Forward This E-mail | Edit Email Preferences | Advertise | Contact | Privacy | Help

  • Text size:

    • A
    • A
    • A

A California man has become the first to have his private pilot certificate revoked for allegedly operating a drone illegally. Ralph Rebaya is appealing the emergency revocation of his ticket, which happened June 1, more than six months after he allegedly violated about 20 conditions of his FAA exemption for drone operation. Among the requirements for commercial drone operations under those FAA exemptions is that operators hold at least a private certificate. The allegations stem from a filming contract Rebaya’s company, Heli Watch LLC, was working on at Studio City. Among the allegations are that Rebaya flew his DJI-S-900 in “close proximity” to people and that the site of the filming was within five nautical miles of Bob Hope Airport and within Class C Airspace.

In an emergency revocation, which is the most extreme enforcement action available to the FAA, the agency has to make the case that there is immediate danger that can only be mitigated by withdrawing flight privileges. In this case, there was a six-month gap between the alleged transgressions and the revocation and the FAA explains the emergency this way. “This determination is based on your lack of qualification to hold your [certificate] because of the nature and seriousness of the violations set forth in this order.” Ironically, the order states that Rebaya knows the regs inside and out and his real crime was defying an FAA inspector’s refusal to permit the filming flights. The revocation order says the inspector caught him flying the drone and told him to stop but he didn’t. “You have demonstrated that you lack the required care, judgment and responsibility to hold a pilot certificate,” the order says. If his appeal fails, Rebaya can’t apply for a new certificate for at least a year.

Rebaya is appealing the revocation on the grounds that the FAA official who issued the order isn’t authorized to issue such orders. He also claims the punishment doesn’t fit the crime because, at the time, the FAA was inconsistently enforcing rules that Rebaya described as “unfinalized, incomplete, ambiguous.” He alleges the revocation is being used to “send a message” to drone operators about the perils of crossing the FAA. The appeal will be heard by an NTSB administrative law judge.

Sponsor Announcement
Discounted 4th of July Pricing! || Valid July 1 to July 4, 2016
Discounted Fourth of July Pricing at Aircraft Spruce
In observance of Independence Day, Aircraft Spruce will be offering discounts storewide! Type promo code ACSJULY4TH at cart screen to receive your savings. Valid for online orders only. Promotion excludes certain MRP products. Discounts vary by product. Valid July 4 to July 11, 2016. Click here to take advantage of the savings.

Unmanned aircraft capabilities took a big leap forward when an expert fighter pilot found he was no match for ALPHA. The artificial intelligence system was developed by Psibernetix, founded by a University of Cincinnati graduate. Gene Lee, a retired Air Force colonel taking part in the research, told UC Magazine this week that ALPHA is unprecedented. “I was surprised at how aware and reactive it was,” he said. An expert in aerial combat who has flown simulated scenarios for years, Lee found that when he went up against the program in the sim, he couldn’t put a scratch on his target. “It seemed to be aware of my intentions and reacting instantly to my changes in flight and my missile deployment,” he said. 

Lee’s simulator flights were part of recent research trials by Psibernetix to test its newest version of the system. Its findings were published (PDF) in the current issue of the Journal of Defense Management. Company founder and CEO Nicholas Ernest developed ALPHA with what he calls a “Genetic Fuzzy Tree” system that allows the program to make the quick, complex decisions required for aerial combat. “The goal is to continue developing ALPHA, to push and extend its capabilities, and perform additional testing against other trained pilots,” Ernest told the magazine. “Fidelity also needs to be increased, which will come in the form of even more realistic aerodynamic and sensor models.” 

Sponsor Announcement
All-in-One ADS-B || Garmin GTX 345
Get All-in-One ADS-B with the Garmin GTX 345 Transponder
It provides ADS-B Out — and even an optional integrated WAAS position source, if you choose — plus optional dual-link ADS-B In, so you can see advanced traffic and weather on GTNTM and GNS series navigators, select G1000® integrated flight displays, and Garmin portables and tablets using Garmin Pilot™ and ForeFlight Mobile apps. Plus, it’s the same footprint as most existing transponders, helping simplify installation. Click to learn more.


