AVmail

The story in the most recent AVflash is a good example. You bash Northwest Airlines about an obscure and rare incident of passenger problems during a snowstorm.

I am a veteran airline pilot who also commutes to work. It is my experience that most (I'd say 95%) of both the flights I work, and those I ride on to get to work operate normally. In fact in the 15 years that I have commuted to work, I have only not gotten there once due to problems, and that was due to weather.

I know that there are service problems with the airlines, but we still have a extremely reliable airline system in the USA, one that you should be proud of. All I ask is if you report problems, you should also acknowledge the very reliable service we give.

My name is Dale Wright and I am the National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) representative at Charlotte (CLT). We at CLT have been attempting for over six months to do away with the routes that take aircraft around our airspace. There are many obstacles in the way that have to be removed. The largest obstacle is automation reroutes. We are presently working with GSO to establish a routing to enter CLT airspace around PLUMM intersection (in the vicinity of Rowan County Airport). We have successfully changed the reroutes from the west and are now working on the east routes.

Roger Welke, a controller at CLT is a member of the National Airspace Redesign Team and is working on GSP routes that will run north and south on both sides of CLT. We are working the issue and any ideas you have will be appreciated.

which I can take no other way than implying Henderson's departure was caused by Campbell's preposterous and unsuccessful suit.

In fact, Henderson bent over backward in dealing with Campbell's behavior, as did the entire Sun 'n Fun organization (I have seen the entire file, which AVweb obviously has NOT bothered to do). It was Campbell who chose to demonize Henderson in an intimidation tactic all-too-familiar to those who have had to deal with Campbell's eccentric, grandiose behavior. Predictably, through superficial reporting and commentary, AVweb has again gone precisely where Campbell led them.

Like Mike, I and so many others pilots are scared to death to even hint that we might like to take medication for our high blood pressure. I am borderline and over 50 to boot, with a large frame and weight to match. What can be taken that the FAA approves? Is there something I can show my family doctor so I take "the right stuff" so as not to lose my medical? (If you publish this, please do not use my name.)

Regarding Y2K, I'll be doing my own midnight flight to see in the new year near Silly Seattle. In spite of official assurances on "readiness", the Seattle Center celebration for 50,000 people (and a private Space Needle party for 750) have been cancelled, all the ferry boats will be shut down cold, and the state Emergency Operations Center and 37 state agencies will all be manned. (The EOC is already on alert status.) I'm going to do an airborne radio check between the EOC and State Aviation division today, and again at midnight on the 31st, but you won't be able to track my flight.

"No risk to a single person" seems to be Mayor Schell's reason for all the alarm. Either there is a terrorist threat which he isn't talking about, or we have too many lawyers up here.

I have to tell you that I subscribed to Flight Explorer PE first, I read your review afterwards. I was so intrigued that I could follow the flight of NASA's Mooney that I signed up right then!! Then I read your review.

Will WOW! convey my excitement? My problem may be keeping within the allotted 10 hours per month!! Please accept my proffered handful of kudos for pressing the FAA, Dimensions International et al to make this possible. There must be more than a few lookeeloos such as myself who will sign up just for the "fun of it." There are a bunch of us who just hang around any aviation-related stuff just because ... although I am an SEL with glider endorsement who passed his first private pilot CAA written exams in 1947, but my piloting days are on the wane ... not yet gone, but waning nonetheless.

Over the years I have tried to look past the poor taste and even worse scripting of snippety and belittling comments made by your inept writers, and look into the merit of a story, but today 's report of the intoxicated CFI in Montreal was the last straw. Aren't you responsible enough to audit your own comments?

If you care to re-read the article, on the first half you report that "his friend tried to unsuccessfully talk him out of...." making the flight.

I would like to know what warranted the last statement of "Friends don't let friends fly drunk." As per YOUR report it states that they did just that within the confines of the law !!. By your thinking, do they have to beat him unconscious? Maybe hold him against his will? Maybe steal or incapacitate the aircraft?

I'm the Information Systems Administrator for the Department of Justice of a state. I can tell you that his friends would be in serious personal legal jeopardy should that have interfered with his right, however twisted or wrong, to fly under his conditions.

From CAP-Bashing to Women-belittling pilot performance to Panic-embedding Y2K issues, you all seem to do a great job of capturing the sick spirit of the National Enquirer and other such rags and use such techniques to twisted and mostly inaccurate personal opinions to otherwise viable articles.

You originally started out good, but from the moment that Mr. Kaputa (which can be pig-translated from the German word for "Broken" or "Inoperative") got involved with his personal "editorials," you have failed miserably as reporters and have dropped to the level of 13-year-old-Skinhead-brats with computers.

I have been deeply involved in aviation for the last 35 years, of which 3 were as the executive director of an EAA Regional Fly-In for which I have been a volunteer over the last 15 years. Through all my contacts and exposure to people in the aviation community, both local, national, and international, I've never seen the level of irresponsibility exhibited by your writing staff in aviation matters.

Tick - A Federal Express cargo jet took off from Providence and passed directly over a United 757 airliner, which had inadvertently wandered on the runway. (12/6/99)

Tock - A United B757 on takeoff from Los Angeles narrowly averts colliding with an Aero Mexico DC-9 which accidentally taxied on the departure runway.

(11/24/99)

Tick - Los Angeles Center air traffic controllers had to rely on their memory of the position of the aircraft they were controlling during a computer problem. (08/21/99)

Tock - Miami Center air traffic facility loses communications for 13 minutes. (7/9/99)

Tick - An MD-80 and a Merlin turboprop almost collide northeast of Atlanta. (7/1/99)

Tock - Atlanta Center main computer system crashes. Backup system (DARC) display is missing data. (6/28/99)

Tick - A FedEx DC-10 and an AIA L-1011 almost collide over Kansas. (3/3/99)

Tock - Dozens of departures delayed in the Northwest US when controller's displays at the Seattle Air Route Traffic Control Center went dark for 35 minutes. (1/16/99)

Tick - A Boston Center computer malfunction almost causes a mid air collision between a British Caledonian L-1011 and Delta Airlines B-767. (12/14/98)

Tock - A US Airways B-737 almost lands on a King Air on a runway waiting to depart New York's La Guardia airport. (12/14/98)

Tick - Boston Center failure for 37 minutes. (8/98)

Tock - A power failure at the Kansas City air traffic control center causes widespread havoc. (12/18/98)

Tick- FAA's air traffic system over the Pacific Ocean broke down for 16 hours. (1/9/98)

Tock - FAA's Minimum Safe Altitude Warning (MSAW) that should have warned air traffic controllers that Korean Air Flight 801 was dangerously below the normal airport approach path failed to work properly because of a programming glitch. (8/11/97)

Tick - A mysterious radar problem at the FAA air traffic control center in Palmdale stalled the arrival and departure of more than 100 flights at Los Angeles International Airport. (7/21/96)

Tock - Two jumbo jets approaching LAX came within about two miles of each over when air traffic control radios failed. (3/26/96)

Tick - LGA Tower and NY Tracon loss of Communications for 30 minutes. (6/26/94)

Is it me or does anyone else notice a pattern here? And then there is that damn ticking noise again!

Something else about the story struck me, however: I don't understand why such incidents don't name names. It is true that newspapers aren't supposed to give the names of juvenile suspects who have been arrested for some crime, but even though this inspector seemed juvenile, he probably didn't fit the legal definition of being under 18. May I suggest that AVweb try to get actual names in these cases of FAA inspectors and PUBLISH THEM IN YOUR ARTICLES. None of the rest of us can hide behind any sort of anonymity when dealing with the FAA, and I can't imagine a reason that an FAA employee should be allowed to.

I enjoyed the article on NORAD's Santa-tracking Web site, and passed it along to my two sisters, each of whom have children young enough to get a thrill out of such a thing. They reported that, alas, all of the little ones were asleep well before the event's midnight starting time.

You ran this in "On the Fly" this morning:

We rode a Continental Airlines Boeing 720 from Travis AFB to Bien Hoa racing the sun all the way. Darkness finally caught up with us after nearly twenty hours of daylight while we were on the ground for a refueling stop at Clark AFB in the Philippines. Our arrival over the southeast Asian coast came in pitch darkness shortly before ten o'clock local time.

During the let-down into the Bien Hoa area, the captain announced on the overhead speakers that the flight ahead of us had taken a sniper's bullet through the aft galley during final approach to the runway. He calmly announced his intention to minimize the risk by making an overhead approach. To further increase the "stealthiness" of the big Boeing, he turned off every external and cabin light. The panel lights were the only burning filaments on the aircraft as he brought the plane over the end of the runway and kicked it into a tight descending 360 degree turn to the left. He intended to keep the plane inside the airbase perimeter, and it was impressive from my vantage point near the tail as the long fuselage dipped and rotated tightly around the axis. The pilot did a great job of coordinating the turn, and g-forces were minimal.

About three-quarters of the way around, the gear and flaps came down and we leveled out just seconds before the initiation of the flare and a fairly routine touch-down.

I have seen the films of the 707 prototype doing its roll over the hydroplane races in Seattle, but this approach is the closest to aerobatics I have ever seen an airliner -- and we did it with a capacity load of wall-to-wall passengers! The pilot obviously had done it before (probably in a Navy fighter).

I have read all the responses to the QOTW regarding disclosure of medical problems.

I am dumbfounded by the stupidity of the people writing that they had two doctors in order to get around the problem. Not reporting a problem to anyone is one thing but to keep a known condition, known by another physician, that is, from the FAA and, most likely, their insurance company, is inviting big time trouble down the line in the event of a major accident involving loss of life and property.

Any insurance company with any sense is going to check into the medical history of the pilot. This is regardless of survival or not. If the insurance company can prove negligence of this sort they will deny all claims and the pilot/family will have to suffer the liability. I am not an attorney but it just makes sense to me.

