Reach a WIDE Range of Top-Flight GA Pilots with AVweb
 
 
World's Leading Independent Aviation News Service
Volume 25, Number 11b
March 14, 2018
 
Forward This Email
  • Text size:

    • A
    • A
    • A
help
Textron Reports On SkyCourier Progress
 
Mary Grady
 
 

The initial wind-tunnel testing of the new twin-engine Cessna SkyCourier turboprop is now complete, Textron announced on Tuesday. Engineers will analyze the results from the tests to develop performance and aerodynamic characteristics and structural load data. “We’re making outstanding progress in the development of this clean-sheet aircraft and are eager to continue defining the details that will allow us to start creating tools and parts,” said Brad Thress, senior vice president for engineering. “For the initial wind tunnel testing, we use a custom, precision model with electric motors and scaled propellers calibrated to represent the thrust produced by the real aircraft.”

The company is also working with potential operators to ensure the final design will meet their needs. “The feedback we’re gathering from the customer advisory board is extremely important as we develop an aircraft that is reliable, efficient and meets the diverse requirements of an array of mission profiles,” said Thress. The airplane is designed to carry up to 19 passengers or up to 6,000 pounds of freight. The company said it is anticipating first flight of the SkyCourier next year, with first deliveries in 2020.

East River Crash: A High Price For Cool Photos
 
Paul Bertorelli
 
 

As Monday’s tragic helicopter accident in the East River vividly shows, ditching in a rotorcraft is a low-probability, high-consequence event. The reason for this is that helicopters, with their roof-mounted power trains, have a high center of mass and they always turn over, flood quickly and sink.

Because of these dismal survival aspects, many helicopters are equipped with skid-mounted float systems designed to be inflated pre-impact to provide buoyancy and a righting moment. As the video we’ve all seen by now clearly shows, the floats failed to do this for reasons that will only become evident when the accident investigation is completed. I’m not going to speculate on the why or the how.

But I am offering a thought on what kind of risk the passengers thought they were assuming. And my guess is they had no clue. New to me in the wake of this accident is that the passengers were doing a “doors-off” photo tour of the New York skyline, in which the aircraft is flown with the doors open so the passengers can dangle their feet out the door and snap photos. I’m including an example here, taken from the website of the company selling the tours. Doors-off flights are apparently a thing now.

As anyone who knows me can attest, I have a lot of experience flying in airplanes with doors open and have launched myself through them several thousand times. So I’m not gonna go all Uncle Melvin on the risks involved. If you wanna do it, step right to the front of the line. But there’s a pernicious corner of the risk envelope here that I don’t think these passengers could possibly grasp.

In order to let the customers dangle their body parts into the picture frame, in addition to standard seatbelts, they’re also strapped in with a parachute-type harness with a single carabiner restraint in the back connected to a tether, according to a New York Times article. For obvious reasons, it’s not a quick release, but uses a screw-type carabiner closure. Because of this, the passengers are shown a safety briefing video and equipped with a knife—likely a web-cutter type—to free themselves in an emergency.

If this doesn’t cause your jaw to drop to the floor, you’re not paying attention. Refer to the second sentence above. If they’re not equipped with skid floats or the floats fail, a ditched helicopter will always invert and flood rapidly. Without doors, it will flood right now. As I learned in a safety course I took at Survival Systems on how to exit ditched helicopters, even a trained occupant will struggle with what’s known as “cold water gasp,” the involuntary intake of breath when exposed rapidly to cold water.

The East River was 40 degrees or colder on Sunday. An untrained, gasping passenger would have had little chance to even consider using a knife to saw through a tether attached from behind. I spent a full day getting cold and wet in a dunkable fuselage simulator and I’m pretty sure I could not do this, even though I could egress the fuselage OK from normal harnesses. Watching a video on how to do it would, in my view, be woefully inadequate.

Just for the record, such training has three simple key points: Wait until the aircraft stops moving, use a reference point like your knee to find the door release handle, place a hand outside the opening for reference, then release the belt and get out. I did that course 15 years ago, but I still remember it. Here’s a good video we shot on the training.