Boeing is considering a new twin-aisle airliner that would bridge the gap between its 737 and the 787. The Wall Street Journal (subscription required) reported last week that Mike Delaney, Boeing’s VP of airplane development, said that the company believes there’s a market for up to 5000 aircraft that would seat up to 270 and operate on routes up to 10 hours long. Delaney said the company has been in discussion with 36 airlines about the plane, which would take about 10 years to develop. The 757 and 767 that fit that size range are no longer being built and those in service are considered old and inefficient. The new design would likely incorporate many of the features of the 787, including a composite airframe. Meanwhile, Boeing is hoping to lure operators of the extravagant A380 to a stretched version of its 777.

While it hasn’t even broken ground on a factory for its 777-9, a 400-seat modernized 777, the company has been floating the idea of a 450-seat version called the 777-10X. It will be aimed squarely at operators of the A380, which carries high operating and maintenance costs and only carries a few dozen more passengers. Emirates, which has the largest fleet of A380s, has been pressing Airbus for an upgraded version with more efficient engines but Airbus is reportedly not keen on making the investment.

Sponsor Announcement
Meet Andrae - Andrae Paints Lycoming Cylinders || If Andrae's Team Didn't Prepare Your Cylinder, Then It's Not a Genuine Lycoming Factory Cylinder

AVweb actually has a policy about ignoring coverage of “youngest pilot” aviation exploits since they can and have led to disaster but a story out of the U.K. is one of the exceptions. Budget carrier easyJet has welcomed the U.K.’s youngest airline pilot and he said few have noticed, which is as it should be. Luke Elsworth is just 19 and holds a multi-crew pilot license and flies A319 and A320 aircraft throughout Europe. He began training for his commercial license nine days after turning the minimum age of 18 in late 2014 and by April of 2016 he was in the right seat of an Airbus heading from Gatwick to Airbus’ home airport in Toulouse, France 

Flying for easyJet runs in the family and his father Paul is a senior captain for the airline. The younger Elsworth said there was no pressure from family to become a pilot but he’d been watching his father while growing up and figured it would work for him, too. Elsworth said passengers don’t seem to pay any attention to his age and there’s no reason they should. “If you’re good enough to be there, you’ve done the training and you’re suited towards it then I don’t think age really has an impact,” he told the Manchester Evening News. He said his next goal is to become a captain but in the meantime he’s trying to encourage young people to take up the profession.

Sponsor Announcement
ADS-B by NavWorx || UAT Out & In!

Brainteaser People's Choice Awards

By Paul Berge

The Brainteaser #220 Bonus Question asked readers to name their favorite airshow performers or performances. The results are in, and no one appearing on the upcoming November ballot made the cut here. Readers are picky.

[Editor's Note:This article is also available as an audio recording by the author.]



Military performers, whose individual names are rarely known, drew loud applause with the Navy Blue Angels clocking in slightly ahead of the Canadian Snowbirds for wow factor. The Spanish Air Force Patrulla Aguila ("Eagle Patrol") in their Casa C-10 Aviojets earned bronze in this survey and turned paparazzi heads on the red carpet prior to the awards banquet.

Sorta military in its appearance and very popular with crowds is the now defunct Red Baron Pizza Stearman Team. Sadly, the frozen foodstuff lives on, but you do have to admire whatever marketing genius pitched the idea of equating a deadly German fighter pilot with pizza. Perhaps Baron Manfred von Richtofen -- a.k.a., the Red Baron -- was a fan. "Yah, Lothar, das ist sieg nummer achtzig; pizza's on me!" Perhaps not.

Other group acts earning one vote each include the Aeroshell T-6 team. "Noisy, smoky, close in, low altitude!" And there was a lone vote from the UK for Richard Grace and Dave Puleston in the Trig Aerobatic Team.

This EAAer was proud of his heritage: "Remember the EAA Red Devils?" Why, yes, I do. They flew Pitts S1s. Please continue: "Saw them finish their act with formation torque rolls at the 1972 aerobatic nationals in Texas. Never saw them do it at a public airshow."

And one voter preferred short and slow to the flash and smoke of the more popular acts and voted for "Helio Courier STOL and Slow Flight demonstration." Goodyear Blimp high-speed flybys didn't seem to impress anyone ... or perhaps their votes are slow to arrive. Stay tuned.

