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?