What sustains a company like Survival Systems, in part, is that the oil industry requires workers to take such courses before they ever set foot on a helicopter headed for the offshore rigs. Even at that, the industry has lost lots of people in helicopter crashes and the survivors tell harrowing tales. Here’s one from a North Sea worker: “The helicopter filled with water, instantly. The door buckled on the left-hand side and none of us had a chance to pull our rebreathers out, get our hoods on, nothing like that. And as the water came up to here" – he indicates his chin – "and I took my last breath, I could see people floating around. As soon as my head was covered with water, I looked down and pulled the tab on the window and it just came to bits in my hand. So I hit it with my elbow a couple of times. Nothing. And then I punched it – I think I punched it three times – and all of a sudden it went pop and away it went.”

Judging risk and whether to take it is an intensely personal thing and for most of us, it is a moving target. What you do one day, you might not do the next if some single point consideration is different. Personally, I have no desire to fly around New York in an open-door helicopter. I can think of better things to spend money on. And even though I suffer the same over-confidence in the reliability of turbine aircraft that so many of us do, they still quit from time to time. But getting into one with a knife to slice a tether attached to my back as the only means of extraction isn’t a survival plan, it’s a delusion. My skydiver friends will want me to mention a better approach: the same kind of three-ring system we use to cut away malfunctioned mains to clear the way for reserve deployment. 

Last, a comment on word choice. When I wrote the initial story based on the video, my colleague Mary Grady chided me for using “mishap” in the headline rather than “crash.” She reasoned that mishap conveyed the wrong connotation. Too soft. But I used it for a reason. An autorotation in a helicopter is not a crash, it’s a purposeful emergency procedure and, if done right, a skillful management of finite rotor energy.

I’m not qualified to judge whether the auto was done right or not, but the touchdown itself didn’t strike me as a crash. I tried to use “hard autorotation” but it didn’t fit in two lines. I re-edited it with the word “accident.” When you lose five people, there’s no question that this word applies.

How To Get A Light Sport Seaplane Rating
 
Paul Bertorelli
 
 

The sport pilot rule allows anyone who wants a seaplane rating to do it with five or so hours of training and then an endorsement from an evaluating CFI. AVweb's Paul Bertorelli recently did the rating at Jones Brothers Air and Sea Adventures in Tavares, Florida. Here's his report.

 

AirFleet Capital || Contact Us for a Quote - Click Here or Call (800) 390-4324
NASA Flies RC Cub For UAS Research
 
Mary Grady
 
 

With so many companies working on electric-powered VTOLs and other airplanes of the future, it may seem odd that NASA is experimenting with what is essentially a big RC model of a Cub. The airplane, about 60 percent the size of a piloted aircraft, couldn’t look much more traditional, with its tailwheel, a big wide wing and a single prop on the nose. Yet the recent tests conducted at NASA’s Armstrong Flight Research Center in California are “leading a critical phase for UAS integration into the National Airspace System, by educating engineers and validating key technologies that will directly apply to the next generation of large-scale unmanned vehicles,” NASA said.

The MicroCub is a Bill Hempel Super Cub design, NASA said, with a 21-foot wingspan, modified by engineers at Armstrong to support their research. On Jan. 18, the MicroCub flew for the first time. NASA said this initial flight was intended to check the ground handling and flight characteristics of the aircraft, and also to validate the command-and-control system, verify the “remote control only” mechanism, set the tuning for autopilot gain, perform engine runs, gauge fuel consumption and test stall speed. The aircraft is equipped with a Piccolo Autopilot guidance system and a JetCat SPT-15 Turboprop engine. After the initial January flight, the aircraft was also equipped with an onboard smoke system, which will be used as “a see-and-avoid tool,” NASA said.

Kitty Hawk Unveils VTOL Prototype
 
Mary Grady
 
 

Kitty Hawk, the California company that has been working on a “flying car” funded by Alphabet CEO Larry Page, has released a video of its newest autonomous VTOL prototype, which is now flying in New Zealand. The electric-powered aircraft, dubbed “Cora,” is driven by 12 rotors mounted fore and aft of the wing, plus a propeller at the tail. After taking off vertically, it transitions to horizontal flight. Each of the rotors can operate independently, the company says, for redundant safety, and the aircraft will also be equipped with a ballistic parachute. Cora can cruise at about 80 knots for up to 54 nautical miles. The aircraft is being developed by Zephyr Airworks, Kitty Hawk’s partner in New Zealand. Flight testing and first commercial flights are planned to take place in New Zealand.

Cora will operate using “self-flying software combined with human oversight,” according to the company’s new website, “to make flying possible for people without training.” The aircraft will not be sold to the public, but will be “part of a service similar to an airline or ride share.” Cora looks very similar to the prototype the company was flying in 2014 (a video of that early version was released in December). “We think this is the logical next step in the evolution of transportation,” Fred Reid, CEO of Zephyr, says in the new video. The company declined to release a timetable for deployment, saying, “We are looking forward to being able to share our product with the New Zealand public when the time is right.” According to the website, more aircraft are in development.

Berlin Airlift: Plus Fifty
 
J. B. McLaughlin
 
 



Editors Note: This article originally ran in our sister publication, IFR magazine in the June 1998 issue to recognize the 50th anniversary of the Berlin Airlift. With the 70th anniversary approaching, and with the passing of so many of the veterans who acted courageously to supply the citizens of Berlin, we are running it again to help keep alive the memories of what they accomplished.

June, 1948. It seems like a lifetime ago. Come to think of it, aviation-wise, it is. By today’s standards, the aircraft were primitive, air-traffic control procedures were archaic—sometimes non-existent—and our instrument proficiency left much to be desired, to put it generously.

I had just celebrated my 24th birthday in Athens, where I was assigned as Air Attaché, when the call went out for all pilots in the theater who were qualified in the venerable C-47 “Gooney Bird.”

The Russians had just closed down the road and rail corridors into Berlin from West Germany and the U.S. proposed to support the entire city by air.

I had 3000 hours, most of it in fighters, with 300 hours in the Gooney. Upon arrival in Weisbaden, Germany, the initial staging area, I discovered that this “qualified” me as first pilot. A single orientation ride with a young 60th Troop Carrier pilot named Frenchy Bennett and I was certified to fly the airlift. In any weather.

They assigned me a co-pilot, Captain Eddie Onze (later killed in Korea), who had never been in an aircraft with more than one throttle. Our combined instrument proficiency, on a scale of  0 to 10, rated about 1/2 to 1.

During World War II, pilots who went through fighter school spent most of their instrument rides doing aerobatics under the hood. This made us moderately proficient in unusual attitudes, but as for straight-and-level down the airway and approaches, we weren’t so hot.

When the press and movie makers got around to glamorizing the operation in The Big Lift, most of the credit went to the “Big Willies,” the C-54s and their crews. My good friend Al Freiberger even got a speaking part in the movie, mostly on the strength of his involvement in “Operation Little Vittles,” the famous candy bar drop to kids on handkerchief parachutes. 

War Weary C-47s       

Not to detract from Al and his buddies, but when Operation Vittles started, we were all flying old troop carrier C-47s. These ships were war-weary in the extreme, with thousands of hours on airframes, and, to a lesser degree, engines.  They had been in constant use since well before D-Day, carrying paratroops, towing gliders, hauling cargo.  Some had seen service with  European Air Transport Service, essentially a military-operated airline.

A word of praise for the Douglas C-47: No more reliable or forgiving aircraft has ever been built. We got away with youthful stupidities that would have killed us in any other airplane. I once flew a Goon from Wiesbaden to Tempelhof—slowly—with a load of 12,500 pounds, two-and-half times the design payload. It didn’t look that heavy. I should have aborted the takeoff. Didn’t. I should have checked the weight and balance. Didn’t.  

Fortunately for us, Air Force maintenance crews were superb. We had little trouble with engines—let’s give some of the credit to Pratt & Whitney, too. We experienced few inflight emergencies. Radios were the toughest to maintain because of the constant damp and ever present flour and coal dust. We flew the first six weeks of horrible weather in those old clunkers with just one fatal accident, thereby dumfounding both ourselves and the Russians.

Avionics—I use the term loosely—were another matter. All the gyro instruments were vacuum driven. Attitude and heading indicators were subject to tumbling if certain bank and pitch angles were exceeded or even if an abrupt change in attitude occurred. You could be—and we often were—reduced to flying needle, ball and ripcord. At the time, we didn’t think much of it. 

Comm radios consisted of the old four-channel push-button VHF sets left over from the war. Navigation radios were low-frequency receivers for the old four-leg radio ranges. It seems archaic now, but the most reliable nav radio we had was ADF; it was our version of GPS.

Although thunderstorms made it necessary to use ADF in the loop position to find an aural null, we flew in horrible weather with a navaid most pilots now consider little more than a glorified AM radio.

All of these limitations kept the two-man crew of a C-47 pretty busy; we did our own flying and our own navigating. Navigators would have been nothing but extra weight. Some RAF Yorks carried them to operate their “Gee” radar equipment, but we had no such luxuries. Even the C-54s stopped carrying navigators; they weren’t worth the payload.

Things got hectic when there was icing. Boots on the Gooney, while usually adequate for light rime, required judgment in heavy or mixed icing. The same boots were installed on C-54s, but they had it easier because they carried a flight engineer to keep an eye on things.  

Horrible Weather

Did I mention that the weather was horrible? The Russians must have had excellent forecasters, for they picked the right time to blockade Berlin. Although the lift started during the European High Summer, when the weather is supposedly best, the first few weeks gave us the worst weather of the entire operation, at least for the months that I flew it.

Thunderstorms, heavy rain, icing—all were everyday phenomena. One hundred-foot ceilings were the norm on many days during those early weeks. Three hundred feet was a luxury. The approach to Tempelhof was between seven-story apartment buildings 1/4-mile apart, yet we managed it day in and day out, achieving a remarkable safety record. 

As the airlift evolved, so did the air traffic and routing plan. There were three 20-mile-wide corridors in and out of Berlin. The northern corridor, which ran northwest (about 300 degrees) was used mostly by the British. The southern and longest corridor ran from Fulda Beacon northeast (about 45 degrees) and was used exclusively by inbound U.S. aircraft. The central corridor—about 270 degrees—ran from Berlin to the Brunswick Beacon, then southwest to Fritlzar, then back to Wiesbaden. The central corridor was used solely for return flights. 

Air traffic control wasn’t a bit like what we’re used to now, of course. There was no en route or terminal radar during the early days of the lift, although both Tempelhof and Wiesbaden had GCA radar—ground controlled approach.  

Navigation was strictly dead reckoning, with what help we could get from ADF fixes. Fortunately, USAF and RAF weather services were excellent, so winds aloft forecasts were usually accurate.

A typical C-47 run to Tempelhof began with a climb northeast to assigned altitude to the Fulda Beacon, an ADF fix. At this point you checked in with ATC and adjusted airspeed if necessary to maintain separation. In-trail separation at same altitudes en route was nine minutes, with 500 or 1000 feet of vertical separation.

Once into the corridor, however, you were on your own until near Berlin, a 200-mile dead reckon leg with no intermediate fixes. Because the corridors were only 20 miles wide, in-trail separation was important to avoid collisions. (We never had one.) 

In the early weeks of the lift, we flew an inbound leg of the Tempelhof Range, but the Russians soon jammed the frequency so that we couldn’t get a cone-of-silence as the volume continued to build as we flew into East Germany. So we flew the fix purely on the clock.

Later, they gave us an ADF fix, a “buncher beacon,” at Wedding, about six miles northwest of Tempelhof. On a good day, thunderstorms permitting, you could pick it up from 20 miles out. Once at Wedding, GCA vectored us onto final approach, at three-minute intervals.     

Despite the flow of traffic into Tempelhof, holding patterns were used only at the western (return) end, as they would have created too much congestion around Berlin.

When used at Wiesbaden, they were standard, one-minute, left-hand holding patterns, with aircraft in a stack awaiting approach clearances. There was an ADF approach for Wiesbaden, plus GCA when we really needed it. By-and-large, Wiesbaden weather wasn’t as bad as what we encountered at Berlin.    

What Minimums?

If there were any published minimums at Tempelhof, I’ve forgotten what they may have been. GCA—the precursor of PAR—brought us all the way in until we either broke out or ran out of guts.

My own personal minimums were about 100 feet and 1/4 mile.

I have, over the years, flown a few zero-zero approaches, but only one on GCA and that was a matter of necessity. After many years and several hundred GCA approaches, in hindsight, I’d say that GCA is about as reliable as the pilot at the controls.

There’s inevitably a built-in delay between the controller’s instruction and the pilot’s execution. However, at the time, most of us had absolute confidence in the Tempelhof GCA and probably pushed our minimums lower than would have been safe with the average CCA. In retrospect, if I’m going below 300 feet with less than 1/2 mile now, I prefer ILS. 

We began to regard the return approach to Wiesbaden as more dangerous than Berlin. ATC was just better at Berlin. For instance, I was flying “Willie One” (first aircraft in a westbound block from Tempelhof to Wiesbaden) in the soup, with a malfunctioning transmitter.  

We acknowledged instructions from ATC by clicking the mic button—once for “yes,” twice for “no.” Wiesbaden approach cleared us to hold one minute east of the Wiesbaden Beacon at 5000 feet. Click. A few minutes later I   heard approach say, “Willie Six, hold one minute east of  Wiesbaden Beacon at 5000.” 

I chopped the power, slammed the nose down and caught a glimpse of Willie Six as he passed about what looked to be 20 feet overhead. Just then the Wiesbaden controller gasped, “My God, I forgot Willie One!”         

The controller was a good friend of mine, but we had a few words that evening over a martini. In all fairness, at that stage, the operation was so disorganized and everyone was so overworked that mistakes were bound to happen. 

Flight crews flew around the clock, grabbing coffee and a sandwich while aircraft were serviced and reloaded. After about 36 hours on the job, we’d catch 12 hours sleep, hopefully a solid meal and start over. Controllers were just as overworked. 

Tunner Arrives

In the early weeks of the airlift, we learned our IFR skills on the go. By operating aircraft in blocks of the same type, airspeed conflicts were minimized.

But loading and maintenance problems gummed up the works. Eventually, many of these problems were overcome by moving everything but the Gooney Birds to other bases. Still, the total tonnage required to support Berlin fell short.   

Enter Gen. William H. Tunner. Tunner had made his reputation running the famed “Hump” in World War II, supplying China across the Himalayas. The man knew how to run an airlift. In a very short time, Tunner had things running smoothly.

A block of aircraft took off three minutes apart, flew to Tempelhof and landed three minutes apart. One corridor in, another out. If you missed the approach—pretty rare, actually—you simply climbed out, took the “out” corridor and went back to Wiesbaden. No delays. Maximum tonnage.         

Oh, the navigation equipment was still primitive and the airplanes stunk to high heaven of sour milk and coal dust, but things ran smoother. By then, most of us had become very proficient instrument pilots—we were alive to prove it—and could find our way to Berlin without much help.

I always tried to get the first aircraft in my block because it was usually loaded with milk and was assigned the lowest altitude. The milk came from Denmark in bottles similar to today’s one-liter Pepsi bottles.

At altitude, the milk tended to rise in the neck of the bottle and pop off the pressed-paper cap. Funny thing, on every trip, there always seemed to be two liters whose tops would pop at altitude and would be empty on arrival. Milk was hard to come by in Germany in 1948 and we all craved it.         

Although he was an organizational genius, Gen. Tunner couldn’t solve one problem: Tempelhof was a terrible airfield for an air-cargo operation.

Located in the center of Berlin, very near the East German boundary, it was small, more or less circular in shape and little more than 5000 feet in diameter.

The eastern side was taken up by terminal buildings, and there was a concrete taxi ramp 400 to 500 feet wide around the exterior boundary, which was a brick or concrete wall about five feet high. The surface was grass; no paved runways at first. Later, engineers built a proper runway.

Obviously, the German engineers had never foreseen the volume of traffic generated by an airlift. Landings were, of necessity, mostly to the east and takeoffs to the west, regardless of wind. 

Tunner brought over the C-54s and got them flying out of Rhein-Main, near Frankfurt. They had trouble with Tempelhof, which by now was heavily rutted. Those ruts were axle-deep to a C-47. Not at all good for aircraft with nosewheels. It was obvious that the 54s couldn’t operate off that rutted grass, so they built them a runway. Till the day I left, however, we C-47 pilots always used the grass or cheated off the taxi ramp. Hold the brakes. Set takeoff power.  Release brakes. Roll about 400 feet and pop half flaps. 

Stagger into the air and wallow out for the next three or four miles at V2, until you could safely milk up the flaps. It wasn’t real bright of us, but we had the only airplane that would allow us to do it. So we did.         

I’ve had the privilege of flying with many of the world’s best aviators. Any airline pilot does. But none of them were any better IFR pilots than that bunch of young C-47 pilots who carried the ball in those first few months of the Berlin Airlift.         

My logbook tells me that I flew 196 round trips to Berlin in 1948; right around 1000 hours. Since then, I have logged nearly 38,000 accident-free hours, 8000 of them in Gooney Birds, of either the C-47 or DC-3 persuasion. I’ve flown military jets and civilian airliners, some lovely aircraft and some real dogs. The softest spot in my heart, however, is reserved for the old girl that some wag at Carswell once christened “Hustler’s Mother.”

She came off the line at Douglas before most of today’s pilots were born and at airfields scattered around the globe, she’s flying still.  Long may she continue to do so. 

J.B. McLaughlin retired from the Air Force as a colonel in 1961.

Tempelhof GCA Best in the Business

Sidebar by Forrest Ott

I had been trained as a pilot during the war but when it ended, we were told we either had to learn another specialty or leave the service. That’s how I ended up as an air traffic controller at Tempelhof.

The way the Air Force was in those days—and the way the lift was—I did a lot of flying, too, and ended up as a C-54 commander by the end of the operation, even though I’d never flown a four-engine aircraft going in.

When the lift started, ATC was chaotic, to say the least. We were strictly non-radar; separation was entirely by time and pilot position report. Early in the lift, it became obvious that standard procedure wasn’t going to work.

I can recall one day shortly after the lift began that we had airplanes stacked up over Berlin to 10,000 feet, waiting for approach clearance. As activity increased, we would soon run out of sky.

Then someone in General Tunner’s staff figured it made more sense to have the airplanes commence a GCA when they arrived at Tempelhof then go back to Rhein-Main or Weisbaden if they had to miss the approach. It worked. After that, no more holding.

We got limited en route radar at Tempelhof in early 1949, so separation was done with radar, time and position reports. But sure wasn’t the sort of ATC we’re used to now.

Pilots announced time and position over a certain fix, say the Fulda beacon, and the pilot behind would know that he was supposed to be over the same fix three minutes later. If he were early, he would slow down, if late, he would speed up. ATC wouldn’t necessarily say a word.

Even with the en route radar at Tempelhof, we had no transponders. Fighters had IFF, but it returned identical codes so all of the targets looked the same. For radar identification, we had to issue turns.

To keep conflicts to a minimum, we would launch blocks of the same type of aircraft. They’d come as a block and go out as block. The altitudes involved were quite low. Since there was no terrain to speak of, we flew as low as 2000 feet, which was more efficient, since descending and climbing just took up time to no advantage. We reserved one altitude for C-54s on three engines. If one landed on three, it was going out on three, too. It was all fairly routine.

Tempelhof had GCA—ground controlled approach—from the start of the lift and it was used even in good weather, to stay proficient. It was a new system and although very few crews had flown it, they learned fast. They had to.

The minimums were nominally 200-and-a-half, same as modern ILS. But you really set your own. You got called a “senior smogger and fogger” when you got the reputation for landing in any kind of weather.  I clearly remember a night GCA into into Tempelhof between those apartment buildings in 1/8th-mile visibility. Those buildings were out there but I sure couldn’t see them. But we had confidence in the GCA operators. I thought it was the best approach aid ever invented. And to this day, I still do.

Forrest Ott was both a radar controller and pilot. He served as a pilot in Vietnam before retiring from the Air Force in 1971. He died in 2013.

This article and sidebar first appeared in the June 1998 issue of IFR magazine.

For more great content like this, subscribe to IFR!

Sponsor Announcement
ALT
Safelog — The Last Pilot E-Logbook You'll Ever Need!
Tens of thousands of pilots, from student pilots through senior captains, have come to make Safelog the world's most trusted e-logbook system. Access and update your pilot logbook on PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone, Android, and Web. Totals, currency, graphs, instant IACRA, signatures, photos, printouts, and more — all synchronizing seamlessly — mean your logbook is futureproof, safe, and always available. No-cost transition service for users of other e-logbook systems available. Get started now at Pilotlog.com or SafelogWeb.com today!
East River Accident: Luggage May Have Bumped Fuel Shutoff
 
AVweb Staff
 
 

The pilot of a helicopter that autorotated into New York's East River Sunday evening told investigators that one of the passenger's bags may have inadvertently bumped the emergency fuel shutoff. The AS350 reported engine failure before it autorotated into the river, appearing to touch down on skid-mounted floats. The pilot, 33-year-old Richard Vance, was the only survivor. Five passengers who had booked the aircraft for a photo flight were killed in the mishap.

CNN published dramatic footage and ATC audio of the mishap early Monday morning. It appears to show the aircraft touching down hard in the East River near Gracie Mansion. Although it remained upright briefly, the helicopter slowly rolled left and inverted. NYPD divers rushed to the scene but had difficulty freeing the passengers from their harnesses.

Sponsor Announcement
Request Your Complimentary Subscription to Avionics News || Aircraft Electronics Association
Request Your Complimentary Subscription to Avionics News
Thinking of an avionics upgrade? Wondering what the latest cockpit technologies are? What's new in the field of avionics and instrument systems? How do the aviation regulations affect how you operate and maintain your aircraft? You can find information on all of these topics by reading Avionics News, the monthly magazine of the Aircraft Electronics Association. And, best of all, it's a free publication for U.S. residents. Subscribe today by visiting AvionicsNews.net.
Voom Launches In Mexico City
 
Mary Grady
 
 

Voom, the urban helicopter service operated by Airbus, now has launched operations at a second site, Mexico City. Voom has been flying in Sao Paulo, Brazil, since last April. “We couldn’t be more excited to bring an urgently needed, alternative transportation option to Mexico City,” said Uma Subramanian, CEO of Voom. Mexico City was chosen because it’s one of the most congested cities in the world, with a population of 23.9 million, and significant helicopter infrastructure is already in place, the company said. The city has more than 200 helipads and a dedicated helicopter air traffic control system. “We are confident that Mexico City will be instrumental in defining the future of urban air mobility,” the company said, in a statement posted at the Voom website.

Voom said that in Mexico City, a trip by road from Montes Urales to the city’s international airport would take two hours during rush hour. The trip by helicopter takes eight minutes and would cost $134 in U.S. dollars. Reservations can be made up to seven days before a flight, or as little as 60 minutes before departure. More cities will be added later this year, Subramanian said. The Voom service was first developed by A^3, the technology incubator arm of Airbus in Silicon Valley. The effort has been seen as not only a way to better utilize helicopters in dense urban areas, but as a template for the development of on-demand, autonomous VTOL taxis that are being developed by A^3 and other companies.

Sponsor Announcement

Anatomy of a Spin || Available at AVwebBooks.com
Anatomy of a Spin
This book emphasizes NASA data on stalls and spins along with interviews with factory test pilots together with data from manufacturers. With extensive experience in both high-performance and general aviation aircraft, the author thoroughly explains why there is no "standard recovery" from a spin and so focuses on those common factors which effect any aircraft in any condition. For more information click or call 970 726-5111.
Anatomy of a Spin:

Book      $9.95
eBook    $5.95


For more information, call (970) 726-5111 or click here.
Joy Finnegan Joins AVweb as Editor-in-Chief
 
Paul Bertorelli
 
 

Effective with this week’s editions, longtime aviation journalist and editor Joy Finnegan joins the staff as editor-in-chief of AVweb. Prior to coming aboard, Finnegan has been—and will remain—editor of Aviation Maintenance Magazine and she served as editor at Rotor & Wing Magazine. She also has experience in the industry in contract administration, flight training and airline and charter flying.

In addition to her editing work, Finnegan has flown for a regional airline and has flight time in numerous piston and jet aircraft. She's an ATP-CFII. She will oversee AVweb’s expanding news coverage in general and business aviation.

“We’re happy to have Joy aboard as editor-in-chief,” said Tim Cole, AVweb’s editorial director and Belvoir Media Group’s editorial vice president. “She brings a rare mix of aviation and editorial experience that will serve our diverse readership well." Finnegan is based in Atlanta. Russ Niles will continue to edit Canadian Aviator and we wish him the best.

Sponsor Announcement
Subscribe to 'Aviation Consumer' and Take the Guesswork Out of Your Aviation Purchases
Take the Guesswork Out of Your Aviation Purchases with Aviation Consumer!
From new or used aircraft — in the market for a Diamond DA40 or Cirrus SR20? — to spark plugs and tip-tanks, Aviation Consumer will have you buying safer and smarter. Do you need a high-end GPS, or will a low-cost brand do? Premium tires: Are they a waste of money if you fly less than an hour a week? Polarized sunglasses: Not a wise decision? And you can trust Aviation Consumer for unbiased product reviews because they accept no advertising! Subscribe to Aviation Consumer today and start buying smarter! Click here for details.
Home Contact Advertise Help
Unsubscribe Manage Subscriptions Privacy Policy