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

  • Text size:

    • A
    • A
    • A

The FAA has banned drones from flying within 400 feet of several U.S. landmarks and five of the largest dams in the U.S. a day after FBI Director Christopher Wray said he was worried about terrorists using drones against the U.S. The 10 specific locations are all landmarks under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior and include the Statue of Liberty and Mount Rushmore. The restrictions take effect on Oct. 5 and mark the first time the FAA has imposed this sort of restriction on civilian sites. Military bases continue to be off-limits for drones.

The FAA says it may not be done declaring drone-free zones. “The FAA is considering additional requests from other federal agencies for restrictions,” the news release said. The sites included in the current action include Statue of Liberty National Monument, New York, New York; Boston National Historical Park (U.S.S. Constitution), Boston, Massachusetts; Independence National Historical Park, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Folsom Dam, Folsom, California; Glen Canyon Dam, Lake Powell, Arizona; Grand Coulee Dam, Grand Coulee, Washington; Hoover Dam, Boulder City, Nevada; Jefferson National Expansion Memorial, St. Louis, Missouri; Mount Rushmore National Memorial, Keystone, South Dakota; and Shasta Dam, Shasta Lake, California.


Air France is facing a daunting technical challenge to repair an extensively damaged A380 at one of Canada’s most remote airports. Flight 66 from Paris to Los Angeles was almost across the Atlantic when the No. 4 engine had an uncontained failure that blew off the cowl and caused the fan to separate. The crew diverted to Goose Bay, Newfoundland and Labrador. Twitter photos show extensive damage to the engine and it appears the pylon and perhaps the wing are also affected. Passengers reported hearing a loud noise followed by vibration and an hourlong flight to Goose Bay. It's the second uncontained engine failure on an A380 but the first one, on a Qantas super jumbo in 2010, involved a Rolls-Royce engine. The engine that blew on Saturday was made by Engine Alliance, a joint venture by GE and Pratt & Whitney. The aircraft had about 520 passengers and crew on board and the airport is not equipped to handle that kind of influx so passengers were kept on the airplane waiting for a Boeing 777 and a chartered Boeing 737 to pick them up. They made it to LAX almost 24 hours after landing in Goose Bay. The A380 likely isn’t going anywhere soon.

Goose Bay is a former U.S. Air Force Base used in the Cold War as a nuclear weapons staging base and it has 11,000-foot and 9,000-foot runways. These days only a small Royal Canadian Air Force helicopter squadron is based there. Only regional airlines offer scheduled service so it doesn’t have facilities to do major repairs on an A380. The airline will have to ship in the parts and create temporary facilities to fix the plane. Last February a Swiss Global Airlines Boeing 777 had to land in Iqaluit, Nunavut, due to engine problems and the airline swapped the engine in a large tent. But there was no secondary damage to the aircraft in that incident and the A380 repairs are likely to be more involved. Engine Alliance says it's investigating the incident.

Unriveled range of cylinders unbeatable list of benefits, only from Continental

Elon Musk says his SpaceX company is developing a new booster system that will launch a cargo mission to Mars by 2022, followed by manned missions in 2024. Moreover, the new system, which he calls the BFR, will be capable of re-entry and reuse, making hypersonic passenger service between cities on earth practical and affordable.

Musk announced these aggressive plans at the International Astronautical Conference in Adelaide, Australia, this week. Although he failed to present any financials, Musk told attendees that he has a workable business plan to make both Mars and terrestrial hypersonic travel a reality.

The core component of these plans is a new booster system that’s smaller than the one he announced at a conference in Mexico last year, but still larger than the Saturn V system that put astronauts on the moon in 1969. Musk called the booster the BFR, with “B” signifying big and “R” for rocket. The “F” was left to the imagination of attendees.

According to news reports from the conference, the system would lift a spacecraft with 40 cabins populated by two or three people each for a total of about 100 per flight. The booster would be reusable while the capsule would refuel in orbit and continue to Mars.

Because of its smaller size, Musk said, the BFR could replace SpaceX’s Falcon 9 booster as a satellite launcher. It could also serve as a launcher for hypersonic travel between cities on earth for prices similar to full fares on current airliners. No point on earth would be more than an hour away, according to Musk.