I have lost my medical for the time being but have already contacted my CFI that he will have to join me when I want to take a $100 hamburger flight. Just being at the controls and in the wild blue yonder is good enough for me. Even if it's a permanent condition I will always keep flying. Legally!!! Who knows? I might just get good enough to pass the tests for an instrument ticket. While being denied my medical.

Doesn't that make more sense than what some of these poor idiots are doing?

And to admit it in writing, to boot.

The FAA throws out the baby so often I'm surprised it occurred to you to bother to comment. Poor things are left crying in the street.

Just kidding, we ... well, at least I ... appreciate that you do take the time to make your comments, how else can the rest of us be informed on such issues? I, for example, don't make flying my profession (wish I could though); rather, it's my hobby. I need guys like you.

A request: Please date articles such as this so that we can tell when they were written. This has been around for awhile, right? I can't tell when it was written so I'm not sure how stale my comments to Madame Garvey or whoever would be. I'd appreciate your response.

By the way, when one sends an email to Jane Garvey or Nicholas Garaufis, who reads it? Do they ever see it?

I remember the first time I began to understand how things were going to go; it was simply a forewarning, a foreboding, of today's PC and posturing.

In 1969 or 1970 or something like that, a mere three years after DOT's creation, their research and technology division was dissolved. (Now, I was pretty young, but I still remember, because my Dad worked in the division at the time.) What ought a government transportation organization be for? Well, one thing that seems apparent, at least to me: strategic planning, long-term thinking, the kind of thing nobody but a government would have time/money to do. And that's what they were killing: strategic planning. And what does the DOT, and its FAA, do now? Short-sighted regulation and ass-covering. Your article merely cites a few examples.

I enjoy the fact that you include international news (Canadian) and the fact that you will publish comments from people who don't always agree with you. This is an advanced concept that a lot of people can't handle.

I have been following the debate about airport congestion and how the airlines all try to schedule flights into and out of airports at desirable times, creating more demand for air and runway space than is available. As a regular business traveler, I have experienced these delays too. I have decided to put my two cents into the debate. I have worked in aviation for the past 18 years, first in product support for an OEM, then in logistics and technical support for the USAF.

Why doesn't the FAA auction off the available number of arrival and departure slots to the competing airlines? The day could be divided into 5 minute (or whatever time is necessary) slots, and these time slots could be auctioned. This should solve or alleviate the congestion problem while generating even more revenue for the Aviation Trust Fund (that our Senators and Congressmen wouldn't spend). The airlines winning the slots could then sell or trade them to other airlines as schedule demands changed. An alternative might be, if a winning airline does not make use of a slot for a period of time it would be re-auctioned. A friend who is a retired FAA employee tells me there used to be a slot system in place, but it was discontinued, apparently during the deregulation days.

Anybody able to tell me what is the meaning of the term "Captain's Wiring," and where I might find out more about it?

Seems there was a TV documentary item about it here, my non-flying friends are all asking about it, I missed the program, and a search under many guises on the internet has been unfruitful.

While the statement was intending to refer to the CHANGES affecting both the repair stations and our wallet, and the word 'both' in that sentence helps make that point, I got a chuckle when reading the last part by itself -- was the pun intended?

The fuel scare that you mentioned to be affecting Australia is also affecting New Zealand. Mobil, Shell and BP sites are the ones affected, mainly in the lower North Island. For more details, see http://onenews.co.nz/National/1999/12/27/00014265.htm.

The changes that are happening in ATC are driven by airline congestion of the major hub airports. The airlines aren't going to budge, because they recognize that the ATC system and airport infrastructure can be improved to accommodate their existing needs. And with enough pressure on Congress, the Aviation Trust Fund may well pay for it. To do this without long periods of gridlock or a major accident requires a revolutionary change in ATC very soon. Band-aids such as flow control, or predicting traffic 20 minutes into the future won't cut it.

Using existing technology, the air traffic system will be completely automated, from the time an aircraft using the flight levels taxis onto the runway until it exits the runway at its destination. Using datalink technology, the aircraft is controlled by a ground-based computer system throughout its flight, with the crew monitoring. VFR aircraft and those operating below 18,000 ft. are monitored by the ground-based system, and pilots receive instructions via datalink(both written and aural) necessary to their flight. Frequency congestion is eliminated. Everything in the air, including balloons, ultralights, and even parachutists is mode-S equipped. This includes all military aircraft. As occurs now with flight planning programs, the characteristics of each individual aircraft are entered into the system, with variables such as fuel and weight updated for each flight. Real-time weather and other traffic are presented via datalink(Universal Access Transceiver) to each aircraft, with traffic appearing as a winged icon, size and wing sweep indicating weight and speed, color being used to denote altitude(from Dr. Hugh David's work at EuroControl). However, the ground-based computer system, by controlling each flight-level aircraft through touchdown, provides routing and separation. The Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast system continuously monitors every aircraft, both on the ground and at any altitude.

Historically FAA computers have been much less than reliable. While they claim 'safety was never compromised' each time one of their systems fails, a failure in the automated ATC system could not be tolerated, any more than it could on today's glass-cockpit, fly-by-wire aircraft. The same triply redundant(at least) design philosophy would apply, or whatever it takes to get to 99.99999 (or better) reliability. Today's distributed computing systems can achieve this reliability, as contrasted with the FAA's antiquated systems in computing, uninterruptable power supplies, and cut-over technology. Software updates would run on a separate test system using real data to eliminate any errors prior to actual use.

Weather is often cited as a delaying factor in the present system. It will slow automated ATC also, but not to the extent it does the current system. Using satellite-based navigation, the radio navigation fixes and arbitrary satellite fixes used today will not exist. Rather the computer routes traffic to avoid the weather, slowing the enroute traffic as necessary well away from turbulence and ice, and if holds are required, implementing them at the most fuel efficient altitude. Each aircraft will become a weather reporting station, continuously transmitting weather data into the system. Autolanding is used, although Forward Looking InfraRed Heads Up Displays will be required in flight-level aircraft. The crew will have input into the system based on their interpretation of the cockpit weather display coupled with the view outside the cockpit.

Safety will be greatly enhanced through use of an automated ATC. At the beginning of the flight, the system will not launch an aircraft if it is improperly configured for takeoff(Northwest Detroit and Continental DC-9 Denver), another aircraft is on the runway(Canary Islands 747's), or there is an intersection conflict(Quincy, IL). Controlled Flight Into Terrain will not occur(Frank Sinatra's mother, TWA-514 Dulles, Guam). Midair collisions will be avoided(Cerritos, Indianapolis, Urbana, OH). Runway incursions will not occur. Pilot's will see the position of their aircraft on the field via their MultiFunctional Display, with a 'follow me' line for taxiing to and from the runway, including automatic aural instructions at key points.

Peak-time capacity at major hubs will increase substantially, especially where runways have the appropriate high-speed turnoffs and taxiway capacity to handle the increased load. This will be achieved by precise separation in all weather conditions, which can be done safely when the computer controls the speed and altitude of every aircraft in the stream. Wake turbulence avoidance will be included in the computer programming, allowing the tightest possible spacing consistent with clearing the runway after landing. Increased separation for adverse runway conditions will also be programmed in, as will Land And Hold Short procedures, with the added safety of avoiding the calculated potential collision window(remember, the system controls the start of the takeoff roll). MOA's and Restricted Areas will not be as much of a factor as they are today. While the system will not control military aircraft in their practice areas, transit through those areas will be based on actual occupancy by the military. If the President is not at Camp David, the system will fly aircraft through the restricted area. Since the system provides anonymity(aircraft identifiers are not presented on cockpit displays, only size, speed, and altitude), special procedures for Air Force One(ask Senator Voinovich of Ohio about this) and Hillary's campaign airplane are not necessary. With direct flight a reality and regional jets in use, airlines may opt for more point-to-point service, relieving pressure on the hubs.

The cost of such a system is quite low compared to past FAA 'upgrades'. All of the equipment and some of the software exists now to implement the system. The FAA currently has a contract to install the GPS, cockpit display, and datalink radio into 150 aircraft in Alaska for $3.9M(AOPA Pilot, November, 1999, p37). If electronics industry experience is any guide, that $26,000 per aircraft would decrease by at least a factor of 10 if installed fleet-wide. The military have already developed the datalink-to-autopilot protocol for their Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. The major cost would be the computer network and additional software.

Collateral benefits: privacy would be improved. Your aircraft ID would not be public as it is today(selected business aircraft excepted). Assuming the government learned their lesson with the IRS fiasco(a BIG assumption, I admit), few in the FAA would have the ability to identify aircraft or pilots during normal operations. FAA enforcement of in-flight violations would be straightforward. For those in the flight levels, there would be no violations while the automated system is in control of the aircraft. Fuel costs would be minimized, especially beneficial for transport aircraft. Finally, this system can be installed and operated in a rehearsal mode while the present system continues to function. It can be operationally tested in appropriate areas before putting into full-scale use, avoiding the 'teething problems' associated with major changes to a system.

First of all, I think that they infringe privacy and increase unnecessarily the pilot stress factor. In general, workers do not want to be videotaped at work.

In parallel with this, I think that videocams do not improve safety. Maybe they could improve investigations in some way. Perhaps they could be useful in extreme cases like EgyptAir 990 to know what happened and who was in the cockpit at the time of crash. But one such case does not justify the installation of those devices which will cost millions of dollars to the airline industry. Think that many other airline disasters were resolved with only the CVR and FDR help. In short,

I believe that the cons are definitively bigger than the pros.

I'd like to see AVweb:

1. Publish a list of all the State Senators with their e-mail addresses.

2. Show us how they voted -- for or Against GA -- plus any additional info on how they voted on committee amendments.

3. Enlist the support of all of your readers to send at least one e-mail message per week (or more) to their senators, to support or criticize the senator's vote and request an explanation if they voted to keep the Trust Fund Locked Up. We could forward the really good answers to you and the editors of our local newspapers.