Individual Acts of Aerial Wow

In no particular order, here are the recipients of single votes and voters' comments:

"The Flying Professor in a Cub"

"Corky Fornoff in a Bearcat"

"Jeff Boerboon and the Jack Link Waco Taperwing"

"Harold Krier who coupled grace with precision."

"Charlie Culp, whose flying farmer act was better than most, and really looked the part."

"Erik Edgren ... a real farmer who flies a knockout comedy act in his clipped-wing Cub." (Ed. note: Edgren flies a Taylorcraft)

"Doug Rozendaal -- warbird pilot; Corsairs, Mustangs, Zero, B25 ... the list is seemingly endless" (Watch Doug in a holy-shlamoley takeoff over the cameraman in this video.)

"Gary Ward does some amazing things with his MX-2, such as an outside loop with squared corners and flying the dang thing sideways in a knife edge pass. Before I saw him do this I would never have guessed it possible in a propeller plane (in other words, no thrust vectoring)."

Also receiving a single vote each were Rob Holland, Matt Chapman and Skip Stewart but without commentary. Sometimes awe is best expressed silently.

Performers receiving two votes each include the following:

"CAF founder, the late Lefty Gardner with his P-38 White Lightnin'." Someone voted for honky-tonk singer-songwriter, Lefty Frizzell, but they may have meant Gardner, so we counted it as two votes.

The late Leo Loudenslager, holder of seven national aerobatic championships, gleaned two votes, as did Matt Younkin and his Twin-Beech routine. Darrel Massman picked up two votes. Jimmy Franklin, who died in a 2005 midair collision with "Masters of Disaster" co-star, Bobby Younkin (Matt Younkin's father), earned two votes. Art Scholl, known for his de Havilland Chipmunk aerobatic routine received two votes. Scholl died in a Pitts in 1985 while filming Top Gun.

And rounding out the two-vote category is Julie Clark, with one voter writing, "I love the smooth, graceful, perfectly performed way she flies her T-34." On a personal note I had the honor to be Julie Clark's last-minute announcer at an Iowa airshow a few years ago. Luckily, she couldn't hear my play-by-play in flight, because the notes she'd provided blew away immediately after takeoff, and mostly I just said, "Wow! Ooooo! Ahhhh ..." Never been asked again ... by any performer.

Moving on to airshow performers who garnered three votes each. Duane Cole -- like Erik Edgren -- competed for airshow eyeballs with a diminutive Taylorcraft, but his act was anything but small. "His aerial ballet always seemed so easy on the aircraft, no hard yanking on any controls at any time," a Cole fan wrote.

Patty Wagstaff took 3.5 votes, because one voter split the ticket between Wagstaff and aviation pioneer, Bessie Coleman, the first African-American pilot. She (Coleman, not Wagstaff) died in 1926 on her way to an airshow. Another reader voted for Peggy Wagstaff, but we tallied that one for Patty. If Peggy turns out to be real and feels cheated, we'll recount.

The ballot returns almost doubled when Sean Tucker's name entered the box, although there was some confusion over the spelling. "Sean Tucker" took two votes, "Sean D. Tucker" picked up three, and "Shawn Tucker" took another vote. Enthusiasm for the Oracle aero master culminated in one vote for "SEAN TUCKER!!!" All CAPS and three exclamation points doesn't begin to describe Sean's long career from California ag pilot spraying artichokes from a Stearman to international airshow superstar in whatever that shiny red biplane he now flies is. Oh, and one person voted for Shawn Trucker, which sounds like a 1970s country/western singer, but we counted it.

And the Best Airshow Pilot Is ...

As popular as the various Tuckers were, airshow maestro Bob Hoover grabbed over three times as many votes (24) as Tucker. Face it, the guy is untouchable. Reasons for choosing Bob Hoover included, "For his precision aircraft control married with perfect energy management. A great guy, and a great role model for all pilots of all aircraft types." Yeah, we're all agreed there. "For his sheer mastery of the aircraft in all flight regimes," was another voter's reason for naming Hoover #1. And at least one voter remembered how in 1994 the FAA declared Mr. Hoover unfit to fly and temporarily grounded him. Oddly, in our survey there were no votes for the FAA groundling who'd made that bonehead call. Probably promoted into upper management.


That's the statistically suspicious lot. Biplanes, Mustangs, jets and even a couple of T-crafts in the hands of talented pilots who view the sky as their stage, giving the rest of reason to look up, smile and -- every now and then -- dream what it must be like. So keep the ball centered and never give up that dream.


The Brainteaser #220 Bonus Question asked readers to name their favorite airshow performers or performances. The results are in, and no one appearing on the upcoming November ballot made the cut here. (This is an audio recording of the People's Choice Award article.)


Perhaps it's cooler in the southern hemisphere, but here at North 41 degrees 17 minutes / West 93 degrees 6 minutes, it's hot enough to fry an egg on the hangar roof, which will be easier to swallow when you ace this quiz. (Includes results of last month's reader survey on favorite airshow performers.)

Click here to take the quiz.

Sponsor Announcement
AirFleet Capital || Contact Us for a Quote - Click Here or Call (800) 390-4324

AVweb is the world's premier independent aviation news resource, online since 1995. Our reporting, features, and newsletters are brought to you by:

Tom Bliss

Editorial Director, Aviation Publications
Paul Bertorelli

Russ Niles

Scott Simmons

Contributing Editors
Mary Grady
Elaine Kauh

Rick Durden
Kevin Lane-Cummings
Paul Berge
Larry Anglisano

Ad Coordinator
Karen Lund

Click here to send a letter to the editor. (Please let us know if your letter is not intended for publication.)

Comments or questions about the news should be sent here.

Have a product or service to advertise on AVweb? Your advertising can reach over 225,000 loyal AVwebFlash, AVwebBiz, and AVweb web site readers every week. Over 80% of our readers are active pilots and aircraft owners. That's why our advertisers grow with us, year after year. For ad rates and scheduling, click here or contact Tom Bliss:

Sponsor Announcement
Alpha Systems AOA || Fly Safer with Angle of Attack!

Remember films like The Blue Max, The Red Baron or Flyboys? They all depicted WWI aerial warfare, in machines invented some 15 years earlier. Instead of defined runways, pilots of that era landed and took off from large, broad fields, which always allowed them to fly into the prevailing wind. One of the reasons those big fields were necessary was the lack of early airplanes’ maneuverability—some had control-authority issues at low speeds—so the range of available runway directions was expanded to include them all.

These days and unless you only fly on calm days or from an aircraft carrier, it’s not uncommon to have at least some crosswind with which to contend during your normal takeoffs and landings. Depending on the runway, the terrain and the local meteorology, a crosswind may be the norm where you fly, and you may have gotten pretty good at it. For the rest of us, handling crosswinds may fall into the category of a rarely used skill. If that’s you, or if you’re having trouble mastering some aspects of crosswind landings and takeoffs, read on.


Anytime landings are the topic, airspeed control has to be near the top of anyone’s list of possible problems. The same can be true for takeoffs in a crosswind, something we’ll get to in a moment. In fact and in keeping with other landing problems, the most common error pilots can make when dealing with a crosswind is to start adding knots to their target speeds.

In reality, the only time we need to pad our target airspeeds on landing is when the wind is gusting. Even then, the maximum additional airspeed we should add is half the gust value. As an example, presume winds at 10 knots, gusting to 20. The normal approach speed is 65 KIAS. We’d fly the approach at no more than 70 KIAS.


The gust value is 10 knots, not 20; half of 10 is five. Using our half-the-gust-value rule of thumb, add the five knots to the normal approach speed and you get 70 KIAS. That little extra speed helps two ways. First, it helps improve the airplane’s control feel and response, especially the ailerons. More air moving over the control surfaces means crisper handling, something that’s never a bad thing.

The five extra knots also adds a to the margin above the airplane’s stall speed. The idea isn’t that the gusts will be too strong but that they’ll fall off at the wrong time, like when you’re flaring. For example, if your 65-KIAS target speed reflects 1.3 VSO, the airplane you’re flying stalls at about 50 knots. Presuming that same 10-knot gust value, what happens if, as you begin to flare, a strong gust dies off? Suddenly, your airspeed is “only” 55 KIAS. You’ll get a sinking, sideways feeling right before the mains hit.

But isn’t some additional speed appropriate when dealing with crosswinds, even if they’re steady? Not really. The airplane and its wing are still moving through the air as they would be if the wind was directly down the runway, or even if there was no wind at all. Adding knots only imparts that much more energy to the airplane, lengthening the distances required.

That’s for landing; on takeoff, a little extra speed likely won’t hurt if there’s enough runway. I’ll usually accelerate slightly past normal liftoff speed when dealing with a crosswind. That extra bit of energy helps establish a climb more easily, and improves control responsiveness. How much more speed? Just a couple of knots, to make sure I have control authority sufficient to counter the crosswind.

Takeoff and Climb

A big part of flying crosswinds is the takeoff and initial climb. And many emphasize preventing crosswind landing accidents, sometimes omitting crosswind takeoffs from the discussion. They can be problematic, also, especially when the airplane is, by definition, the heaviest it will be on this flight.

We always were trained to establish a wings-level attitude as soon as feasible after liftoff in a crosswind, and maintain it to our cruising altitude. The explanation involves lift’s horizontal component when the wings are banked: To maximize lift when you need it most—right after liftoff—keep the wings as level as you can.

As referenced earlier, climbing at a slower, more-shallow rate allowing higher airspeed than in still air when it’s gusty isn’t a bad idea, and for the same reason airspeed control is important when landing: gusts. A VX climb over obstacles isn’t a good time for the bottom to fall out, and gusts can subside abruptly.

But again, we’re concerned primarily with the gusty winds when suggesting higher-than-normal airspeeds on takeoff and climb. If the winds are steady but still a crosswind, we don’t need as much extra speed.


If you haven’t figured out that competency with the rudder is key to handling crosswinds (or you’re flying an Ercoupe) well, we’re not sure what to suggest. But it’s a fair bet that someone who has trouble with using the rudder also has trouble with crosswinds. Fixing one can fix the other.

Meanwhile, rudder use is critically important on the runway in a crosswind (unless you’re flying a WWI airplane off a wide field). Depending on the airplane and the wind, you may have to come in with all available rudder early in the takeoff roll to maintain directional control. As speed increases, you may be able to relax rudder input, but that’s about it. Again, depending, active rudder inputs may be needed to keep the nose pointed in the right direction throughout the takeoff roll.

After liftoff and throughout initial climb, rudder use should revert back to normal: whatever is necessary to control yaw and coordinate turns. Since we like to keep the wings level when climbing, you shouldn’t need any more rudder than normal. Until landing, that is.

Rudder use during a crosswind landing isn’t a mirror image to takeoff, but it’s close. You need rudder to establish the correct wings-level-or nearly-so crab into the wind, you’ll need it to keep the nose straight when lowering the upwind wing, and you’ll definitely need it if you prefer some combination.

Another word about airspeed: To establish and remain aligned with the runway, you may need full rudder deflection at times. If that’s not enough rudder authority for the conditions, you have two choices: go somewhere else or (slightly!) increase your target approach speed. The former is self-explanatory; the latter will flow more air past the vertical, increasing its authority.


One of the crosswind problems I’ve seen is reluctance to use ailerons. They should be fully deflected into the wind at the start of the takeoff roll and relaxed as speed increases. It’s unusual to not need at least some aileron input all the way through the takeoff roll.

On landing, you’ll need aileron to place the wings where you want them before touchdown, and afterward you’ll still need them—sometimes all the way to the ramp. Too many pilots think of ailerons as something to be ignored on the ground. Especially in crosswinds, and especially with high-wing configurations, the airplane needs to be “flown” all the way to its parking spot, and that usually means smart and timely aileron use.

One problem might be simple confusion on which way to deflect the ailerons and when. Obviously, when airborne, the ailerons control the airplane’s roll about its longitudinal axis, and work in the conventional fashion. On the ground, at taxi speeds, the ailerons should be deflected so as to minimize the wind’s ability to lift a wing, perhaps beyond the vertical.

Of course, as we taxi and turn on the ground, what was a crosswind from the left can change to the right, or even be nose- or tail-on. When the wind is from directly in front or directly behind, neutralize the ailerons. If its a quartering tailwind, lower the aileron on that side. Otherwise, we’ll generally want to prevent lift on that wing, so we’ll deflect the upwind aileron up, into the wind, hoping to spoil lift.

Combination Approach

If one or the other approach methods isn’t working for you, perhaps some combination of the two might? The silly little secret of the debate about whether to sideslip or crab down final in a crosswind is we all usually end up doing a little bit of both (but don’t tell anyone.)

The punchline is don’t be afraid to use both: Doing so isn’t immoral, illegal or fattening. That said, there are times when one method might be preferred—for instance, when flying a low-wing airplane with pod-mounted engines under its wings, you’ll probably want to use the crab method. Perhaps the poster-child airplane for using the crab method is the B-52, which was designed with crosswind landing gear that could be aligned with the runway while the airframe pointed into the wind.

Other airplanes have been equipped with crosswind gear from time to time, but most designs fell out of favor when it was determined good crosswind skills don’t require the extra expense.

Crosswinds aren’t risky; they’re a fact of flying, and it can be a lot of fun to handle them well. As with so many things, learning how to do that requires a full understanding of the tools available, and their complications. A little practice never hurt anything, either.

This article originally appeared in the July 2014 issue of Aviation Safety magazine.

For more great content like this, subscribe to Aviation Safety!

Forward this email to a friend
Tailor your alerts!
Click here to update alerts preferences.
AVweb Insider <="226512">

That we live in interesting times is made ever more evident by an email I got from reader Matthew Sawhill following last week’s fatal crash of a Tesla Model S being operated on the car’s much-touted autopilot feature. Conceding that cars aren’t airplanes, Sawhill asked: “Why can't the auto industry and mass media learn from (and set expectations based on) 70 years of experience with autopilot technology in aviation?”

It’s a fair question and illuminates a trend that seems ever more obvious to me: Automation and autonomy are steadily blurring the lines between not just transportation modes, but everything in modern life. In transportation, it may matter less if it’s a car, an airplane, a bus, a boat or a train than it does that it gets from A to B largely without human intervention. To think that we’re not going there—and probably sooner than many admit—is to occupy the last besieged island of delusional Luddites.

Consider the question, though. What could automakers learn from the aviation experience? First, that no matter how clever, cautious and foresightful they are, they’ll get things wrong and (a) the machine will malfunction, (b) homo the sap will figure out a way to defeat what multiple layers of safety interlocks the smart kids have provided, (c) the human-machine interface will create errors and (d) people will die as a result. How many billions of pixels have we devoted to the benefits of aircraft automation being a delicate balance against the human’s mental acuity and hand-eye coordination atrophying to the point of uselessness? Full automation will likely eliminate that and perhaps reduce fatalities markedly, but it will introduce new faults no one thought of.

The Tesla crash is an example of this. In case you weren’t paying attention, the Tesla was on autopilot clipping down a divided four-lane, non-limited-access highway. A tractor trailer made a left-hand turn in front of the car, crossing one of the many cutovers this type of highway typically has. The driver was enough out of the loop not to have noticed and the sedan went under the trailer, killing him. The driver was an aficionado of the Tesla in general and of its autopilot features specifically and had posted several videos like this one touting the system's capabilities.

If he understood that Tesla had plainly said this technology is not intended to be hands-off/eyes-off autonomy, it seems reasonable to conclude that he didn’t act on this understanding. (News reports claimed he may have been watching a DVD, but that’s almost a distractor to the larger issue of believing the Tesla system has more capability than it does.)

One thing automotive manufacturers will not be able to do is build systems as relatively simple as aircraft autopilots are. You read that right. That’s because autonomous driving is a far more complex problem than autonomous flying. The proximities are much closer, there are many more vehicles and many more variables in the form of road standards, obstacles, weather effects, mixing with non-autonomous vehicles and sheer human unpredictability and there are no enforced separation standards, as we have in aviation. We may reach this kind of chaos in aviation if drones achieve the swarming level, which some think they will. But we're not there yet.

While airplanes have the additional challenge of the third dimension, this turns out to be an advantage: Cars can’t do vertical separation, or at least in a way that will render them useful after cheating the collision. Fully autonomous aircraft autopilots aren’t in their infancy. GPS, INS, GPWS, TAWs, autothrottles, smart servos and other technologies have been around for quite some time and we know how to use them. As we reported, Diamond recently demonstrated a fully autonomous flight of one of its twins and as soon as they work out the details of electric braking, the airplanes will be capable of chock-to-chock flights with little or no human intervention. It then becomes simply a matter of filling in the regulatory boxes and seeing if anyone wants to buy such a thing. (Some certainly will.)

Against the backdrop of that and, say, a 777 being capable of routine autolandings, consider the Tesla’s challenge. Rather than the relatively trivial task of tracking an electronic glideslope—which we’ve been doing for 50 years—and judging closure rate with radar altimetry to a flat, obstacle-free, internationally approved strip of concrete, the Tesla uses a combination of cameras, ultrasonic sensors and short-range radar to detect and avoid obstacles in a highly non-standard environment. News reports indicated that the ambient light was such that the camera couldn’t distinguish the light truck body from a light background. (The human eye, of course, probably could have.) Elon Musk was quoted as saying the forward-looking radar is programmed to recognize and not react to overpasses and may have interpreted the truck as just that.

There’s another thing the automation can’t do that the driver could have, had he been engaged: exercise intuition. The accident scenario was a classic left-turn threat that motorcyclists know all about. If you’re paying attention, you see the potential many seconds before it has time to develop; you analyze it and respond by slowing or maneuvering. It’s an OODA loop. A car autopilot can probably be taught to do some form of this, but will it ever be able to distinguish a parked vehicle from one that’s about to dart across a lane just by the look of it? Maybe. But it will be a while.

There are dozens of such scenarios. Another one is at an intersection near my house. It’s a complex intersection with momentary restricted right on red, conveyed through a sign with an arrow that illuminates for just 10 seconds of the turn cycle. Could a Tesla autopilot deal with this? Whether it can or it can’t is less relevant than realizing an airplane doesn’t have to. Even if it auto taxis to the ramp, it can already do that via WAAS-GPS. A few optical sensors might improve the process.

That a Tesla owner would dismiss the risk of running on full autopilot while snoozing is perhaps understandable, given how well the system apparently functions and that there’s a complete lack of risk data on Tesla autopilot accidents because this is the first one. According to the National Safety Council, the fatal accident rate in the U.S. is 1.08/100 million miles driven. If Tesla’s data is correct, the Florida accident was the first fatal in 130 million miles of autopilot operation. A single data point does not a risk matrix make, but at least the autopilot can claim a slightly better record.

What all this means, I think, is that automakers can expect unexpected fatalities with automation as a factor just as airplane manufacturers have experienced. It’s just inevitable. And while the bright new world of autonomy may eventually drive fatalities dramatically downward, I doubt if anyone reading this will see the end of them in his or her lifetime. The immediate lesson for drivers of semi-autonomous cars is this: Stay in the loop, with eyes on the road, or risk making the last bad judgment of your life.

DC One-X from David Clark

Sensenich is well-known for its complete line of wooden aircraft propellers. In this classic AVweb video, we learn how the company does it with a complete factory tour.

Your Passengers Are Going to Love You for This || In-Flight Internet from $40 per Hour
Picture of the Week <="226499">
Picture of the Week

Dustin Mosher of Tehachapi, CA turns up the contrast in our latest "PotW" selection — showing off two very different airplanes. (Or maybe they're not so different, after all.) Click through for more photos from AVweb readers.


I was flying an A-36 Bonanza through the SFO Class Bravo a few years ago and there was quite a bit of airline traffic departing at the time. ATC advised me of a Southwest 737 climbing out at my 1 o'clock and I let them know I had it in sight.

Controller: "Southwest 9999 traffic 3 o'clock 2 miles, a Bonanza level 4 thousand."

Southwest: "Southwest 9999, we're looking" A few seconds later, "Southwest 9999, Tally-ho, we've got the doctor in sight."

I guess nowadays the "doctor" would be in a Cirrus.


Colin Smith

A20 Aviation Headset || Now with Enhanced Features

Each week, we poll the savviest aviators on the World Wide Web (that's you) on a topic of interest to the flying community.

Visit to participate in our current poll.

Click here to view the results of past polls.

AKG Summer Special - Save $149 Instantly on the AV100
'IFR' Is the Only Magazine for Pilots Who Understand the Realities of Instrument Flying || Subscribe and Take Advantage of Our Special Offer

Periodically, we run a sampling of the letters received to our editorial inbox. One letter that's particularly relevant, informative, or otherwise compelling will headline this section as our "Letter of the Week," and we'll send the author an official AVweb baseball cap as a "thank you" for interacting with us (and the rest of our readership).

Send us your comments and questions using this form. Please include your mailing address in your e-mail (just in case your letter is our "Letter of the Week"); by the same token, please let us know if your message is not intended for publication.