Musk said SpaceX is already developing and manufacturing components for a Mars system and envisions a cargo launch as early as 2022. “That’s not a typo, although it is aspirational. Five years feels like a long time to me,” Musk was quoted as telling the conference.  When Earth and Mars approach their closest two years later in 2024, SpaceX would launch four more BFR-based missions aimed at establishing a permanent human presence on Mars.

Lockheed Martin presented its own rather more modest Mars program at the Adelaide conference. It would launch a mission to Mars in 2028 with a six-person crew. But the mission would not land astronauts, but would orbit them for a year before returning them to earth.  The mission would be entirely scientific, launching and controlling robotic systems on the surface from orbit. Lockheed Martin is also developing the so-called Deep Space Gateway, a prototype habitat that could be used on Mars or the moon.


A Southwest passenger traveling from Baltimore to Los Angeles earlier this week was removed from her flight after telling flight attendants she was deathly allergic to dogs. The passenger, Anila Daulatzai, 46, is a college professor from Baltimore. Two passengers aboard the flight were traveling with canine companions. Video shot by one of the other passengers, Bill Dumas, began circulating late this week showing Maryland Transportation Authority Police struggling to get Daulatzai off the plane. Dumas told the L.A. Times that the video follows extended attempts to negotiate a quiet departure from the airplane: “It went from this very quiet conversation and suddenly erupted into this big physical confrontation,” said Dumas.

In a statement, Southwest said, “We are disheartened by the way this situation unfolded and the Customer’s removal by local law enforcement officers.” The company continued, “We publicly offer our apologies to this Customer for her experience and we will be contacting her directly to address her concerns. Southwest Airlines was built on Customer Service, and it is always our goal for all Customers to have a positive experience.” Southwest company policy requires passengers who alert the company to a life-threatening allergy to provide a medical certification that they can safely travel in an airline environment. Daulatzai reportedly demanded that Southwest provide her with an EpiPen. Southwest spokesman Chris Mainz said, in a statement to the press, “We do not have or administer shots.”

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

AOPA announced the locations of the four fly-ins for 2018. Up first is KMSO, Missoula International Airport, in Western Montana on June 15-16—the first fly-in held in the mountain west region of the country. AOPA is saving the next three for cooler fall weather: KSAF, Santa Fe, New Mexico, on Sept. 14-15; KMDH, Carbondale, Illinois, on Oct. 5-6; and KJKA, Gulf Shores, Alabama, on Oct. 26-27. “Each location has been designed to provide gateways to explore the mountain northwest, high desert mountains, a cutting-edge center for the automobile and aviation industries in the Midwest, and a relaxed beach town along the Gulf Coast—all great family vacation destinations, all strategically located within an easy flight of tens of thousands of AOPA members,” says AOPA.

AOPA says the overall structure will remain the same, with technical workshops on Friday and the festivities on Saturday. “We are working on a new slate of workshops for 2018 that will offer hands-on experiences for pilots to improve their aviation knowledge, safety and skills,” said AOPA Director of Outreach and Events Chris Eads. Previous seminars have covered ground school for IFR proficiency, owner-performed maintenance and overwater and mountain flying techniques and survival skills.

AOPA still has two more fly-in on the calendar for 2017: Groton, Connecticut, on Oct. 6-7 and Tampa, Florida, on Oct. 27-28.


When I was a baby flight instructor I, as with most instructors, rapidly learned a great deal about airplanes and the humans who fly them. Despite being a slow learner, some of those lessons stuck with me. Whenever I get into a discussion of the value of training for stalls, stall avoidance, spin avoidance and spin recovery, I immediately find myself in the right seat of a Cessna 150, a brand-new CFI with a student who has just intentionally stalled the airplane with full power and the flaps up. He has also unintentionally stalled the airplane with the ball about its own diameter outside the center of the race to the right.