We have two problems with the politicians:

1. Democrats -- They want user fees.

2. Republicans -- They don't have the guts to balance the budget without the Trust Fund.

If the safety of GA (and commercial aviation, too) can't be improved because Congress won't release the Trust Fund money, then it's time we set the stage for the next great air disaster. The headline should read: Senators Contribute To Air Deaths!

Pilots have a responsibility when they fly. Senators have a responsibility on the administration of our Trust Fund. The choice senators make by not spending "our money" on many needed improvements that can help reduce aviation accidents and fatalities should be placed squarely at the senators doorstep.

Santa is not American. The North Pole (magnetic) is in Canada!. The FAA can only inspect and "approve American registered aircraft." We have, of course, a bilateral agreement on airworthiness etc.

The sleigh is a homebuilt and needs no airworthiness certificate per say.

The geographic North Pole of course is on an icecap with no particular political connection.

Santa is derived from a Turkish Saint adopted by the Dutch first as a Christmas gift giver.

Any how the best we can do is agree that the only people getting almost the same treatment as Santa are Air Force One!.

That wasn't good enough, so he immediately NOTAMed our much sought-after GPS approach as "not available," and told us he thought he could do something about getting the table surveyed in "a month or two." You would think that with all the work we went through to get our approach, someone would have suggested that the table needed to be surveyed -- and, how accurately can you read an altimeter, anyway? With winter coming on strong, that's the last thing we needed

Well, one of our friends at FAA in D.C., Jim Enias, was able to get things moving and we're back in service after only a couple of weeks -- and lots of lost business!

Just another example of how they're "here to help us"!

As a police officer and a pilot, I have wanted to change my address with the FAA also. But the FAA won't let me use a PO Box, so my home address shows up -- wonderful after I've arrested a couple of wealthy drug dealers with many connections and smarts. State law protects my address information from any public database (property/personnel file) upon my written request, but it can't cover out of state records or therefore federal databases. So do I lie to the FAA and tell them mail can't be delivered to my home and then draw a map to my house and use a PO Box?

My disagreement with removing the database:

As a police officer trying to get into our flight unit, I want to be able to check on the certifications of my competitor pilots to see if the department is promoting on politics or qualifications. In addition, long after losing contact with fellow aviators, I would now like to do a search and find some of them to see how they are doing. Its hard without a current database.

For ways to get large numbers of airplanes on or off a runway in a short period of time, both the FAA and the air carriers should look to the Air Force and Navy.

After a military career in the Air Force flying F-4s and as a T-38 instructor pilot, I am still amazed at the number of sorties we could handle on a flying base during a day. In Air Training Command, we routinely had sorties scheduled every three minutes through an entire day, and each of those sorties typically averaged 4 or 5 touch-and-goes once in the traffic pattern. When working as the runway supervisory officer, it was common to have a T-38 landing every 20-30 seconds. And we did that with little more than a UHF radio, a clipboard holding the day's flying schedule, and a set of well-thought out arrival and departure procedures.

We also did it by spreading out the sorties from early morning to late at night (not bunching all the sorties into a few "premium" hours of the day), and by flying aircraft in formation as much as possible. A four ship formation of aircraft represents only one blip on an air traffic controller's radar screen, but increases capacity fourfold.

When the weather permits, an overhead pattern is still the most efficient way to put a lot of airplanes on a runway in a short time. And its a beautiful thing to watch. I have never been on a Air Force base where the entire base population didn't stop what they were doing and watch as a four-ship formation of fighters flew down initial into the break.

Certainly no landing surfaces is more congested or has a tighter capacity than that on an aircraft carrier, yet the Navy routinely does it successfully. And as Don Brown points out, every time you watch a Discovery or History channel special about aircraft carrier operations, the Navy seems to be controlling it all using grease pencils on Plexiglas boards, and by pushing little plastic airplane models around a scale model of the flight deck. As Don says, "Hmmmmm, I wonder how they do that?"

Now to my point (finally):

I say this somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but has anyone in the FAA or with the air carriers thought of flying in formation on the most heavily used, congested routes, and into the most heavily used, congested airports? For common, heavily used routes such as Boston-New York, New York-Washington, Chicago-Atlanta, Atlanta-New York, etc. where several airlines schedule simultaneous departures and arrivals, wouldn't it ease departure, arrival, and en route congestion if their airplanes flew in formation? As in the military, a four-ship of 737s, 757s, or DC-10s is only one blip on an ATC radar screen, but would increase capacity four-fold. Upon arrival the formation could either fly an overhead pattern pitching out to land, or for straight-in approaches, 'drag' on final to get the required landing spacing. Putting air carriers in formation would be a fairly simple move that could increase departure, en route, and arrival capacity within our existing system.

Think of the possibilities it would open up to air carrier pilots and dispatchers: The FAA could have a new rating called, "Flight Lead Certified." And of course an FLC pilot could command pay commensurate with the certification and responsibility. Dispatchers would learn to coordinate gate push away times so a four-ship from United, Southwest, Continental, and TWA could assemble on the ramp and taxi to the runway together. Another chance for an added certification and increased pay.

And the air carriers could no doubt use it in their advertising: "Delta, the airline with more flight lead certified pilots than any other."

A big advantage would be that passengers would at last pay serious attention when the flight crew tells them to fasten their seat belts and put their seat trays in the full, upright position. I can hear it now, "Ladies and gentlemen, we will be turning onto initial at O'Hare Field in 90 seconds. Please ensure your seat belts are fastened and tightened -- AND we really mean tightened -- before we break at the numbers." (Oops, on second thought, the air carrier attorneys and public relations people probably wouldn't permit their pilots to say "break at the numbers.")

Most of us can use our imagination to generate the scary part. After 25,000 hours and thirty years of airline flying, believe me, these issues like the American MD in Arkansas bring back memories. The American Captain should not have attempted a landing in those conditions, but he did.

My experience has taught me one of the biggest check marks on a Proficiency Check or a training ride is the Judgement column. Only way one can gain this is to live it. You can't bypass the knowledge of experience.

I like your newsletter but you should be aware of the word thing. Words are your business.

Thank you for listening,

It would be nice for the crew involved if you would note that the aircraft was under tow and still connected to a tug when the collision occurred. The news flash can be interpreted to mean that the crew taxied into the truck.

I just had to let you know about an order I placed via AVweb. My wife, had me ordered the Chase-Durer "Fighter Command" (Black Steel) watch -- my Christmas gift from her -- on-line on Saturday, December 18.

The door bell ring today (December 21). It was the UPS delivery man with the watch! Wow ... Chase-Durer sure knows how to do business the right way. And yes, the watch is very well made. Also, the price that was offered on AVweb was "damn good."

This started me thinking about ways to secure passenger's belongings while passing through a security check. The simplest solution that I came up with was change the procedure to:

1) Put belongings on x-ray table. Wait for them to enter the x-ray machine.

2) The baggage check operator halts the baggage in the x-ray machine until the owner clears the metal detector.

3) The owner and their baggage meet at the exit to the x-ray machine.

Also it might help to limit access to the baggage by roping off corridors.

Another nicety would be for the security personal to have forms available for reporting stolen items.

Doctor Blue, thank you for your excellent article -- which I read very carefully, and found a it very useful message to our community. I had a couple of specific questions that I would like your thoughts on, to further refine my own thinking.

I am a Wilderness First Responder (SOLO-trained), and WEMT in training (I will complete in March). As a scout leader, I often lead groups of boys (and adults) into the wilderness, usually for a weekend, but sometimes for much longer. My medical kit I must carry on my back, and I trade-off the ounces very carefully, so I am constantly rethinking my own choices. One thing your article has prompted me to do is to throw another dozen Band-Aids in my kit (I prefer the Curad flex fabric) and another dozen 4x4s -- which get used at a prodigious rate when injuries occur.

I also carry (with written protocol from my medical supervisor) an anaphylaxis kit  (I carry EpiPens, but the Anakit is lighter).

I carry Gatorade powder for electrolytes (mixed half strength it works very well) and Jell-O packets as my preferred mild hypothermia treatment (Cherry of course).

I would appreciate your comments on one or all. Thanks again for your excellent article.

I cannot find a definitive answer to a question put to me yesterday by a gentleman who's constructing an RV: He was told -- by someone who "really knows his stuff" -- that it's illegal to put a fuel selector with a "both" option in a low-wing aircraft.

I told him that I'd never heard this in forty years. However, I haven't heard everything, so there may be something out there on this. If it's in the FARs, I've missed it.

Do you doubt the existence of this bias? Go to Oshkosh, the Mecca of homebuilt aviation, and look at what occupies the skies. Warbirds. Listen as the announcer goes on, hour after hour, extolling the virtues of war and killing. Ditto for airshows from coast to coast. A very strong anti-liberal bias.

Or look at the printed media. Boating magazines don't feature nuclear submarines, car magazines don't devote pages to armored personnel carriers, hunting magazines don't picture anti-aircraft cannons, and skiing publications don't show World War Two SS troops. Ditto for magazines about cooking or jogging or whatever, they don't focus on military applications. In each case, the publication caters to its constituency without regard to political bias. Not so in aviation, all pilots are expected to either love the F16 or go away.

How many pilots would paint big government insignia on their cars? Our cars don't look like vehicles belonging to the FBI or DEA or Army. Yet many aviators paint their planes -- even ultralights -- in quasi-military colors. Again, a strong anti-liberal bias selectively applied to aviation.

So the question isn't "why the AVweb bias?" but "why the aviation bias?" And more importantly, what effect does this bias have on our freedom to fly, vis-a-vis freedoms of boaters, hunters, skiers, and those equally patriotic Americans who enjoy other pursuits?

Here in Australia, our airlines have limits on the number and size of articles allowed in the cabin, test frames are used to check dimensions and prominently available in the terminal areas for passengers to "self check", and a weight limit of 4kg of total carry on baggage applies. Though some discretion is applied, it is not unusual to see passengers at the boarding gate having their "would-be" carry on bags taken from them and consigned to the hold. I have actually seen a set of scales at the boarding gate and all carry on baggage weighed! - boy, did that cause some consternation.

In reply, I received the following from her today:

I just received this Question/Answer thing from Delta regarding "substitution or "adulteration" of urine samples for drug screens:

I guess that girl probably PUT some water in her urine if she was really fired from her job, don't you think?

Look at the system and the incentive.

1. Airline baggage handling has a worse reputation than the U.S. Post Office for losing, damaging, and delaying items not carried on. Further, there is no fair system for insuring for losses or compensating fairly for the loss (at least the post-office offers insurance). Why would any sane person willingly give a package to an airline for their custody and care? The most durable luggage that luggage designers can devise is routinely damaged or destroyed by airline baggage handlers and systems. If mail was lost or damaged at the rate that air baggage was, there'd be a national revolt, insurable or not.

2. I've never seen carry-on baggage weighed by any airline. And, with a weight-limit in place, there's a real incentive to carry the heavy stuff on the plane to avoid baggage charges.

3. The consequences of lost or damaged luggage (at least on the outbound leg of a trip) is fairly severe. Business materials necessary for a trip are damaged or lost, negating the value of the trip. Clothing is lost or damaged and substitutes are very difficult and expensive to obtain. Expensive sporting goods (golf clubs, skis, etc.) are lost and damaged, etc. Why take the trip if you can't be assured of having the materials that caused you to take the trip in the first place?

4. While baggage has a weight limit, passengers do not. If I'm a 98 pound person or a 350 pound person, my luggage limit is the same. Clearly, larger persons cost the airline more to move from place to place. Perhaps there should be a seat standard (like the little frame that your luggage must fit in) at the gate and everyone should be forced to sit in it to see if they fit the seat. If not, upgrade to a seat class with larger seats or pay for two seats. This system would allow a higher luggage limit for the rest of us, and also might make the ride more pleasant for the adjacent person sharing the armrest.

The savvy passenger understands this environment and behaves to maximize the benefit (or minimize the risks) by carrying on whatever they can.

The incentives:

1. It's safe (for what you're carrying) - - and, besides, the airline is supposed to avoid doing anything that would cause luggage to fall out of the overhead bins - - and provide bins that are safe.

2. It's cheap. Overweight luggage could cost me more if detected.

3. It's quick. Why wait for my checked, damaged, uninsured luggage at the carousel (and afterwards possibly stand interminably at the lost luggage counter) when I have my stuff and can head directly for the car rental line before it gets too long. After all, I'm already late for my next appointment because of ATC delays, airline indifference, inefficient baggage handling, etc.

4. It gives peace-of-mind. If I don't let my luggage out of my sight, it'll be with me when (and if) I get there.

Otherwise, why on earth would I want to tend 80 pounds of stuff and lug it around when I could get on without the heavy lifting, trying to get to my seat with 10 cubic feet of stuff down that skinny aisle, and hope that another passenger hasn't beaten me to the overhead bin space, and have my leg-room consumed by crap I had to carry on? Basically, the whole air travel experience is stressful, uncomfortable, inconvenient, and unpleasant. No wonder the cabin crew complain.

Perhaps we need a new aviation discipline -- air-passenger ergonomics. If someone in the industry cared enough to look at the travelling public as a valued customer rather than an obnoxious necessity in the pursuit of revenue, some creative solutions to the problems could be found besides policing.

Give me incentives and protection for handing my valuables over to the baggage department of the airline, and I (at least) will GLADLY check my bags. Make checking bags a good deal. Otherwise, Continental Airlines seems to have it right.

We never know from trip to trip what the politics (and local costs) will be south of the border. That's why we've quit taking our beloved plane into Mexico.

I was visiting Louisville, Kentucky recently and stopped in at the local Flight Service Station at Bowman Field -- it's a great, longtime facility with a friendly and knowledgeable staff. Posted on the entry door and on the counter was an FAA notice stating that effective January 1, 2000 new security actions would limit public (pilot) access to the briefing counter area only - all other areas of the building, including the RESTROOMS 20 feet away (through a doorway), would no longer be accessible. I do not know if this is a national policy, but this action seems ridiculous! The locals are already use to the concrete pylons restricting auto parking adjacent to the building. What's next -- bank teller windows?

At CYYZ they are building another parallel runway a few hundred feet south of what used to be 06R/24L. So, what today is called 06R/24L will eventually become 06L/24R and the new one will get the 06R/24L designation.

However, they also have approval to construct a new parallel runway at the north end of the field to go along with what used to be 06L/24R. With four parallel runways they wanted to avoid the never-used LC/RC designation and go for a model that was adopted in Atlanta and other 4-runway airports--use the next designators closest to the runway heading. In Pearson Airport's case, the 24 parallels are heading 237 degrees, and up until about 10 or 15 years ago, they were the 05/23 parallels.

The odd part, though, is that the north parallel will be many years away from even the start of construction (if, in fact air traffic levels even warrant its construction). So I'm speculating that they simply wanted to keep a separate single runway designation until the new parallel is built, and get pilots and controllers accustomed to the 05 designation.

Therefore, when all the rebuilding is complete there will be a pair of 05s and a pair of 06s! For more info check out http://www.gtaa.com/Pearson%20Airport%20Tomorrow/airport.htm.

Bob, we received the following information from CS&A Insurance. More information, including contact information if you'd like to call them, can be found at their Web site, as well as at the specific links referenced below. I hope this is helpful!

Best wishes for a safe and happy trip.

We have all read about the NASA Future Flight virtual air traffic control tower for years and its many delays. Did you know that the Federal Aviation Administration Airway Facilities Tower Integration Laboratory (AFTIL) has had an operational virtual tower for a number of years? We are located at the William J. Hughes FAA Technical Center, Atlantic City Airport, New Jersey.

Unlike the NASA system with its massive funding, we have operated on a shoe-string budget providing a six screen (each screen 6 feet by 8 feet), 240 degree out-the-window display including photo-realistic background, voice controlled aircraft, and full scale tower cab mock-ups. We also provide airport planners, air traffic control specialists and others with pre-construction out-the-window tower views of proposed air traffic control towers to include building shadow studies, and transition issues. You can visit the AFTIL web site at this URL: http://www.tc.faa.gov/act200/221/index.html

Here also, no-one was hurt -- the under aircraft braked for both of them and they stayed on the runway.

Is Chicago Center short of controllers? Yes and no. The center is broken down into 8 areas. Each area is responsible for training it's own people but there must be people to do the training as well as trainees. Some areas are in good shape, such as the North East area where I work, others not so good.

The South Area at ZAU is the one most hurting. I spoke with a controller in that area and was told that in the last 2 years or so they have lost 17 people to retirements, promotions, transfers etc without a corresponding input of replacements. Trainees ARE NOT pulled out of the classrooms to fill these vacancies! "Trainees" that are certified at two radar positions can be used to staff positions FOR WHICH THEY ARE CERTIFIED! These people are FULLY QUALIFIED to work these radar positions. The problem arises when they are used continuously for staffing and their training is not continued on additional positions. This delays advancement to Full Performance Level which would allow them to work any position in their area. Of course being an FPL allows greater flexibility in staffing various shifts, opening or closing sectors etc. Even if FPL controllers are transferred in from other areas or facilities they are "trainees" until they can be certified on the new (to them) airspace and this can still take months or years, even for experienced people.

The South Area is short of trainers but not trainees. There are enough bodies but not enough certified controllers. Rehired PATCO controllers are not the answer. A few do well but most are struggling. It has been too long and they have not had the chance to grow as traffic increased and learn new equipment. It is one thing to grow as traffic grows, quite another to come back to nearly triple the number of operations that you left in 1981.

Finally, yes ZAU is short of "bodies." Probably every Center is. After the huge hiring push that followed the PATCO strike the FAA closed the Controller Academy in Oklahoma City. There was an attitude that there were plenty of recent hires and that there were enough people for years to come. Well the years have caught up with the FAA and in typical fashion the agency has been caught short. The pipeline of developmental controllers is dried up. The Controller academy should have been re-activated years ago to provide a gradual influx of developmentals. There is a controller program at a college in the Minneapolis area and we have recently received a few people from them but it will be years before they are FPL's and they are too few. Many of those people hired after the PATCO strike are coming up on retirement eligibility in 2 years and then the exodus will begin. Some would like to stay on but retirement is mandatory at age 56. Pilots at least get to go to age 60. (Most PATCO rehires are grandfathered. This age law was put into effect in the mid "70's. One woman was re-hired at age 62!)

I don't know the solution for the controller shortage but we are not using unqualified trainees on positions. We will continue to provide the best service we can but the shortage can only get worse due to the lag in hiring.

Errors included: dates, last medical dates not listed, copies of said medicals, pilots license., CAP card, etc., or not having an annual test in the jacket but only the answer sheet. This test is taken on the Internet and electronically scored through HDQ. If one does not print out the test, he was dinged. Big deal! It's just how one interprets the book.

Some other excuse may be the addition of two more parallel runways in the future, I guess their theory is a little confusion with two parallel runways now is better than more confusion with 4 parallel runways in the future.

Still doesn't make much sense to me, I did not know that runway numbers could be named at random. How about 06 north 06 south 06 inner left 06 inner right or even better, 06 curly 06larry 06moe & sometimes 06shemp.

Look, you're entitled to your opinions, just as I'm entitled to mine. I personally feel like user fees are a GOOD idea -- why should the general public pay to support my expensive hobby? Why should people who choose not to fly (or can't afford to) be forced to help support the facilities for those of us who do? GA is a luxury, unlike other necessary public facilities like schools or fire fighting resources, and it seems fair to me that participants in GA should be primarily responsible for funding the facilities.

You may choose to disagree with me -- but that's my point. My viewpoints are mostly liberal, but that doesn't mean you need to stomp all over them on a weekly basis. I would certainly agree that the FAA is hidebound, a prime example of bureaucracy at its worst, and far too concerned with legislating our field and far too unconcerned with improving it...but don't lay all that on the liberals. It's too much of an overgeneralization to say that liberals are anti-GA and conservatives are pro-GA. Case in point: FDR was one of the least GA-friendly presidents we've had in the aviation era, and JFK was one of the most GA-friendly.

I strongly believe that by making comments such as the one at this story would not help anyone.

To begin with, we each try to protect our assets the best way we feel is appropriate. What the Mexican government is requesting is only a warranty from your insurance company that it covers all the Y2K related problems. If you do not have such papers, what will happen is that your airplane will be grounded for that particular span of time while on or over Mexican territory or airspace. Exactly the same thing happens to Mexican (or for that matter, to any foreign aircraft) as we try to ingress to the US. If we do not have ALL THE PAPERS REQUIRED BY THE FAA, DOT, USCS, ETC. the airplane will be returned to wherever it is coming. I do not dispute your right to treat foreigners the way you feel best, so please do not question our right to do the same.

By the way, NO ONE has gone to jail for not having a paper. Who do you think you are dealing with, a country of incompetent, stupid people?

I read the short query about our renumbering of Rwy 06L/24R. I am a controller working in Toronto Tower, and I thought perhaps I could dispel the mystery. 06L was renumbered because eventually we will have four east-west parallels. 05L/R, and 06L/R. They will all have identical runway headings. The new 06R which lies between the existing 06R and 06L (which parallels 06R about a half mile south of it) is more than halfway paved. Apparently the local airport authority had a fear that from the air, a pilot cleared for a visual to Rwy 06L might actually make a play for the existing 06R thinking it to be the runway that will become 06L. Additionally, by calling the north parallel 05/23 now, everyone will get properly conditioned to it's number before the new runway (06R) opens at the end of the year 2001. This is the explanation that I got anyway.

First, there seems to be a lack of facts presented in the article supporting the general tone of the article. It seems that it is rather "un-newsworthy," not having been given all the facts. In real life, trainee controllers are always working live traffic, either as a D-side [data side, a controller processing flight data and handling intercom communications but not talking to pilots or controlling airplanes; -ed.], a radar trainee, or a partially-certified radar controller. Once you are certified on a position, you are expected to work it on your own when not training on other positions. It appears that what is happening in Chicago is that controllers are being pulled out of radar training classes to work D-sides, thereby freeing up radar-certified and FPL [full performance level; -ed.] controllers to work the radar positions. While I have only seen that sort of thing happen a couple of times in the last 10 years of my career, it is perfectly normal, legal, and useful in most operational situations, especially if staffing is low. I highly doubt that any FAA supervisor would put their career on the line by making a trainee work a position that they weren't certified on.

Second, it appears that your numbers probably don't tell the whole story. The statement should have probably read "355 are FPLs, and 71 are trainees." This sheds a completely different light on the story. Some of those 71 trainees are certified on the D-sides, and waiting a radar class, or are actually training on the radar positions. And probably, some of those 71 trainees are not certified on any operational position, and are not working live traffic. Just because a controller is not an FPL, it doesn't mean that they aren't allowed to talk to or work real live airplanes. Of course, not having seen the report, this is all just theory.

Third, it appears that the gist of the report is that the Chicago ARTCC has a large number of trainee controllers and not enough money to provide training classes to them, which, in reality, is a common problem in more facilities than just Chicago Center. This is supported by the comment, "The report said a funding problem has hampered the pace of training, and called for more money." After all, if this report were are about trainees working positions they weren't certified on, the report would be about the mass disciplinary action occurring at the Center.

One last comment, a picky one. The subject of this news item appeared to be Chicago ARTCC. The picture you provided was one of controllers at a TRACON (the picture is even titled tracon.jpg). Your subhead mentions controllers at towers. Most informed pilots and probably all controllers that read your site know the difference between the types of ATC facilities, so please try to be more specific with your captioning.

WHAT or WHERE is the state of AIRCRAFT PARACHUTES? Weekly in your news letter there appear aircraft accidents that might have been averted, or could have taken advantage of an alternate or optional "out", rather than a situation that ended ultimately in severe injury or death.....that is, controlled horizontal decent rather than uncontrolled vertical decent.

Neither of the two above absolve us of good judgment, but each of us are aware that fate does indiscriminately deal us a bad hand from time to time! Why not "Be Prepared"?

Back in the seventies I remember taking the red-eye flights from Newark to San Francisco. I would get into the airport about 3 AM and the place would be bustling. Last month I got in on a delayed flight around 1 AM and the airport was deserted.

Now we know that the airlines love to play pricing games to get, for example, that famous Saturday Night Stay. (I saved over $1,000 on the ticket price for a business trip by leaving Saturday instead of Sunday.) Why can't the airlines reintroduce red-eye fares at substantial discounts with no advance purchase requirements, and possibly throw in some frequent-flyer bonuses for those flights? I am sure a number of travelers would jump at the opportunity.

There would be less traffic on the way to or from the airport. Airlines can save but not having to serve a full meal. The FAA and airport management could arrange reduced landing and gate fees for flights which depart or arrive between 9 PM and 6 AM.

Ahhhh, yes. It's the little subtleties I love most about AVweb: using your all-cap lead-ins at the start of each paragraph to help illustrate a point in the story. Like the fifth paragraph in the current AVweb's "Top Headlines...." section in your story on the recent FAA survey:

"...WHILE PLEDGING HENCEFORTH TO ESCHEW OBFUSCATING REGULATIONS."

That is why you used this wording, right? What other contemporary American publication would even consider it? And what a tribute you implicitly pay to the intellectual level of your readers!

Like many others, I have faithfully attempted to give and receive PIREPS in the air, but it is only a matter of sheer luck in getting through to them. If it was quick and easy to report the conditions on climb out or in cruise to the controllers who then quickly entered the data, reports would be much more plentiful.

You may ask, why am I sending this to you? First, I have your email address. Second, the FAA has never asked my opinion on anything, and I wouldn't know how to go about giving it to them. Third, you rub shoulders with the movers and shakers in the aviation industry (being one yourself), and may have the opportunity to pass this along at some point. There, now I feel better, having done my civic duty.

Couldn't agree more. Anything to get the attention of an uninformed public, right? Why don't you rush to the scene of every automobile fatality to rant and rave about too many cars on the road?? Further from AVflash:

Maybe if you guys in Congress could unleash the impounded FAA Trust money instead of bottling it up once more for another try at a fee based system, the FAA could make some improvements to the antiquated traffic control systems, and then have some time left over for enforcement measures. Sounds like this guy shouldn't have been a pilot and maybe not even a driver.

Come on Frank. Get Real!!!

Come on, AVweb. Surely you should be expected to know better than to try to hold an inanimate object accountable for a mishap. As Captain Dr. Bob Besco has taught generations of commercial pilots and investigators, "Some humans are caused by accident, but ALL accidents are caused by humans."

Especially in the case of Airbus, which represents the penultimate achievement in reducing human crew roles; i.e., giving the autopilot authority to override the flight crew. What that REALLY represents is subordinating the flight crew's judgment to that of the computer programmer. If that's to be the case, let's be honest and dispense with the crew altogether.

Imagine if a cable was stretch across the road..who would be suing whom? Maybe it is time for the pilots to sue the power lines or demand they be marked all across the USA, not just around the airport perimeter as required by law (the very admission that they are dangerous and cannot be seen without being marked).

and:

About 15 years ago I was working for Nordair, a 737 operator out of Montreal. We received notification that one of our jets was making an emergency landing due to a fuel smell in the aft cabin.

You guessed it, the aft lav was serviced with jet fuel.

The source? Well, when we drain the residual fuel from aircraft tanks prior to purging and tank entry, we would use empty 45 gallon drums, on which we painted "SCRAP FUEL" and left outside the hangar (adjacent to where the Deodar lav fluid drums were). Again you probably guessed it right ... someone forgot to label an empty Deodar drum that was used to drain fuel into, and a ramp person happened to use the first Deodar drum he saw that day to service his lav truck.

My reason for writing ... to point out your story is not the first nor the last time this is going to happen. For those of us in the business, we need reminders through people like yourselves who have an extensive audience that when something like that happens, but for the grace of God, it could be us. We, as aviation professionals, must always be diligent and vigilant in our daily tasks.

The supplement mailed out by NavCanada dealing with the Y2K rollover operations makes no mention anywhere about the concern for UTC time. All operational concerns expressed are in regards to local midnight times.

My take on this is there is more concern about the local support systems of power and communications than there is about ATC equipment. So if Garvey really wanted to make a positive impression, maybe they should be flying at both times. I'd love to see Jane do a tour through New York's airspace at midnight UTC and again at midnight local time.

The rebuttal that there is nothing she could do to ensure all the utilities are Y2K compliant doesn't do a lot of good for the passengers that may be stuck up there in the off chance that, at midnight local time, the ATC system craters due to outside influences.

The number of Emergency Revocations and probably every other type of certificate action has risen almost exponentially in recent years. I have two friends who have been victims of such unjust actions on the part of the FAA. Perhaps both merited a "letter in their personnel file," but neither required a revocation.

I have waited a long time to send this note about the ReliefBand I saw reviewed on AVweb because I just couldn't believe the results and wanted to test it again.

SIMPLY PUT ... IT'S A MIRACLE!!!!

I have been getting sick on airplanes for many years, and even though I love to fly, I dreaded the thought of getting on a plane because I knew what the results would be. I felt bad for the people next to me as I would start to vomit as soon as the plane took off and wouldn't stop until it landed. Even after landing the feeling of being ill would sometimes last for hours and hours.

I tried everything I could think of. Dramimine would stop the vomiting but do nothing for the dizzy faint feeling. The scop patch prescribed by my doctor made me feel high and I couldn't drive after landing.

I had pretty much given up on flying when my husband realized a lifelong dream and got his private pilots license. I went up flying with him shortly after he received his license, thinking maybe a small plane won't be so bad. Let's just say it was a very short flight.

I had to find a solution.

It was then that we saw the article about the ReliefBand. I had tried everything else, so I figured why not give it a try? The results were amazing, I figured it would take care of the vomiting, but what surprised me is it relieved all my symptoms including the fuzzy, dizzy, passing-out feeling.

I can now enjoy flying with my husband, and I tell everyone I see at the FBO about this amazing product. My only mistake is getting the disposable model without replaceable batteries, an error I plan to correct in the near future.

As a professional pilot myself, this news scares me to death, as it should anybody else subject to random drug testing that, if positive (or now apparently even negative) will bar the accused from working in aviation for life. I have never seen any factual evidence presented by the drug warriors that there has ever been ANY drug abuse safety problem in this industry to warrant this growing assault on the hardworking, conscientious professionals in this business. I have always regretted the billions of dollars wasted on drug testing as a tragic diversion of monies far better spent on real safety problems, but this Delta case crosses the line into true insanity.

If this stands, NONE of us is safe. To paraphrase the German priest who famously regretted not speaking out against the nazi Holocaust until he got dragged away, "First they came for the flight attendant, but I wasn't a flight attendant, so I didn't say anything...."

I find the airport AWOS/ASOS frequency deficiency in my GNC 250XL to be occasionally more than a nuisance, and note that it carries on a shortfall also found in my GPS 90. This is particularly frustrating because the older King 135A in my previous airplane DID have AWOS/ASOS freqs on the airport information pages.

Automated weather reporting assists the VFR pilot by updating altimeter settings en route, keeping track of surface winds in the event of an emergency landing, checking ceiling and visibility for airports ahead and possible diverts should weather deteriorate, and determining favored runway for planning pattern arrival. On cross-countries I check the weather at every airport I pass and then return to monitoring Flight Watch; since many ASOS/AWOS stations report locally only, their information cannot be obtained any other way. With my 135A I simply scanned the frequencies of nearest airports to find a weather station but the GNC 250XL requires that I finger the chart. Of course I always have a current chart unfolded and ready but the frequency database and auto-channelization function were intended to make life in the cockpit easier!

I asked the Jeppesen folks at AirVenture this summer why they did not include automated weather frequencies in the Garmin NavData cards and was told that they included every possible bit of data there is on a master tape supplied to Garmin. The choice of what to include in any particular unit's database was up to Garmin. Walking over to the Garmin display, I asked several representatives there what was up. They offered no answer but said it was certainly not an issue of data card capacity since there is room to spare. At their suggestion I have written the aviation product manager at Garmin but to date have not received a reply.

I wonder if you can shed any light or influence on this curious deficiency. Garmin units are superbly engineered and function reliably. I can only speculate the omission of relevant frequencies from airport data pages was the result of an unenlightened marketing decision by non-pilots. It would seem a simple fix to add the frequencies to the NavCard and ported database updates.

Concerning George Jones' suggestion about datalinking FDR and CVR type data to the ground [AVmail, 06-Dec-99]:

Satcom requires some moderately tricky antenna aiming, unless you're planning on this being the killer app the brings Iridium back from the dead. If you batch up the data and burst it out of the plane periodically, the data that makes it out will probably be of low interest, and the stuff that hasn't been sent yet might not ever make it if the plane starts doing whifferdills. Continuous high-data-rate satcom would be pretty challenging and certainly not cheap, especially from fast-moving objects. Ground-based receivers have the usual coverage problems (and what do you do over the ocean?)

On our second trip in (which we hated to do because of the first trip), we landed VFR again, but there were no gate holds this time, only about a hour and a half later. We asked the ground controller how ATC could stop VFR traffic from departing into VFR conditions and remaining outside the Class B airspace. He answered that his supervisor made a rule that all aircraft are equal with gate holds to be fair to all aircraft. He also stated that the delays were not because of volume of traffic, but because that taxiways were full or blocked. He told us that there was a problem with the system, and if we wanted to discuss it he would meet us after work and talk about it. We replied that if ATC would allow aircraft to depart VFR, most would.

I have used the AIM CO detector for about a year in my Cessna 170. It provides information about one of the hidden dangers of flying light planes and I am continually amazed at what it reports. For instance, if I taxi with the left door window open the CO level will go up to about 10 ppm but it stays at zero if I open the right window.

Upon arrival, no pizza. The captain therefore refused to move the airplane until he got food. This at a time when NamelessAL was in big danger of losing its MAC contract and thus of going out of business completely; MAC's big problem was that we were not meeting their on-time requirement (within 15 minutes).

My suggestion: Create a notice that gets put on every ticket, brochure, in-flight magazine, etc. This notice would talk about the tax that every flyer pays for the privilege of air travel. The note could mention that congress has been ripping off every air traveler every time they fly. The notice could suggest calling or writing your congressman, or better yet, filling out the "blow-in card" in your in-flight magazine and hand it to the flight attendant on the way off the airplane. Create a public web site that can educate people about the issue (and provide a point solution for congressional staffs to see the handwriting on the wall).

Once people are educated at get fighting mad (as they should be), and once our congressional "leaders" start hearing about it (coupled with a nice PR campaign), we will finally get to spend the money we have been collected for years.

Here particularly we suffer terribly from bad media coverage of aviation in general and particularly of accidents. Reporters took such liberties as changing airports, aircraft, number of passengers, even reporting that the "Black Box" had been recovered. Emotive language used to raise the horror of the situation adds only to the immense pain being suffered by the families and of course ourselves. All these things remind me why I avoid these pitiful creations. Reports are based purely on speculation and no attempt is made to ensure even the lowest level of factual correctness.

We have operated several Chieftains for years and have found them to be amazing aircraft. It is terrible to see the good name of an aircraft I love and respect to be dragged through the mud mercilessly to sell one more cruddy newspaper.

I've been thinking about the current delays (and circular finger pointing that it generates), and I came up with a possible solution -- though I expect others have thought of it before.

The airlines say that everyone wants to leave at the same time, so they all book the same departure times, and that's what leads to the delays at the airport. Well, what if we continue to let airlines pick their departure (and arrival) times? If there are dozens of other flights at the same time, you get in line, just as you do now. The difference would be that if you pick a later time, and those with earlier times are still queued up when it's your time to go, you get to go to the head of the line at your appointed time. (Same thing for arrivals.)

We all know the real reason that the Mars Polar Lander is not returning any signals:

Normally I don't believe in conspiracies, mostly because human beings aren't that smart. However, this does remind me of the successful conspiracy by General Motors, Standard Oil, and others to privatize and then destroy the "Red Line" public transportation system in Los Angeles many years ago.

I'm an air traffic controller and learned while riding jumpseat on a Continental flight how we sometimes get undue credit for delays. As our scheduled departure time came and went and we still sat at the gate, we got a call from dispatch that there had been a problem with the baggage which would add another 20 minutes to our pushback. The captain made a PA announcement right in front of me, apologizing to the passengers for the "ATC" delay. Seeing the stunned look on my face, he calmly said, "You don't think we're going to take the rap, do you, when we can use you guys as scapegoats?"

Unfortunately, I think that lawsuits of this sort are going to become more common. Why? Because in any situation where a general aviation aircraft causes damage to property outside the airport or injury to anyone on the ground outside the airport, the most politically viable thing a politician can do if he wants to remain in office is to launch an attack on general aviation, including a lawsuit against the accident pilot's estate to recover costs.

I agree wholeheartedly with the AVweb staff's position that the Newark lawsuit against the Jacoby estate is political in origin, cold-hearted and unfeeling with regards to the Jacoby family, and premature in terms of not waiting until a thorough investigation comes up with a probable cause. It's deplorable, despicable, and disgusting. And I'll bet we'll see a lot more like it in the future.

The mayor of Newark, like every politician, has as his top priority staying in elected office and, if possible, furthering his political career by getting elected to higher offices. Most of his constituency, like that of any office-holder, is made up of people who are at best indifferent and at worst hostile to general aviation operations. If Mayor James took a public stand that the accident was really terrible but there was nothing he could do or would do to recover costs or safeguard the non-flying public from further accidents, how long do you think it would be before some other Mayor-wannabe crucified him for his failure to act in the best interests of his constituency?

I'm not defending Mayor James. I wonder if he would have the guts to personally serve his city's lawsuit on the grieving survivors of the Jacoby family. But the facts are that we in general aviation are a minority in any politician's constituency, and a minority that is perceived by the majority as being financially privileged. The flight activities we engage in are considered by most non-fliers as dangerous. So when a general aviation aircraft gets in an accident that damages non-fliers' property or injures or kills non-fliers, who is the politician going to side with, right or wrong, if he wants to stay in office? And if the politician can advance his career more easily by acting against general aviation interests instead of for them, what do you think he?s going to do?

I?m afraid that the lawsuit filed against the Jacoby estate by the city of Newark is just the start of things to come. I'm also afraid that accidents of this sort make it easier for civic authorities to impose more restrictions on general aviation flight operations over and within their boundaries. At the very least, I wouldn't be surprised to see cities requiring aircraft owners who operate out of municipal airports to carry insurance coverage that many of us would have trouble affording.

Often, delays are caused by many factors, including weather in some other part of the country that caused the delay much earlier in the day. Many gate and ticket agents don't know why the delay is occurring and may not have accurate access to that information. We often called the gate of the airport our flight was arriving from because there was nothing in the computer. That kind of direct communication isn't possible in a large airport.

I'm not justifying this in any way, but having dealt with angry passengers I can tell you that they are much more satisfied knowing that the delay is caused by a person or a system(which they can direct their anger towards) rather than the weather, which is out of their control. And I believe most passengers' anger stems from their complete lack of control over the situation. They are at the mercy of the airline or the ticket or gate agent. If you make the ticket agent mad, he can ensure that your bags will not arrive with you. All he has to do is tag it incorrectly.

I politely explained that this was an aviation GPS. The FA was insistent that I turn off the 195 because it "may interfere with the navigation equipment on board the aircraft."

I tried to tell her that the FO had one in the cockpit! This was to no avail. So I had to turn off the 195.

I'm writing after reading in Vol. 5, Issue 49a about ATC being unjustly blamed for delays. I've found that the tendency to blame ATC for all manner of travel ills is common.

I recently experienced a cancelled United flight from ONT to SFO. When I asked the United rep why the flight was cancelled, she replied "Air Traffic Control cancelled the flight." Knowing that ATC does not cancel flights, I inquired further. I was told that "there were too many planes in the air, and ATC had cancelled the flight." (Weather was clear at both SFO and ONT) The next flight to SFO 2 hours later just happened to have enough additional capacity for the passengers of the cancelled flight, which suggested exactly why the flight was cancelled: $$$.

The city of Newark itself had no personal injury and no property damage. The city of Newark had people on salary whose job it was to deal with accidents of this type. The claim that they are "forced" to sue is an insulting to our intelligence as it is greedy. It certainly makes one think twice before declaring an emergency, or gods forbid having a traffic accident in Newark, given that you might be charged for services generally given for free in this country.

You might be interested in publishing a little comment from a guy "trapped" in the "old world".

Thanks for your very interesting mails every week. (I wish we had something similar in Germany.) Please keep up the good work! I always learn a lot and sometimes smile a lot as well. So I did when I read the article concerning the license plates and who can claim the first flight stuff.

I always smile a bit when I read or hear about so many claims you Americans make. It is either the greatest, the tallest, the biggest, the first, you name it. And it has to be "... of the world," of course. So, here are two states of the U.S. which seam to have a "real problem." But what I felt, besides the amusement when reading it was that it shows the dedication and loyalty you guys have for your country as well as how proud you must be to be an American. And I admire you for that. I wished we, the Germans, had a reason to be like that. But well, at least when it comes to aviation, we might have one.

If there would be a contest about who can claim to be the "Birthplace of Aviation," and the claim to be the location of "First in Flight," one would be forced to say: "...and the winner is ... "Rhinow!"

"Where in heck is Rhinow?" you might ask. Rhinow is a village near Berlin in Germany. There was a guy called Otto Lilienthal who developed the theoretical basis of flight in vehicles heavier than air. He published his theories back in 1989 in a book ("Der Vogelflug als Grundlage der Fliegekunst" loosely translated as "The flight of the birds as a basis for the art of flying") which was used by the Wright Brothers as a guide to develop their "Flyer I." Lilienthal was also the first to "glide" his "Eindecker-Gleitflugzeug" from a hill near Rhinow and covered distances between 300 and 760 feet. He crashed and subsequently died on the 9th of August 1896. His last words were: "Sacrifices have to be made," and his published philosophy was "To invent a flying machine means nothing, to build one not very much, to fly one means everything". A quite remarkable "fella," wasn't he?

Oh yeah, by the way: Have you ever heard about a guy who emigrated from Germany to the U.S. (Pittsburgh, Pa.) by the name of Gustav Weisskopf who later called himself Gustav Whitehead? He used to be a coworker of Lilienthal. He constructed and built an airplane powered by a steam engine which he crashed into a house while he was trying to fly it, and he was consequently ordered by the police to leave town. In 1900 he moved with his family from Pittsburgh to Bridgeport, Conn., where he reportedly performed the first powered flight in the morning of the 14th of August in 1901. About two years before the Wright Brothers! So, do the honors might have to go to Connecticut, after all?

The short paragraph on the Prowler accident with the cable car in Italy says that "20 skiers were killed". It may be true that this cable car is sometimes used to take skiers up the mountain, but at the time of the Prowler strike, it was filled with local people, just going home.

Like most, I am unimpressed by the idea of a city suing a dead pilot -- killed by what appears to be an unpreventable mechanical failure -- for the crash that killed him and his family. It seems to be only the latest in a string of idiotic suits by big-city mayors. The legal and moral precedent is obnoxious.

What is the city suing for? "Destroyed buildings, damaged homes ... injured people and overtime expenses." The city has no RIGHT to sue for any but the last, if that. Only the individual person or owner, or more properly the insurer who pays expenses, may do so.

All the noise about "injured people" and damaged private property merely obfuscates the city's attempt to "get a piece" of any available coverage first. This pilot's liability coverage surely has claim limits, and this suit would divert any settlement from the supposed "25 injured people" and damaged private property, if indeed they exist. How cynical does a politician have to be, to claim he's acting on behalf of the real victims he's trying to pre-empt?

This claim for 60,000 or more hours of "overtime" work ($3,000,000 at an assumed $50/hour PER employee) is outrageous on its face. That's 6,000 workers putting in an extra 10-hour shift. Just how many emergency workers does the City of Newark employ? (Sounds like a "light bulb" joke.) Did they all show up on overtime in the hope the feds would pick up the tab? This case could give us an interesting look at big-city labor policies and pork, if it's actually pursued.

DOT did some security checks at Dulles International (IAD) in the recent weeks, too, ... we just have not made the newspapers. As air traffic controllers, we bypass the security screening and zip through the baggage tunnel to reach the tower. The doors on both sides of the tunnel leading in are required to be opened individually by each badged person.

As a controller was LEAVING the secure area, a woman tried to grab the door to enter the baggage tunnel. The controller eventually had to grab the woman's arm and let the door shut. The whole time, she said "I have a badge, its here in my pocket." The controller said, "Okay, then now you can use it!"

As the controller walked away with the door secured behind him, two men in suits approached him and said they were from security. They said congratulations and presented him with a $5.00 coupon from one of the restaurants in the terminal ... maybe enough for a cup of coffee!

What distressed me even more was the radio press. WCBS in New York broadcast that the plane impacted the ground at 800 miles per hour. Now that is well beyond reason, since it is well above the speed of sound. Your report that the radar recorded 7800 fpm descent would indicate that the vertical speed was less than 90 mph (still impressive). It would have had to been going well over 700 mph horizontally in a better than 5:1 glide to get to 800 mph. I don't think so.

I believe that some of the reaction in Newark was stirred up because the press portrayed the flight as unreasonable and the impact so horrible. Some people interviewed by the press wanted compensation to move to another place because the trauma has made their sleep difficult. Is this real distress, or just a way to get a better place? I guess I have trouble being sympathetic when I see their lack of sympathy.

As a bystander, I do not (yet) have any reason to understand why the flight would have been unreasonable, given the experience of the pilot and the equipment he had. Clearly something simply went wrong.

I found AVweb's comment:

from the 12/2 Newswire inappropriate and not up to your usual standard of professionalism.

To the extent that the negligence of the operator of the aircraft caused this accident, a suit against his estate is an appropriate and, indeed, the only method of causing the operator's insurance carrier to bear the costs of his negligence. Even the most ardent lawyer-bashers would readily agree that these costs should properly be borne by the party whose negligence caused the harm and not by innocent victims on the ground. That the plaintiffs seek to recover their attorneys' fees from the wrongdoer suggests merely -- and once again, appropriately -- that such costs should not have to be borne by the victims. While an irreverent and skeptical style is an appealing feature of your staff's writing, this kind of thoughtless editorializing has no place in a news column.

Otherwise your biggest fan,

I just finished reading Rick Durden's column in AVweb about attending the EAA family flight camp in Oshkosh. It sounds like a great time, and I'm already planning how I'll convince the family to attend as soon as my son is old enough in a couple years (he'll be three in February).

I'm an airport planner for the Indiana Department of Transportation, and I occasionally get the opportunity to attend the annual meetings of the State Aeronautics Directors from the Great Lakes Region. Last April, this meeting was hosted by the Wisconsin Bureau of Aeronautics and the EAA. Our two day meeting was at the Air Academy Lodge, and guess who was our host...none other than Chuck Larsen! He gave the welcome speech that kicked off the event and served as tour guide, information resource, luncheon server, and even taxi driver (he gave me a ride back to Basler when it was time to fly home). We had some common ground to talk about, since my wife is a police officer and Chuck was a cop in a previous life to work his way through school. I liked him immediately and I think EAA is lucky to have him, although it may have been inevitable that EAA and an aviation enthusiast like Chuck would naturally gravitate toward each other.

At that time, the Hangar X project was still under construction, but the State Aviation and FAA officials all received a tour and explanation of the goals of the various EAA educational programs. My lasting impression was that, while still making everything fun and enjoyable, these folks are very intent on developing a serious educational program designed to increase awareness and participation in aviation. Everyone we met had very impressive backgrounds and credentials in education as well as aviation. As a pilot and aviation professional, I'm very glad that EAA is taking on this challenge to ensure the future of our chosen vocation/avocation. One of the impressive things I witnessed was to see high-level FAA staffers inquiring and planning family camp visits of their own.

On a personal note, my first "Oshkosh" was 1998. Last April, it was a shock to land at the airport and see it empty! This had an interesting impact on me during our conference. We had a few moments to go outside and enjoy the brisk Wisconsin spring air during our breaks from meetings, and I took those opportunities to walk around the Air Academy Lodge. It struck me that the activities at Oshkosh are full-time and year-round, not just during the annual Convention. I found myself whispering, "This is what it's all about!" to myself as I gazed at the Lodge, the Pioneer Airport, and the new mock control tower. Its good to get out and re-charge the batteries every once in a while and remind yourself why you got into this business in the first place.

I enjoy Rick Durden's columns in AVweb. They seem to put into words many of the feelings I have regarding aviation people, flying, and what they mean. Keep up the good work!

These cost increases have made me think twice about continuing in business. As you know, most aviation business such as mine are a labor of love. We are struggling just to keep the doors open. This, along with fuel price increases, make it hard to operate at a profit. So far this year, we are down by $22K. Another year like this and we will be gone.

Please tell our story to the AVweb readers.

I live down the street on Winans Ave. in Newark not two blocks from the accident. I was sleeping in my bed when it happened. I'm a student pilot at Embry-Riddle and was home for the Thanksgiving Holiday from Embry-Riddle. I heard a loud bang that woke me up out of my sleep. When I looked out of the window to see what had happened, I saw everyone running out of their houses and up the street to see what was going on. I threw on some clothes and ran up the street myself to see what was something like a war zone. Their was smoke rising up from behind the building where the plane had initially hit. I thought a big passenger jet had crashed into the ground because a lot of passenger traffic flies over the city. Power lines were down, cars were on fire and it looked like pictures that I had seen in previous air disasters. I never in my life thought that I would see a plane crash, but there it was starring me in the face.

I am a civilian pilot, a Naval Flight Officer and a member of AOPA. On this issue, I believe that the MOA is the best compromise for all parties involved. What is unknown to most civilian pilots is that military frequently currently traverse the area in question, legally, under VFR. There is no way for the average GA pilot to know this, let alone check on the status of the area in question under the current arrangement. The MOA enhances the awareness of the GA community of the number of high-speed aircraft operating in that area. VFR traffic still has the right to traverse the area under their own risk, a risk many pilots don't want to take upon themselves. IFR traffic gets routed around, rather than through a high traffic area where Washington Center's radar has significant gaps in coverage and separation from VFR contacts cannot always be assured.

As a GA pilot who has flown through this area, I know that the myriad of lines on the chart of eastern NC can be daunting. As a military aviator, I also know that not all of the airspace is constantly active. But, in the latter role, I am acutely aware of the volume of traffic that moves through this area, and firmly believe that the Phelps MOA is long overdue.

The Great Seal of Ohio has the sun rising over the mountains? I'm sure they have sun in Ohio ... but mountains?

I'm not a supporter of putting in cockpit video recorders, but I find some of the comments on the idea to be very interesting. In particular are the comments in the "Big Brother" and "I wouldn't want to fly with somebody looking over my shoulder" categories.

I'm too young to remember when cockpit voice recorders became required equipment. I'm don't even know when that FAR went into effect. However, I can't help but wonder if many of the exact same objections were made about voice recorders that are now being made about video systems.

Thanks for Eugene Unterman's great article.  I am not a pilot now but I am planning to take flight lessons in the near future. I have been trying to find the "real" cost of ownership. I have been boating for many years and recognized the cost of that hobby is much greater than just the cost of the vessel and the fuel. Out of curiosity, I have been looking at used planes on the Internet -- not to purchase -- just to try and determine if ownership would be within my reach. When I look at these planes, I know their are hidden costs.

Calling the city of Newark's action in filing a lawsuit against Jacoby's estate an "insult" or "childish," as AVweb did in the December 2 report, is one-sided emotionalism at least as flagrant as many accuse the New Jersey press regarding this tragedy. If an eighteen-wheeler careened off the interstate and damaged your home or your car, or injured someone in your family, no one would think twice about you hiring a lawyer to go after the driver. If the driver was killed, or was not wealthy enough or insured enough to pay for your loss, you'd expect your lawyer to sue the trucking company, the truck manufacturer, whomever hired the trucking line, and who knows, maybe even the company that built the road the truck drove off from, in order to pay for your injury and loss. The city of Newark is out over $1 million for damage control and cleanup resulting from the Bonanza's impact, and has lawyers on staff precisely to seek reimbursement for that loss.

Although decency might have led the city of Newark to delay in filing its lawsuit, we can't fault them for doing so. Let's say that instead of filing against the Jacoby estate, the city instead filed on its own insurance, and required any citizens personally damaged to file with their carriers as well. The only result would be that the insurance companies would pay off the claims, and then turn around and file against the estate individually--instead of one suit against the family, there would be dozens. It's likely this will happen anyway.

Original reports were that the damage resulting from Itzhak's crash were valued around $1 million. Figure legal fees and other expenses, and it's easy to come up with a $3 million target figure for damages.

If the city magnanimously decided to "eat" the expense itself, it would have to divert public funds from other programs and services, or increase tax collection to pay for the loss. The Jacoby family would not be financially impacted, but the citizens of Newark would be wrongfully penalized for being in the wrong place at a very wrong time.

Raytheon Aircraft Corporation may indeed be protected by the statute of repose, but that has not been fully tested in the courts to date. Of course, if Raytheon is "off the hook," then the company that installed the most recent engine, the persons who installed and inspected the airplane's instruments and pneumatic system, and whomever signed Itzhak off for his last instrument proficiency check or Flight Review will likely be served with a lawsuit themselves.

We talk about the freedom of flight and the great feeling of taking personal responsibility for our actions. Liability is the downside of that freedom.

I'll not be surprised if this leads to at least talk of requiring dual gyro systems or additional training and currency requirements for instrument flight, because of the high public visibility of this most unfortunate event in so populated a place. Coming on the heels of the Kennedy crash, the concepts of visual and instrument flight in "little" airplanes are now in the public debate, both in a bad light.

How do we avoid this in the future? To quote the slogan of FlightSafety International, "The best safety device in an aircraft...is a well-trained pilot." Itzhak continues to teach us.

I experienced a similar failure, which occurred at a most critical time. I had just taken off in my Cessna 195. The ceiling was 400 feet; with a stratus layer about 2,000 feet thick. Just as I entered the overcast, my attitude gyro died. It began indicating a right wing down. Cross-checking my other instruments showed I was not turning. Two compasses and my turn and bank showed heading was steady. My VSI showed I was climbing. My altimeter showed I was climbing. My ASI showed a normal climb speed. However, the attitude gyro showed a continuing bank to the right, and shortly it was laying full over. I had to disregard it. There was no time to cover the offending instrument. I don't think it could have happened at a worse time.

So, it was five instruments against one showing me what was happening. It did not seem difficult to continue on "partial panel" but it was nothing like a training situation. One instrument began giving me misleading information.

A cross-check with my other instruments quickly confirmed it was dying. That's why "scanning" is so important in instrument flying and why there are six basic instruments to rely on. It seemed simple to ignore the bad one in my scan once I determined it was bad.

If I'd obeyed what that attitude gyro was telling me, I probably wouldn't be here to give you this first-person account of surviving an instrument failure at low altitude. I hope this will give some confidence to prospective instrument pilots, and emphasize the importance of perfecting your scanning technique. Never take your cues from only one instrument.

Three times he did not reply to the controller's calls and then three times he replied only that "I have a problem!" I envisioned a pilot struggling desperately to get or maintain control of his aircraft.

Thought-provoking. Sobering. Terrifying!

There's no question that Jacoby's crash caused real injuries and damage. This is not a case of someone manufacturing a frivolous claim. Why shouldn't the city seek to recover damages on behalf of its citizenry? In fact, wouldn't it be irresponsible if the city didn't? Should they refrain from suing out of sympathy for the Jacoby family? Should they refrain out of respect for the wonderful institution of general aviation?

The following appeared in the December 1 issue of Defense News:

I am concerned with your city's reaction to the crash of Itzhak Jacoby's airplane. The city of Newark, N.J. is reacting poorly to this tragedy. I believe this situation deserves your personal attention.

I recently read the following excerpt from AVflash.

Mayor, I strongly disapprove of your city's actions. I would like to make three statements:

1. This crash involves a tragic end to three lives who had no intent on inflicting damage to the city of Newark.

2. The city should wait until the investigation is complete to determine any negligence on Mr. Jacoby's part in this crash. Mr. Jacoby was a well-respected pilot and professional. He has exhibited a pattern of behavior that deserves more respect than this lawsuit shows.

3. In today's world there are many inherent risks that we deal with every day. Isn't our social structure, to which your city belongs, designed to help alleviate the pain and suffering of all our citizens, including the victims of this crash?

I would appreciate the favor of a response.

Jeff, your idea is already reality. In the German town of Freiburg (Southwest Germany close to the French and Swiss border) "concerned neighbors" tried to close the local airport. (Their real intent was to convert it into an industrial zone, but that wasn't all that obvious.) Until environmentalists discovered that a rare species of butterflies was breeding on the airport ground (and some other rare amphibians). Thus, the very unlikely coalition of GA supporters and environmentalists banded together, and at least for now, the airport is save (with some acceptable noise restrictions as far as I understand).

I found a whole bunch of articles on AVweb that Mike Busch wrote comparing various GPS models, and I must say that the information he gave is excellent. I can't tell you how valuable these article are. I have been to all the manufacturers Web sites. Boring!!! All they do is list features, and they do it in no logical order. What I needed was someone who actually tested them and explained the features and how they are used. There could be several units that offer zoom features but how? Is it a dedicated zoom button? Must I go through several menus to zoom? Do I have to hold down shift?

I am extremely grateful that Mr. Busch took the time to evaluate these and post the results free on the Web. I have decided to go with one of the Lowrance AirMaps. I'm not sure which one, but I am leaning towards the AirMap 100.