that it can be done in the air?

That is exactly why you have miles-in-trail:

1. because it is rush hour and you can't put too many airplanes at the same place at the same time (remember they can't just stop and listen to the radio)

2. because a person can only talk to and control just a certain number of airplanes safely, i.e. you have to limit how many airplanes enter your sector at any given time.

The reason you have a rush hour and in-trail restrictions is because the airlines marketing and cost effective plans say that it is better to have all of their airplanes arrive at the same time for connections, personnel cost, and equipment concerns. And hey if Airline X is going to arrive at that time then sure as hell Airline Y must compete and get there then also! What a cycle!

So where are we heading? Probably we should go to planned departures with planned airspeeds that produce arrival times regulated prior to departure; but hey that is government regs and air traffic control isn't it. But some people say such regulation isn't justified unless there is a certain amount of delay, so if the planned departure thing works well and there is no delay then it isn't a good thing because you must have some delay ... see the vicious circle?

Bottom line: I, as the controller-in-charge of a particular sector, am responsible for the safe movement of aircraft through my sector. That is done using speed, altitude and vectors. My minimum with two aircraft at the same altitude is 5 miles in trail. Anything less, even for an approach controller behind a heavy and small jet on final, is considered unsafe and an operational error. Atlanta Approach control with Atlanta Center's help lands about 95 to 100 airplanes an hour when the weather is perfect, using only two runways to land on. Does anyone else in the country do that well? Now add strong winds, or a pop-up thunderstorm, or poor visibility and that number decreases. So here comes the rush hour ... airlines schedule over 125 to 150 airplanes to land in that same hour every day each day same time. (Let me see ... 100 can land, but 135 get there at the same time ... hmmm, where should they all go? )

You tell me why we hold or why we require the system to give miles-in-trail? To keep a safe and orderly flow into and out of our sectors while keeping demand on the airport. But wait, no one likes to sit on the ramp waiting to take off. Let's get them in the air so the customers are happy. The pax don't really know exactly how long it takes to get from A to Z, they just usually enjoy the trip.

Dr. Gerster, who was mentioned in the article, is on the board of the Alaska Science and Technology Foundation. As a board member, he voted to approve the proposal I submitted to execute the FlightCam project. However, I am the project manager and the one solely responsible for the purchasing of the hardware and software, integrating the system, developing the web site, and publicizing the project.

I very much appreciate the fact that you published it in AVweb. Over a three and half month period, I had received 14,000 hits on the site. The day you published it, I received over 10,000 hits in one day. Amazing. The aviation community is almost unanimously supportive of the idea and its potential for enhancing safety, efficiency and service in aviation.

Every week I look forward to receiving AVflash. I think the topics are always interesting, timely and objective. It is because I enjoy AVflash that I feel the obligation to complain about a section that I felt was far from objective. The Swissair Settlement Offer piece was written like a press release from Swissair and their insurance company.

I am an insurance defense attorney (representing insurance companies and other civil defendants). I have absolutely no involvement in the Swissair litigation and I have never handled an aviation-related case. The point that I am able to make about any liability lawsuit is that plaintiff lawyers do not accept or reject settlement offers; plaintiffs do. Neither do plaintiff lawyers "seek $16 billion or bust."

Most people do not have trouble understanding that defense lawyers cannot offer to settle a case with their client's money without their client's approval, but they do not understand that plaintiff lawyers cannot accept or reject a settlement offer without the plaintiff's approval. If the plaintiffs in the Swissair case (relatives of the deceased passengers) wanted to settle for what Swissair offered, it would not matter how much their attorneys thought the case was worth.

While I certainly do not doubt there is plaintiff attorney greed in this and most cases (it is how they get paid), blaming them for the rejection of a settlement offer is misleading and inaccurate.

If you had done a little more research on this subject, you would also have found that the FAA has created several of these systems in Alaska. Their web site can be found at http://www.akweathercams.com.

Both sites are well worth visiting, and are intended to offer a little different flavor of weather information, to supplement that offered by the automated observers, and in some cases, offer weather information where there is none available. Now we have to convince the FAA that they should give AFSS briefers access to these web sites.

In the near future, several more of these camera systems will be put on line on the FAA web site.

And, just as a note, Jim Buckingham didn't just buy a couple of cameras and install them at rural airports, he put a huge amount of time, energy and research and effort into this project, and has done a wonderful job, both in developing his site, but in also improving the FAA's site, as well, and furthering this technology.

I spent about four hours carefully comparing the Telex ANR 1D and LightSPEED 25XL headsets over the weekend, and the winner is: Telex.

It was a tough decision, actually. These are two very good headsets. I found the LightSPEED to be superior from an ergonomic standpoint. LightSPEED did a great job with this design. I especially liked the angled earcups and the cushion material.

Both are very good ANR performers. I chose the Telex for the simple reason that my plane was quieter with the Telex. The LightSPEED allowed more midrange frequencies to come through. The difference was obvious. Wearing the Telex was like being in the first-class section of a 747. The performance difference was objectively verified, in my mind, when I turned my loran off and on while cruising at 2600 RPM. I could hear the loran circuitry activating (a faint whining sound) with the Telex but not with the LightSPEED. On the ground at lower RPM's, this sound could be heard wearing either set. The only explanation for this is that the Telex headset cancelled and/or blocked out more background noise at higher RPM's than the LightSPEED set, thus allowing me to hear this faint tone. It seems to me that this was basically the same as a traditional hearing test, which is based on being able to hear various tones at various levels.

Having a good headset is particularly important to me because, at 43 years of age, I already have hearing loss and tinnitus (constant ringing of the ears). I also seem to have a very loud plane (109 dB according to the Telex dB measurement feature). I've been using Sennheiser "EarGuard" ANR headsets for the past 3 years. I attribute some of my hearing loss to the relatively poor performance of the Sennheiser headset. Both the 25XL and the ANR 1D put the Sennheisers to shame. I can only describe the performance of the Telex 1D as amazing, and worth every penny (I paid $585 at Chief Aircraft).

Note: I have no connection whatsoever to Telex. I'm just a lowly consumer and GA pilot!

Rather than give you a bad time about the accuracy of reporting, I wanted to suggest that this is worth consideration for one of your writers to perhaps look at in more depth. Here are some reasons why:

1) Rather than looking at the runway, the bigger benefit is looking at the weather. Each site has a constellation of three cameras that point several directions, allowing pilots to be their own weather observers.

2) Only one camera site is located in a mountain pass. The other two are along the Yukon River, one at a location where it is THE ONLY WEATHER information available (no ASOS, no observer, no nothing).

3) The other location has an ASOS, which allows pilots (and weather forecasters) to calibrate the ASOS, and supply the proverbial "rest of the story" by looking at cloud types, extent, and all the other info we lost going from human observers to a machine that looks straight up for cloud cover.

4) The system is only temporary, the project ends at the end of this month. It may not be picked up by the FAA and continued!

An article providing a more complete story could help apply pressure on the FAA to pick up these stations, as well as speed up the rate at which they are installing their own. A lot of us in Alaska think this is the greatest thing to come along in a long time, and are sure it would be helpful to other places in "America" and beyond.

For more info, here is the URL to the ASTF's web site, which at least gives a little more complete story.

You know better than to write something like this. On a per passenger mile basis, guess which one comes in first, instead of last, as you imply?

Thanks for your letter about our story on the NTSB numbers. You are right, of course, that these statistics cannot be interpreted to mean that flying is safer per mile of travel than other forms of transportation. Our aim, in phrasing the story the way we did, was simply to show that other forms of transportation kill far, far more people each year than airplanes do.

I know VFR doesn't matter, but IFR is another game when it comes to certifying nav receivers. Excluding the approach phase, the en route section of an IFR flight should be of little consequence as long as stable lock-on is confirmed often.

Let me know your thoughts on the legalities of the handheld GPS units. How do you do it?

Bill, you're asking me to incriminate myself?

No handheld GPS is IFR-certified for any phase of flight. Technically, you can't use one for IFR en route or terminal navigation. In real life, everybody does.

Prior to the time that I installed an IFR-certified GPS in my airplane last January, I filed "/R" on account of my KNS-80 rho-theta RNAV (now "/I" since the FAA changed the meaning of "/R" to refer to RVSM-equipped jets), but actually used handheld GPS for 99% of all IFR en route navigation. (Hopefully, the statute of limitations has run on this by now.) Since the IFR-certified GPS was installed in my panel, I file "/G."

From a practical point of view, ATC could care less how you navigate, so long as you do. My philosophy is to file any way you want and navigate any way you want ... just don't bend any metal in the process. (When they start adding cockpit camera video to FOQA submissions, maybe I'll have to change my tune.)

At first glance, it appears to be a very slick piece of Windows software. I was certainly impressed with the screen shots in full color ads they ran. Even booting it up made me drool a little, but that is where it ended. Bug after bug and nothing but frustration over trying to do simple things brought me to the brink (of what I won't say).

I guess one of the problems is that when you build a piece of software that looks like crap, I don't expect much, but when you build something that looks as slick as Version 8 of FliteStar, I expect it to act slick as well. I find it hard to believe that they did any usability testing, or even strong bug testing. Some very basic functions (such as the route calculator) are completely broken and lack some of the most obvious features (like setting your speed). I am particularly frustrated by this because I work in the software business and write Windows programs every day. It would have been so easy for Version 8.0 to have been revolutionary.

I'm sure all the other flying magazines will write "reviews" praising its virtues, but as well all know, these magazines are nothing but 98-page ads. When was the last time a FLYING magazine really did some journalism and took someone (an advertiser) to task.

I appreciate you help. I have recently started flight training using the ReliefBand device purchased from Aeromedix.Com, and am curious of I will be able to wean myself from it?

Mark, you should definitely be able to wean yourself from the ReliefBand. Motion sickness for most people is a "learned" phenomenon and most people can unlearn it.

Take a look at the Aviation Instructors Handbook, AC 60-14, page 59, top left corner, first paragraph. I will quote, "The smell of alcohol on an instructor's breath during a period of flight instruction is inexcusable."

Good going, Mike. However, you missed "Depends."

My wife's has made the tests you mentioned, and found all to be virtually impossible in our Twin Comanche without removing seats, that is.

I have been asked by the Transport Canada Airworthiness personnel involved to inform you of the following details. Transport Canada did not issue an AD, it merely forwarded a Czech AD.

The Czech CAA issued emergency AD T-088/1999, dated 31 August 1999, prohibiting aerobatic flight and spinning manoevres with Moravan Z142 and Z242 aircraft. By ICAO agreement, this AD is mandatory and applicable to any of these aircraft registered in Canada. This office merely copied the AD (by fax), along with our standard cover letter, to the 12 Canadian operators of these aircraft. The AD indicated that, because a Z142 had suffered a wing failure during aerobatics, further operation should be limited to NORMAL category (no aerobatics and no spinning).

Could you please note this correction in the next issue of AVflash? Thank you.

He figures a lifespan of 80 years for the next generation. I suspect that figure is low.

However, I also suspect that he doesn't know many 80 year olds, since he pictures each one of those happy octogenarians leaping down the Canyon to take rafting trips, skimming down the Canyon on their motorcycles, dragging their unwanted ancient cars and house trailers down to the bottom of the Canyon in order to abandon them (and presumably to hike up the Canyon to get to the nearest car or motor home dealership to buy a replacement so they can get home).

Although I am only 78-1/2 years old, I think I can speak for the vast majority of my age group when I guarantee Mr. Hannahan that not one-tenth of one per cent of my peers is planning --- or is capable --- of doing all that exciting stuff that he has nightmares about. Rest easy, dear Mr. Hannahan. Many of us can't even reach down to put our shoes and socks on, much less go to the Grand Canyon to dispose of our garbage. We feel lucky if we can still drive to the grocery store to buy a supply of Geritol.

And to Ed Reading [AVmail, 30 Aug 1999], who wants to preserve all the natural beauty of this country by not allowing anyone near it, I would beg him to think of some less drastic solutions. How about a few park rangers keeping an eye on all those slobs that are treating the Canyon like a garbage disposal? How about a few stiff fines or even a few days in jail to ponder the error of their ways? Or a year's worth of community service, cleaning up the sins of their brethren?

Why punish all the good people who also love this beautiful country and want to visit and enjoy it? Have you never heard of babies and bathwater???

Next, I would like to talk about the MOVERS and SHAKERS of the ATC system in the 50's, 60's and 70's. These individuals were responsible for taking the ATC system out of the dark ages and making it into a system that foremost had the users in mind. They were ordinary people who's job it was to serve the flying public. They weren't paid much, but they were very dedicated in their responsibilities to give the flying public the best that they could.

These people could see and envision what the future would be in the ATC system. They saw the transition from the prop aircraft to the jet aircraft. They saw the need to adjust to the new aircraft, they saw a need for the system to update itself to handle the transition and still maintain the desire and dedication to provide the best service that they could to the users.

These were dedicated individuals. They lived and slept ATC. They were true professionals in every sense of the word. Their value systems,their dedication to their job,their character,their motivation and accomplishments were outstanding to say the least.

Those MOVERS and SHAKERS included Jack Ryan, Dan Creedon, Jack Kelly, Joe Wilson, Pappy Taylor, Bob Shrump, Tom Tracy, John Murphy, Ed Brocke, Squeaky Dave Ellis, John Richardson and many, many more. All of these individuals worked at Washington Center. They made things happen on the east coast and in the Golden Triangle.

I guess I have learned two things: (1) pay closer attention to the student and figure him out before things get out of hand, and (2) check my own ego before engaging criticism, and (3) [I knew there were more than two things] learn to swallow my pride.

I do have a concern regarding the AIM units, however. In the instructions for the unit, I noticed that the manufacturer makes it clear that the unit is not appropriate for use in an aircraft, among other things. Have you seen this, and have you gotten any information from AIM to the contrary? I would think that if the unit failed (unlikely but possible), that the company would simply deny any responsibility/liability by pointing out that it was being used in a manner that was not consistent with the instructions. Do you have any thoughts on this?

Charlie, the reason that the users manual for the AIM SAS-696D states that it is unsuitable for use in aircraft, vehicles, offices, etc. is simply because Underwriters Laboratory REQUIRES such language in the users manual of any CO detector that has been accepted under UL 2034. UL tests these units ONLY within the context of a residential installation, and requires manufacturers who apply for UL certification to label the units as being for residential use only. As a result, you'll find essentially identical "residential use only" verbiage in the users manuals of all UL 2034 detectors.

We have discussed this matter at length with AIM Air Safety. We have been assured that they are absolutely comfortable with vehicular and aircraft use of the unit, and that they will absolutely honor their warranty for units in such applications. As a matter of fact, they have already replaced a couple of dozen units (out of several thousand sold by Aeromedix.Com to aviators) under warranty, no questions asked.

As you might imagine, the verbiage in the users manual has prompted considerable concern on the part of aviation purchasers like you. Unfortunately, according to what AIM tells us, the only way they could eliminate such verbiage would be to create a non-UL-approved version of the unit that differed from the SAS-696D only in that the UL label was not applied and a different user manual was supplied. Dumb, but true.

I am a new CFI with only 600 hours TT and 150 instruction given. I have noticed that I am beginning to "see" how "good" or "bad" someone will be in a very short period of time. Although I still have much learning to go, I have a "sense" that this skill is developing. I have refused to sign-off one BFR because the pilot wasn't safe.

What do you do when a student pilot isn't going to make it? One that has a passion, but "just sits there" when the runway is moving away" at a rapid pace. One that resigns when the it gets tough. One that has 30 hours and is not close to soloing. Several times, I have told them that this may take a very long time. However, now I think the student will never make it. In fact, the student scares me. Luckily, I can tell before "the just sit there and do nothing" starts. The shoulders shrug and the eyes go blank.

Over a year ago, I saw an ad in an aviation publication for a device from Goulter Medical in Portland, Oreg., called ZIP, for which I requested additional information.

The pictures look like a catheter bag that is attached to the penis around the base and then apparently strapped to your leg. They send you a measuring strip to measure around the base of the penis. After performing the measurement and sending them a check for $39.95 they will send one of these devices which looks pretty interesting to me.

Unfortunately, I got the information in 1998 and didn't order one. Now seriously considering it. They can be reached at 877-235-9379 and it might be worth a call to check it out.

It looks interesting to me since I was forced to wear a catheter and bag from Denver to Vero Beach last year when I developed a urinary problem during a training session Bob Scott and I were conducting at Centennial. Getting old with prostate problems is hell!

The interesting thing about this device is that no one even knows when you're using it, and you just empty it in the men's room upon landing. Probably requires a little cleaning up also. I doubt if they have anything for women.

You continue to refer to "controllers" in your series of articles on ATC delays. MISTAKE, MISTAKE, MISTAKE!

Please understand a BIG difference between who the FAA considers [and who you refer to] to be a controller and these facts:

The FAA considers ANYONE who holds an FG-2152 position, regardless of ACTUAL job description, to be a controller. These individuals, primarily staff, regional office staff, headquarters staff, supervisors and management, including the traffic management units nationwide, DO NOT have the responsibility to separate aircraft on a daily basis. Most barely spend 8 hours per month on position.

An Air Traffic Controller is one whose job is 40 hours per week of safely separating aircraft, either in tower, tracon, or en route airspace.

Controllers are Controllers. All the rest should be referred to as staff or management. I might suggest you adopt this more accurate definition.

Sounds picky, I know. But honestly, I am tired of getting slammed by everyone from the CEOs down when it is not I or my fellow controllers causing the problem. The FAA and its own staff and management need to be held accountable. Correctly identifying the parties involved will make clear that accountability.

In the future, please make a clear distinction if you can. CONTROLLERS across America would appreciate that courtesy.

Seems to me that there is a pretty simple solution to this problem. You know those Little John portable urinals you can buy in pilot shops? The ones that can be updated with the "Lady J" adapter for the use of the ladies?

The answer is to issue the crew a large funnel perhaps called the "Big John" whose design is based around the "Lady J" adapter. Perhaps their targeting would improve.

Some of the pilots that I put "across the line" have joined the ones that Rick couldn't, or didn't confront. When I visit their memories in my own "room," they are still unrepentant, and I can almost hear them making excuses about the weather, or equipment failure, or whatever it was that contributed to their demise as if they were unable to see their final problem heading their way as clearly as I did. Rick is right on target about our obligation as flight instructors to evaluate and confront these pilots, but we cannot penetrate deaf ears. The most truly dangerous pilots are those who are the least likely to accept our criticism, and that type seems to be disproportionately drawn to general aviation to begin with.

You missed a spot.

Some years ago, I was getting ready to make a road trip to Tucson to see the Pima Air Museum. I don't know whose mailing list I was on, but for some reason I got a sample "Depends" bladder control undergarment in the mail. I decided to run an experiment. I put the thing on before I left the house before the trip, drove all day, and finally "let loose" as I drove through the El Paso city limits. Wore them about another half hour before getting into my motel room to take them off and shower.

The Depends seemed to work quite well. The only downside is the slightly crunchy feel of the plastic outer layer and that they are slightly bulky. I don't think anyone would notice the crinkling sound or extra bulk unless you told them you were wearing Depends, but of course you imagine that everyone can. I suspect that the macho "real men don't wear diapers" attitude is the only thing keeping them from being marketed to pilots. I would have no problems using them if I was planning a long single-pilot IFR trip, and would be surprised if NASA and the Air Force aren't already using them. I've heard stories of pilots crashing F-16s while trying to use "piddle packs" like the ones you tested.

Interesting approach, Don.

To be honest, the primary focus of my P-Factor review was on passengers, particularly those of the female persuasion. Somehow, I couldn't see asking my passengers to don Depends as part of their pre-flight preparations.

I believe that one of the major causes of airline delays is competition! If United has a flight from SFO to JFK at 0800, so does American and TWA and Northwest and Delta and Southwest (except they stop 20 times en route).

When a customer calls a travel agent and wants a flight at 8 am, the agent pulls up the list on the computer, and finds that all the majors have an 8 am departure; take your pick. If American or any airline lists a flight at 8:05 am, it's at the bottom of the list.

When I was a young boy my parents took me to Monument Valley. I was struck by its natural beauty. Since than I have learned to fly, and built a plane. Occasionally I am able to experience a ride through the valley at sunrise or sunset with a good friend and good music. The experience is breathtakingly beautiful, enough to bring mist to the eyes. But I must be careful not to look down because that view brings tears. Each time the valley floor is more scarred with road cuts, trash dumps, motorcycle trails, old cars and house trailers. Considering how long it took nature to create Monument Valley, it is amazing how much it has declined in my very short lifetime.

The world's population is six billion headed for ten billion. Widespread efforts are underway to insure that children of the future will have educational and cultural benefits as good or better then children in the united states have enjoyed. Imagine a world of ten billion well-educated hard working productive affluent people. Suppose that just once in their lifetime 50% of these people decide to treat themselves to a rafting trip through the Grand Canyon. How many people would that be each day?

Assuming a life expectancy of 80 years and a trip length of ten days it would be:

That is 1.7 million people (not including guides, staff and repeat visitors) in the Grand Canyon 24 hours a day, cooking meals, eating, defecating, urinating in the river (recommended practice), camping and floating downstream.

Such activity would destroy the natural beauty of the canyon experience has shown that there is only one way to fully preserve natural beauty in an overcrowded world. Erect a chain link fence around it and post armed guards to keep people out.

Ironically the best examples are among the most noisy and polluted sites on earth. Most large airports have more species living inside the fence than outside, despite the concrete, air pollution and noise.

The Rocky Mountain Arsenal near Denver where this country made nerve gas for several decades. Rocky Mountain Arsenal was just off the departure end of runway 35 Stapleton, is close to the new airport, DIA, and is being enveloped by Denver. The animals have adjusted to the noise and do not interrupt their activities for even the loudest aircraft. For its size it is one of the most diverse natural environments in Colorado.

Cape Canaveral, second to the everglades for number of species present in the eastern us and occasionally the noisiest place on earth.

The government's nuclear waste facility in South Carolina which has more species then three nearby states combined.

These places and others like them are studied by biologists because of the balance and diversity of their unspoiled ecosystems.

In short you are restricting the wrong people. You are restricting those who do the least damage to a national treasure in support of those who do the most damage.

I am opposed to the expansion of restricted airspace over the Grand Canyon and recommend eliminating the existing restrictions.

You should be encouraging people who enjoy these places of rare beauty without direct contact.

This product is fantastic, I sit at my desk at home listening to Kennedy Approach Frequencies on the Web while watching the planes on your product, just unbelievable.

I just got through browsing through the NTSB accident database. I was amazed by the number of accidents (?) that are listed because of poor or improper fuel management. It is my opinion that you should not try to make a 4 hour trip on 3.5 hours of fuel. With just a little extra trip planning, the accident rate would be greatly reduced. Take the extra time to make a fuel stop along the way. LOOK in the tanks and see if the fuel gauges are even close to correct. Most are not. LOOK in the POH to determine the fuel burn.

I read Mike Busch's glowing report on the LightSPEED headsets in the AVweb product report and felt compelled to respond. As a flight instructor and commercial pilot for almost 20 years, I have owned numerous headsets (DCs, Peltors, etc.). Two years ago I bought two pairs of the LightSPEED headsets and have two close friends who each own a pair. Everything Mike said in his article is true: they are lightweight, comfortable (I've worn them 6 to 8 hours a day in the jet and they still felt comfortable at the end of the day) and the batteries seemingly last forever. They even give a two hour warning -- through the colored warning lights -- before the batteries are drained.

So, I was not surprised by Mike's report based on his tests. However, had you tested the headsets for six months you may have discovered a slightly less desirable feature. There is trouble in paradise.

As mentioned, I've owned two pairs of LightSPEEDs for two years. I need both pairs -- one to wear and one to send back for repairs. Each pair of my headsets has been back for repair twice. I am being totally honest with you when I say that as I sit here writing this e-mail, I am looking at a box of four LightSPEEDs (mine and the two pairs owned by friends) that are once again being sent back to LightSPEED for their semi-annual repairs. The problem is not caused by any " headset abuse". I've owned a pair of DCs for 20 years and never had the slightest trouble. I also own two pairs of Peltors -- never a problem.

I know one pilot whose solution was attaching a rubber band between the battery pack and a point on the plug cords 2-3 inches from the battery pack This simple and inexpensive strain relief (though aesthetically unpleasing) solved the problem by preventing the battery pack from hanging from the cords at the high stress point where the cords exit the battery pack. Alternately, users can Velcro the battery pack to the aircraft to prevent it from hanging from the plugs and eventually breaking wires in the cords. The best solution would of course be to fix the problem at its source. (Provide a more effective strain relief at the battery pack!)

A year ago at Oshkosh I talked to LightSPEED representatives about this nagging, but easily remedied, problem. I gave them my current pair of malfunctioning headsets for examination. They were helpful and even gave me a loaner pair while they took mine to repair (this probably had something to do with the crowds of perspective buyers present at the display booth). However, I was discouraged that the company reps denied that the headsets had a chronic design flaw and to my knowledge - and frustration -- LightSPEED hasn't fixed the problem.

In conclusion, LightSPEED headsets are a potentially good product hampered by the lack of a 25-cent design fix. With all they have going for them, this one easily remedied shortcoming is annoying and inconvenient enough that I cannot recommend the headsets to any of my students. As they stand, LightSPEEDs are inexpensive, but you get what you pay for.

I look forward to reading your comments!

Larry, I found your note interesting. I've been flying with two LightSPEED 20Ks for the past two years, perhaps 300 hours total, and have seen no indication of a strain-relief problem in my headsets. Like yours, mine are used in an environment where the control box hangs from the connector plugs. Since I can't imagine that there are any physical differences between your plugs and mine, I have to assume that your flight training application is somehow more rigorous in this area than my flying.

In the past two years, I've heard a number of complaints about cracking of the plastic shell of the headband (although I've never experienced any problem in this area personally), but yours is the first complaint I've heard about the plugs. I just checked with a couple of aircraft-owner friends who fly a lot with 20Ks and neither of them have had problems with their plugs, either.

Nevertheless, I've passed your enote to Mark Shepard at LightSPEED Technologies, and asked him to follow up with you about the problems you have been having.

I've gained more knowledge and insight from Michael Maya Charles' articles and anecdotes than from any other single source....it can be said, I think, that his experiences and the lessons learned from them are such that they almost ought to be required reading as part of any reasonable aeronautical training curriculum.