The student, I’ll call him Rex, was much as I was at the post-solo stage: absolutely terrified of stalls. We'd talked about stalls and spins at length. We’d also joked about it because I remembered how awful it felt when I was doing stalls at the same point in my flight training: I felt as if the airplane's nose was pointed straight up. I thought that if I pulled back any more, we would flip over backwards, go through some hideous, uncontrollable, monstrous gyrations and die gruesomely.

When the 150 stalled, it quickly started to roll to the left and pitched down. Rex immediately figured out that all was not well. He his initial reaction was predictable, the next two weren't. First Rex pulled on the yoke for all he was worth, trying to bring the nose up where it belonged. Then he firewalled the left rudder pedal. What had just been a significant left yaw was suddenly dramatic as we rapidly went from an incipient spin to a full-blown one. Rex promptly applied body English to try and stop what he perceived as a wild left turn. He leaned to the right. He leaned all the way into my lap, pinning my arms.

I figured it would probably be a good time to see if I could talk him through recovery from a power-on spin. It didn't even take much prompting. Rex was no dummy, plus we'd discussed and he'd read about spins. He knew, intellectually, what to do, although doing it the first time one experiences an airplane gyrating wilding isn't the easiest task in the world. With a little prompting, Rex first centered the ailerons, then closed the throttle, applied full right rudder and, after he had it to the stop, he started moving the control wheel forward. Within a few seconds the rotation ceased, the awful twisting feeling ended and the weird, drumming, thwanging sounds stopped as the wings started flying again and the airspeed built in the dive.

The moment the rotation began to slow, Rex sat upright. Once it stopped, he recognized that the airplane was in a common, garden-variety dive and started raising the nose. As Rex stabilized the airplane in a climb, he looked at me and said, "Wow. We didn't die." A moment later, he went on: "I did that recovery, didn't I?" I responded, "I will state categorically that I did not touch the controls."

After we landed, we talked about spins, spin entries, stalls and control inputs for a while. Rex said that as the airplane started to roll, he suddenly got the rudders confused and reacted as he had as a kid on his sled, where he pushed on the left side of the steering bar to go right. After the discussion, Rex departed in a good mood. He had seen the tiger in its lair and spat back at it. As we scheduled his next lesson, he said he wanted to do some more spins to try and see if he could recover before the rotation started. He said he was looking forward to it . . . it would be fun.

Should Everyone Do This?

Ever since that day with Rex, having watched a student have a very good learning experience and figuring out how I could build on it for him, I’ve continued to ask myself how I could make use of it with others. With stall/spin accidents still killing so many people each year, what is the best way of teaching my students and recurrent-training pilots how to handle the low-speed end of the flight envelope, right near the stall? How can I make sure that my students protect themselves from stalling and spinning in? Do I insist that they learn how to do spins? Do I emphasize spins? Should we work most on stall avoidance? Can I find an episode of Star Trek tonight? (I'm aging and my mind wanders.)

I’ve looked at a great deal of material on stall/spin accidents—they are right up there in the litany of high-percentage fatal accidents. Most of them happen at relatively low altitude, on takeoff, approach to landing or while "maneuvering" (which, on further checking, would probably be more accurately referred to as "buzzing"). In one portion of my career, I spent a lot of time with Bruce Barrett, at the time the chief test pilot at Cessna’s Pawnee Division. He had performed a few thousand spins in the process of evaluating various aircraft as well as in doing studies of spins themselves. He’d written on the subject and I was eager to learn as much as I could from him.

I noted that we practice stalls up high, yet that is not where we face the risk of a stall/spin crash. So, why do we teach spins at all? After all, in the reports of stall/spin accidents, few of the airplanes are high enough for a spin to fully develop prior to impact; almost no one gets beyond the incipient stage—also called the "It's gonna happen if you don't do something" stage of a spin. Over the years, I’ve reached some conclusions and formed some opinions.

Checkride Requirements

At a basic level, I am of the opinion that the old private pilot requirement to enter a spin and recover on a specified heading within a certain, arbitrary number of degrees is rightfully dead. It got to where the concentration was on the recovery on heading, with the student learning how to use the ailerons in the latter part of the recovery to hit a heading, something that is counterproductive if ailerons are used in the initial portion of the recovery. Spin recovery occurs most rapidly with the ailerons neutral and, depending on the airplane, the wrong aileron deflection can prolong a spin or actually prevent recovery. I also learned that a huge percentage of the pilot examiners would have the applicant do the spin recovery portion of the checkride solo, while the examiner watched from the ground. I figure they knew something.

Despite thinking the old spin requirement should not be revived, I am firmly of the opinion that every pilot who is going to be carrying passengers should have experienced a bare minimum of at least one spin of at least two turns before recovery is started. We demonstrate and require unusual-attitude recovery because things that the pilot or outside forces induce can upset an airplane and the pilot should have seen such a thing before and know how to recover. A spin is merely something the airplane will do if provoked. The first one a pilot sees should not, in my opinion, be without an instructor at the other set of controls. Yes, we may chase off some students if the spin experience is required. Then again, there is the approach that if we really make the spin-training requirement tough, we'll chase off all of the students, we won't have any pilots and there will be no stall/spin accidents, thus accomplishing the goal. Silly comments aside, students quit for many reasons, some because they don't like stalls or steep turns or landings. A good instructor should be able to create a climate of trust prior to demonstrating a spin so that the student doesn't run screaming to the exits. Beyond observing a spin, I would like to see a student demonstrate spin recovery in each direction, and a logbook endorsement made to that effect, similar to what is required of flight instructor applicants now. Part of the reason is for them to see how much altitude is lost in the first part of the spin and why it's most important to recognize what is happening very early and start the recovery immediately so the spin never gets going. I want students to recognize that twisting, gut-churning roll and pitch-down that characterizes the very first stage of an incipient spin and have developed an emotional response to it. They should have it ingrained in them that, when the airplane begins that roll off and pitch down, it's time for the ailerons to be centered, the rudder to go to the stop and the yoke to go forward, so there is no "What in the world is happening?" reaction delay that erases the chance of a recovering before ground impact.

Down Low is Bad

All of this is tied in with discussion with the student that the serious risk is the stall at low altitude, so the student must demonstrate mastery of recovery from a cross-control stall the moment after the break. It is my opinion that in addition to current training in stall recognition and avoidance (which I think is extremely important in itself), the student should be experiencing stalls with the ball off center, in all airplane configurations we experience in real life (takeoff flaps and full flaps at full power, approach and landing flaps at partial power and power off, etc.) and demonstrate recovery from that now-familiar pitch down and roll-off before the autorotation of the spin begins, with a minimum loss of altitude. It also means showing and understanding that the minimum loss of altitude may very well be 500 feet or so, and the visceral knowledge that stalls at low altitude are killers; recognition of an approach to a stall and avoidance of the stall itself is what is truly going to save their lives.

I think it also means using the training technique of the delayed stall recovery and the falling leaf as confidence builders. First, simply have the student stall the airplane, hold the wheel all the way aft, ailerons centered, and not recover from the stall or series of stalls that occur, while keeping the airplane going straight with the rudder. A glance at the VSI teaches how fast the airplane is descending and the student learns that the rudder is still very effective. The next step is the falling leaf, where the yoke is held full aft in the stall, but the student applies rudder at the stall break, initiating that roll-off and pitch-down of the incipient spin, but then puts the opposite rudder to the stop to cause the roll and yaw to stop and then start in the other direction, whereupon the rudders are reversed and the action repeated through about 1000 feet of altitude loss. It allows a student to learn that something can be done about that horrible roll and yaw and which control is used for it, and that it is effective. It also means explaining and showing that holding the yoke aft during a recovery attempt means the airplane remains stalled and is descending like a dropped sewer cover.

The Myth of the Safe Shallow Turns

The above leads into the next phase of the training: Explain that the myth of making only shallow turns in the pattern or on landing approach is a killer. It's better to roll into a 45-degree bank when turning final rather than trying to rudder the airplane around in a shallow bank. The stall speed does not go up all that much in a 45-degree bank; it's only the angles beyond that where it curves upwards dramatically. Ruddering the airplane around means uncoordinated flight, which means increased drag, which increases the risk of a stall. Then, when it does stall, it means recovery may take more altitude than is available even if started instantly. A coordinated turn means that if the pilot does still screw up and stall, a successful recovery is more likely and possible in as little as 100 feet.

Training also means having serious discussions of buzzing, including how fast the speed goes away in a pull-up, how incredibly much there is to hit that cannot be seen when flying low and how the world looks different from 200 feet AGL than it does from 1000 feet, especially the apparent position of the horizon, which can fool a person. It means pointing out that everyone has a cell-phone camera and, if one is stupid enough to do a buzz job, it is going to be photographed and very possibly turned into the FAA. Do I recommend teaching buzzing to students by going down the runway at 200 feet? After a lot of thought, no. I teach it at 3000 feet agl. I have the student do a pull up and then look out the window at something and start a turn to go back toward it. It startles the heck out of the student when the stall warning goes off, or the airplane stalls inadvertently.

Finally, for my students and flight-review pilots flying airplanes that are approved for spins, I am going to do something that Rich Stowell—an aerobatic and upset-training instructor—recommended: Create diversions when the pilot is flying the airplane very near the stall. When the pilot knows the stall is coming, recovery becomes second nature. When it is a bit of a surprise recovery may be delayed. If the pilot can experience that surprise with an instructor handy, learning takes place. That way, when it happens later for real, with no instructor present, the chance of successful recovery in the available altitude is better.

Rich has pilots stall the airplane while looking out the window, or while reaching for something in the back seat—anything to match how it can sneak up on someone in the real world. I think his ideas are excellent. I'm also thinking that I may just try to duplicate what happened with Rex by turning my head suddenly to the left and exclaiming, "What was that?!"

The risk of the stall/spin accident is when it is entered down low. Unfortunately, that's the one variable I do not feel I can put into the training equation. The margin is too fine. Remember, back in the 1960s when some FAA examiners were interpreting the multi-engine checkride guidelines to require Vmc demonstrations at 500 feet AGL. Until things were straightened out, they were licensing survivors and the countryside was littered with wrecked twins. I cannot recommend teaching stalls at 500 feet AGL. That's where demonstration at altitude, noting altimeter readings and a lot of discussion, come in; stall training down low is practice bleeding.

The important thing, in my opinion, is that we spend a lot of time in slow flight, near the stall, with our students so that they internalize the feel of an airplane near the stall, keep the ball centered and are likely to stall only when they desire it to take place. Yet, we have to realize that they will err and so we also have to have them experience a lot of stalls—flaps up and down, at different power settings, different bank angles and with different rates of onset, ball centered and off to the side—because a hoary truth of aviation is that we only do well what we have done before. What's scary is that most pilots carrying passengers have spent less time doing slow flight and stalls than it took to read this column.

Rick Durden is a CFII, holds an ATP with type ratings in the Douglas DC-3 and Cessna Citation and is the author of The Thinking Pilot’s Flight Manual or, How to Survive Flying Little Airplanes and Have a Ball Doing It, Vols. 1 & 2.

Forward this email to a friend
Tailor your alerts!
Click here to update alerts preferences.
AVweb Insider <="229695">

The other night, I was watching one of the Bond films, The Spy Who Loved Me, and, true to form, fell into my usual annoying habit of obtuseness. How do the bad guys get all the money to pay for their fabulous technological infrastructure? I mean, they’re spending millions on color-coordinated jump suits alone.

I have the same reaction whenever I see one of Elon Musk’s revised plans to colonize Mars. Surveying the general press reports, I am somewhat surprised at the somber, serious tone of the reporting, as if these correspondents take it all seriously. Perhaps I should regroup here. Maybe I’m the outlier for being too skeptical. This is an occupational risk of being an aviation journalist, a field whose practitioners seem to sort into binary cohorts. You’re either a sunshine-spewing-puff-piece acolyte or a hard-bitten misanthrope who tells Young Eagles they’d be better off going into finance or robotics. And while we’re talking, get off the airport lawn. You can guess which one I am.

So, from the sunny side of the street, it looks like Musk has refined his plans to fly to Mars with a more realistically sized booster, but still one capable of lofting 100 people at a time to the red planet. Technical challenges remain, like how to get from Mars orbit to the surface with that many people and how to sustain them in surface habitats. Stipulate that these seem addressable by current technology or at least technology that’s in view. No one should underestimate what SpaceX has already achieved as a private launch company. No other startup comes even close.

Also, as an additional application not discussed before, Musk says the new reusable booster—which he calls the Big F^&ing Rocket—will also usher in an era of hypersonic travel between cities on earth. You could get anywhere in under 30 minutes all for the price of a full-fare airline ticket. Stipulate that full-fare is first class from New York to Tokyo at $15,000 and further stipulate that Musk has figured out a way to rewrite the conventional physics and economics that mean that traveling twice as fast requires four times the money and traveling eight times faster requires more money than ever existed. (Traveling hypersonically is roughly 25 times faster than today’s kerosene chuffing airliners.) I will concede all this, grasp the hem of Musk’s robes and declare with enthusiasm, “I believe!”   

But, if I may, there’s just one teensy flaw I see in the business plan for Mars. Back when the English, Spanish, Dutch and Portuguese were blasting each other’s ships to bits in the far east, there was an accepted principle of colonization. You more or less subdued the local population and plundered the colony for whatever riches it could produce—gold, silver, rubber, oil, silk, tea, tobacco. You tried not to have to send too much treasure out to the colony you were plundering because it dented the P & L. I mean, this is Plunder 101.

What the hell are we sending back from Mars? Magnesium and iron, maybe? The shipping costs might be a little high on that trade. No, the real reason we need a Mars colony, Musk figures, is to assure continuation of the species, the assumption being that we’re soon to render Earth uninhabitable.

I’m slipping here … back into the shadows. I’m not buying that we'll trash the Earth within 100 years. And not within 300, either. Whether you accept the theory of anthropogenic warming or not, the planet is warming and that will have consequences. Sea levels will rise and maybe the weather will get wilder. But not unlivable. Homo the sap is nothing if not a resilient species. We’ll figure out ways to cope with it and the smart kids will actually start businesses to make money doing this. They already are.

It strikes me that this will be a lot easier than trying to loft the population onto a planet that’s 33 million miles away (at best), has a bare wisp of an atmosphere and an average temperature of -67 degrees F. Plus there are no beaches because there are no oceans. Or fish. Or cattle. Or Starbucks. We’ll have to fly all that stuff up there from earth. (See above, Plunder 101.)

Not that I wouldn’t personally go to Mars nor that we shouldn’t send people there to establish a scientific outpost. But Club Med it ain’t. I’m actually warming to the idea of a hypersonic flight to Tokyo. The sushi is better.


Cirrus has begun shipping its long-awaited SF50 VisionJet and as part of a two-video series, AVweb recently flew the jet from the company's Duluth, Minnesota, factory to the East Coast. In this long-form video, AVweb takes a deep dive into how the airplane performs and how it compares to other small jets.

DC One-X from David Clark - lightest full-featured ANR headset
Picture of the Week <="229697">
Picture of the Week

The classic lines of the Nanchang CJ-6 and the beautiful background sold us on this lovely image. Colin McGeachy is the windblown pilot and John Weir took the photo near Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.


On Tower frequency at a rural class Delta:

 Cessna: Uh, tower caution some sort of otter or marmot just went right in front of my plane.

 Tower: It was a groundhog. That is our airport groundhog.

 Cessna: Ok regardless of type he just crossed Alpha without clearance tell him to check his frequency.

 Tower: We'll have a talk with him.  Cleared for takeoff 23.

George Mendenhall


'IFR' Is the Only Magazine for Pilots Who Understand the Realities of Instrument Flying || Subscribe and Take Advantage of Our Special Offer

That distant cry you hear is airlines pleading for pilots, so it's time to turn dreams of flight into cash by displaying that aeronautical grit needed to live above it all and simultaneously ace this quiz.

Click here to take the quiz.


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

Contributing Editors
Mary Grady
Geoff Rapoport

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: