Following the trend at other aviation trade shows, attendance at last week’s Aero exhibition was up slightly over the previous year, according to show organizers. And a record 757 exhibitors showed their wares at Friedrichshafen, up 7% over 2018.

While the weekly gate is a fraction of that at AirVenture or Sun ‘n Fun in the U.S., the show saw a 3% bump over 2018, with 32,100 passing through the gates during the four-day show. By contrast, AirVenture was up 2% in 2018, but on a total attendance of 601,000.

Aero manager Roland Bosch told AVweb during the show that U.S.-based companies were well represented at Aero, with major exhibitions by Cirrus, Garmin, Piper and the recently renamed Continental Aerospace Technologies. (Cirrus and Continental are owned by Chinese interests; Piper is owned by the Brunei government.)

Conspicuously absent for the second year in a row was Cessna’s giant stand. Bosch said that although Aero markets aggressively in the U.S., Textron Aviation—which owns both the Cessna and Beechcraft brands—declined to exhibit at Aero.

JH Aircraft, a German company, was showing a cool ultralight Corsair at Aero 2019 this week. It's made of carbon fiber, has a three-cylinder radial engine and meets the 120 kg microlight standard. AVweb's Paul Bertorelli got a look at it and shot this show video report.

At Aero in Friedrichshafen, Germany, a French company called Elixir was showing a unique two-seat airplane built of molded carbon fiber using technology to build racing boats. The idea is the airplane is both cheaper to manufacture and much cheaper to maintain because it has vastly fewer parts. AVweb's Paul Bertorelli shot this video summary of the project.

SpaceX’s first successful commercial mission came off almost without a hitch last week. Almost. Despite landing safely on a drone ship off the Florida coast, one of the three boosters was lost before it could return to dry land.

By design, the two outboard boosters returned safely to land, while the larger, center booster successfully touched down on an unmanned ship in the Atlantic. But high seas tumbled the booster from the platform before the assembly could reach dock. Normally, after a booster lands on the floating platform, it’s secured by the so-called Octagrabber. In this case, however, changes to the design of the Falcon 9 stage prevented its use. SpaceX says it will make modifications to the grabber so future missions will be able to employ it.

According to SpaceX, "Over the weekend, due to rough sea conditions, SpaceX's recovery team was unable to secure the center core booster for its return trip to Port Canaveral. As conditions worsened with 8- to 10-foot swells, the booster began to shift and ultimately was unable to remain upright. While we had hoped to bring the booster back intact, the safety of our team always takes precedence. We do not expect future missions to be impacted.”

On Twitter, Elon Musk said, cryptically, that the booster might not be a total loss. "Engines seem ok, pending inspection,” he said. Upgrades to the Falcon 9 rockets, which when bundled in threes are called Falcon Heavy, are said to make them reusable as many as 10 times with a modest amount of reworking between flights.

Three occupants survived the crash of a Cessna 172 into a Long Island suburb Sunday night, according to reports in the New York Post. The 1977 Cessna 172N was on a flight from Niagara Falls, New York, to Republic Airport in Farmingdale, New York. According to FlightAware.com, the Cessna took off at 5:12 p.m. and was flight-planned to land at FRG by 8:30.

According to reports, the aircraft was rented from a flight school at FRG by Dongl Kim, 27. Kim was returning to Republic but could not land in the fog. "They attempted to land at Republic Airport, they missed the runway four times, they were redirected into Kennedy, they missed the runway twice at Kennedy—as they came around, they ran out of fuel," police commissioner Patrick Ryder said.

The FlightAware track suggests the ill-fated 172 made three attempts at the Republic ILS RWY 14 approach before being sent westward to try again at JFK. The Cessna appears to have attempted one approach and then ran out of fuel on the second attempt at Kennedy. It had been airborne for a bit more than five hours.

Weather at Republic around the time of the approaches was 1/4-mile visibility in fog, ceiling variable at 200 feet. Kennedy wasn’t much better, and two airports to the east, Islip and Brookhaven, were both fogbound. The Cessna came down on Clarenden Drive in densely populated Valley Stream, New York, just 3 SM from JFK. No one on the ground was hurt and, as expected, there was no post-crash fire.

Details surrounding the crash on April 9 of a Japanese Air Self-Defense Force F-35A have been slow to emerge as a highly coordinated Japanese and American military rescue mission continues. Pieces of the aircraft have been located, but neither the pilot nor major portions of the Lockheed Martin fighter haven been found.

The Nikkei Asian Review is reporting that the rescue efforts represent an “unprecedented amount” of resources largely due to concerns that Russia or China might find the aircraft first and learn details of the aircraft’s defensive and offensive capabilities. U.S. and Japanese forces are working overtime to be the first to find the aircraft and pilot.

Meanwhile, the pilot has been identified as Maj. Akinori Hosomi. According to the Japanese ASDF, he had 3200 hours total time and 60 hours in the F-35A. His was part of a four-ship training mission on the evening of April 9. Not long into the sortie, Hosomi called off the training and then his aircraft disappeared from radar. The JASDF says that the aircraft did not send the automated distress signal that would normally follow use of the ejection system.

The F-35A is believed to have crashed in a part of the Pacific almost 5000 feet deep. The other 12 F-35As in JASDF inventory remain grounded.

The airshow season is about fast-moving, rapidly gyrating aircraft. For some, it’s about witnessing a watchmaker’s level of finesse required to land on a dime and stop in one fuselage length. That’s the audience for the new Sod Buster STOL Competition (Facebook link), to be launched this August at the Milaca, Minn., airport (18Y).

Starting Aug. 3, the event, organized by Jeff Pohl, will feature four categories of aircraft with an award ceremony coinciding with a pig roast. Pilots who want to test their mettle will pay $50 for the privilege, but spectators are admitted free of change. In fact, there are no tiedown or camping fees assessed. The pig roast will be extra and there will be an $8 breakfast available on Sunday morning “for all the eggs, bacon, sausage and pancakes anyone can eat.” Challenge accepted.

“The goal is to have a good time and to make this an annual event,” said Pohl. “We’re hoping we might attract some of the traffic departing EAA AirVenture, and we will be offering camping space starting on the 29th of July.” Pohl intends this to be the first of what will become an annual summertime event.

I’ve actually never bought a brand-new vehicle and my long-suffering wife will attest to the occasional discomfort and inconvenience that has resulted. Nevertheless, we’ve mostly been able to get where we wanted to go, do what we needed to do and do it safely and mostly reliably without ever having a car payment.

Among the long list of secondhand vehicles in our past is a 1984 Toyota BJ60 Landcruiser (diesel) that carried us faithfully through a particularly perilous period in our lives with the same grace and determination that it took for our family to power out of that difficult time.

I had it restored a couple of years ago, essentially out of gratitude, and discovered that time moves on. I haven’t put more than 500 miles on it since because I have newer vehicles now that are more comfortable and convenient. The Cruiser is noisy, slow and rides like it’s always going over railroad tracks. It’s worth a lot of money in its restored condition so why don’t I sell it?

There’s no really good reason but I can rationalize keeping it by knowing that if I put a couple of batteries in it, the Cruiser would take me to hell and back regardless of the circumstances. There is no tougher, more capable or reliable 4x4 on the planet, period.

In that previous dark time I drove it for a month without a functioning alternator because it doesn’t have an ignition system, computers or electric accessories. It doesn’t need an alternator to run. I just made sure I was home before dark, didn’t listen to the radio and charged the batteries overnight to provide power for starting it and running the turn signals and brake lights the next day.

Simplicity can be a virtue, if you're willing to negotiate on comfort, convenience and efficiency.

So, it makes me wonder if the Air Force has come to the realization that some of its best ideas happened 20, 30 or 50 years ago and that finding ways to exploit them in the modern context is a suitable adjunct to the truly marvelous technology that is flooding the leading edge of military aviation.

It also might be giving Boeing some pause as it layers more software on top of its already complex MAX 8 to deal with what is mainly an aerodynamic issue. The growing sentiment among Boeing diehards is that the company has shifted to an Airbus-like philosophy that lessens the intrinsic role of the human pilots.

As for USAF, the obvious example is the B-52. As we reported earlier, the BUFF will fly until at least 2050 and probably beyond. It seems likely there will be 100-year-old examples in service although the current retirement date would technically see the type out of service at a fresh-faced 88.

The first B-52s were equipped with a tail gunner position. The current B-52Hs are technology hubs with plenty of flexibility for improvement. The new engines that 76 of them will receive will give them better performance, cut maintenance and boost reliability (although anything less than four engine failures is not much of an issue).

At the bargain price of about $3 billion, including weapons and electronics upgrades, the USAF will get a modern fleet of subsonic, lunch bucket bombers that can obliterate life as we know it on Earth. Developing a new platform that could deliver that level of utter destruction would cost at least 100 times more and since the result would be the same, why bother?

There have been a couple of other examples of the aerial forces reaching back in time for modern-day support, notably the Navy’s resurrection of some legacy F/A-18 Hornets from desert storage while it waited for the F-35C.

Then there’s the continuously delayed retirement of the A-10, which can really only do one thing but does it better than anything else and comes in really handy when the circumstances dictate.

None, however, is more intriguing than the continued use of the F-117 Nighthawk.

As we recently reported, the original stealth fighter has allegedly gone back to the front lines in the Middle East and created some fresh mayhem over Syria. That unsubstantiated report is buttressed by well-documented sightings of Nighthawks tooling around the desert ranges of California, often in tandem with F-16s and F-35s.

Although it was officially retired 10 years ago, there are 52 flight-ready F-117s in storage in the desert and apparently four of them may have been dropping bombs in Syria in 2017.

It makes sense, if you think about it. Direct involvement by U.S. F-22s, which replaced the F-117, would be a major provocation in the delicate balance of military power in the region. But there are circumstances in which the off-the-books Nighthawk might be a viable option. After all, it was designed to evade the very Russian-supplied antiaircraft radars and fighters that Syria operates. And since all of the Nighthawk’s once top-secret capabilities have been thoroughly and publicly explored and revealed, losing an airframe in Syria would not be much of an intelligence blow compared to the loss of an F-22 or F-35.

We’ll likely never know officially if the F-117 was or is operational but I have to applaud the abstract thinking that created the plausible scenario of putting a 38-year-old uniquely capable machine back to work.

Makes me want to charge up the batteries and go for a ride in that 36-year-old Cruiser. You never know …

In a previous article on altimetry we discussed various matters that affect the accuracy of the barometric altimeter. The major factor being atmospheric pressure, and to compensate we dial the “altimeter setting” or QNH into the Kollsman window.

However, another factor typically ignored is the effect of temperature—perhaps because it’s less crucial compared to atmospheric pressure. Most of the time we can ignore temperature effects with two major exceptions: when calculating density altitude (discussed previously) and when conducting approaches to airports with very low temperatures. The “High to Low” limerick applies not only to pressure but to temperature. The concern is our AGL height during instrument approaches. How cold are we talking? Typically, from minus 10 degrees C (14 degrees F) to about minus 35 degrees C (minus 31 degrees F) or even less.

The Essentials

First let’s review the International Standard Atmosphere (ISA) in the accompanying table. This is a theoretical vertical profile of the atmosphere used as a reference for aircraft performance. A temperature is associated with different pressure altitudes (the higher the altitude, the lower the temperature) reflecting a lapse rate of approximately two degrees C per thousand feet.

Barometric altimeters are calibrated to ISA conditions. With sensitive altimeters, we can correct for non-standard atmospheric pressures through the altimeter setting. But we don’t correct for temperatures. As a result, the adjustment is to fly at a higher indicated altitude.

The diagram below shows that when the temperature is LESS than ISA, an aircraft will be LOWER than the indicated altitude. When colder, the airplane might be dangerously close to obstructions or terrain during approaches.

Airports requiring cold temperature corrections are identified on Aeronav approach charts with a snowflake icon and the critical temperature in the briefing section.

Jeppesen approach charts identify such airports with a text note. A temperature as cold or colder than the critical temperature requires corrections. About 230 airports are affected in the US, needless to say, most of these are found in Alaska (70)—and at higher elevations or in colder parts of the contiguous US (160). No one would be surprised that there are none in Florida.

The list of airports is found in Part 4, Section 1 General Section of the NTAP (Notices to Airman Publication)—issued every 28 days. It includes the ICAO airport identifier, the critical temperature and the affected segments: Intermediate, Final and Missed Approach. Most airports have only one affected segment, some two and a few have all three. There are frequent changes to this list. Also notice that the need for altitude corrections apply to the entire airport; therefore, all approaches would need altitude corrections if the temperature is below the published critical value.

Approach Segments

Let’s review the segments of an instrument approach:

The intermediate segment of an approach begins at the initial fix (IF) and ends at the final approach fix (FAF). If there is no IF, then the segment starts when aligned and inbound to the FAF.

The final approach segment starts at final approach fix or point (“Maltese cross” for non-precision approaches or glide slope intercept on an ILS or RNAV (GPS) approach to an LPV minimum) to the missed approach point (MAP).

The missed approach segment begins at the MAP or DA/DH to the missed approach fix—usually a fix defining a holding pattern and at a charted altitude.

Identification Of Airports

As an aircraft could be lower than indicated altitude (corrected for atmospheric pressure due to very cold temperatures) the airports were selected based on loss of Required Obstacle Clearance (ROC) in two approach segments. For the intermediate segment, the ROC altitude must be at least 500 feet above the highest elevation or man-made obstruction. The ROC altitude on the final approach segment varies from 250 to 350 feet depending on the type of approach. The analysis was only done for civilian airports with a minimum runway length of 2500 feet.

ATC Reporting Requirements

When flying an approach that requires cold temperature corrections, ATC needs to know the altitude that a pilot plans to fly on the intermediate and missed approach segments. This is necessary for proper separation if another aircraft is in the vicinity that is not applying the correction. There is no need to report the altitude during the final approach segment.

Temperature Corrections

Let’s review how adjustments to altitudes are made when the temperatures are below the critical temperature by looking at two airports.

My first choice is Northampton, Massachusetts (7B2), RNAV (GPS) RWY 14 because it has a low elevation (121 feet) and, the surrounding terrain is relatively flat even though there is a “small” mountain (Mount Tom 1034 feet MSL) only a few miles southeast of the field.

Only the intermediate segment is affected and, according to the “snow flake,” the critical temperature is minus 24 degrees C (minus 11 degrees F); on today’s hypothetical flight we face a minus 30 degrees C (minus 22 degrees F) temperature. The segment starts at SMUTZ (IF) and ends at EXBEB (FAF). There are no stepdown fixes between the IF and the FAF, otherwise the temperature corrections would also apply to these.

The Process

1. Determine the airport elevation: 121 feet MSL.
2. Locate the intermediate segment lowest altitude after SMUTZ: 2700 feet MSL at EXBEB (FAF).
3. Subtract the airport elevation from the segment altitude: 2700 minus 121 = 2579 feet (round up to 2600 feet) this, in effect, would be the AGL height.
4. Use the ICAO Cold Temperature Error Table. At minus 30 degrees C and 2600 feet (and interpolating the values between 2000 and 3000 feet) = 494 feet. Use 500 feet and add it to the FAF resulting in 3200 feet MSL at EXBEB. This also means staying at or above 3200 feet MSL after SMUTZ. After EXBEB, use the relevant published MDA altitudes.

One additional item is to advise ATC: “Require 3200 feet from SMUTZ to EXBEB for cold weather operations.” My second choice is Salmon, Idaho (KSMN), RNAV (GPS) RWY 17. This interesting airport has a high elevation and is located in a valley surrounded by tall mountains. Additionally, it’s one of the few airports that has all three segments requiring cold weather altitude corrections. Critical temperature is a balmy minus 11 degrees C (12 degrees F), and today we are shivering at minus 20 degrees C (minus four degrees F).

Intermediate Segment

1. Determine airport elevation: 4044 feet MSL.
2. Locate the intermediate segment lowest altitude after CASBA: 7100 feet MSL at BUTEO (FAF).
3. Subtract the airport elevation from the segment altitude: 7100 minus 4044 = 3056 feet (round up to 3100 feet) this would be the AGL height.
4. Use the ICAO Cold Temperature Error Table. At minus 20 degrees C and 3100 feet (and interpolating the values between 3000 and 4000 feet) = 435 feet. Add it to the FAF resulting in 7535 (or 7540) feet MSL at BUTEO and 8035 (or 8040) feet MSL at the step down fix DIVDE. This also implies maintaining at least 8040 feet MSL until DIVDE and 7540 feet MSL to BUTEO.

Final Approach Segment

1. Determine airport elevation: 4044 feet MSL.
2. Locate the final approach segment altitude (MDA): 5740 feet MSL.
3. Subtract the airport elevation from the segment altitude: 5740 minus 4044 = 1696 feet (round up to 1700 feet).
4. Use the ICAO Cold Temperature Error Table. At minus 20 degrees C and 1700 feet (and interpolating the values between 1500 and 2000 feet) = 238 feet. Add it to the MDA resulting in a new MDA of 5978 (or 5980) feet MSL.

Missed Approach Segment

1. Determine the airport elevation: 4044 feet MSL.
2. Locate missed approach segment altitude = 13,600 feet MSL (at ORELE missed approach fix).
3. Subtract airport elevation from segment: 13,600 minus 4044 = 9556 feet (round up to 9600 feet.
4. Use the ICAO Cold Temperature Error Table at 20 degrees C and use the value at 5000 feet = 710 feet. Add it to the original altitude at ORELE resulting in a new holding altitude of 14310 feet MSL.

Note, we can ignore intermediate fixes on the missed approach segment when making corrections as only the final approach fix is considered in the ROC analysis.

Finally, we need to inform ATC: “Require 7540 feet to BUTEO and final holding altitude 14310 feet for cold temperature operations.” There is no requirement to make a report to ATC of altitude requirements on the final approach segment.

Additional Considerations

ICAO has had the procedures for CTRA for years; but it’s only recently that the FAA adopted these procedures. So they are relatively new.

Since electronic glide-slopes are not affected by pressure nor temperature, if flying an approach with a glide-slope (ILS or an RNAV (GPS) approach flown to LPV minimum) just follow the glide-slope since it will be providing reliable guidance. However, the corrected DA must be used for the MAP.

The calculations are not that difficult to do but you might not want to do them in flight right before the approach. During the flight planning phase, pre-calculate the values assuming a worse case temperature (lower) because the resulting values will be more conservative. Remember TAFs don’t forecast temperatures.

If it’s that cold, do you really need to fly? Keep in mind that very cold temperatures have other consequences such as engine starting and off-airport emergency landings. Maybe canceling the flight is a better choice.

I’d like to hear from pilots who have flown to CTRA when the temperature was cold enough to require altitude adjustments.

Back to Part 1

Luca Bencini-Tibo ATP/CFII, is a FAASTeam Lead Rep, aircraft owner and is a graduate of MIT.

This article originally appeared in the December 2018 issue of IFR Refresher magazine.

For more great content like this, subscribe to IFR Refresher!

AVweb’s General Aviation Accident Bulletin is taken from the pages of our sister publication, Aviation Safety magazine. All the reports listed here are preliminary and include only initial factual findings about crashes. You can learn more about the final probable cause on the NTSB’s website at www.ntsb.gov. Final reports appear about a year after the accident, although some take longer. Find out more about Aviation Safety at www.aviationsafetymagazine.com.

January 2, 2019, Sacramento, Calif.

Progressive Aerodyne SeaRey LSA

The amphibian nosed over and became partially submerged during a water landing. The private pilot received minor injuries; the passenger succumbed to injuries 14 days after the accident. The airplane was substantially damaged. Visual conditions prevailed.

The pilot reported that, after departure, another airplane distracted his attention and he forgot to retract the landing gear. It was not until the airplane was just about to touch down on the river that he realized that the landing gear was still extended. When the airplane touched down, it immediately nosed down and partially submerged.

January 3, 2019, Wilkes-Barre, Penn.

Piper PA-24-250 Comanche 250

At 1600 Eastern time, the airplane sustained substantial damage during a forced landing to a field while on approach to land. The commercial pilot and the flight instructor were not injured. Visual conditions prevailed.

The landing gear did not fully extend; the gear handle was “stuck” mid-extension and would not retract. The emergency extension handle would not release. About this point, the engine failed to produce power. Unable to glide to the runway, the pilot made a forced landing on a soccer field. The airplane struck a ditch, damaging the airframe and an engine mount.

January 6, 2019, Flint, Mich.

Cessna T210 Turbo Centurion

The pilot experienced an unsafe landing gear indication and landed with the gear partially extended at about 1640 Eastern time. The private pilot and three passengers were not injured, but the airplane sustained substantial damage. Visual conditions prevailed.

Upon raising the landing gear after takeoff, the gear motor continued to operate longer than normal, and the pilot heard an abnormal sound toward the end of the sequence. The right main gear was hanging at about a 45-degree angle, and the left main gear was not visible. The pilot completed the appropriate checklists, without change. The pilot declared an emergency and ATC confirmed during a fly-by that the main gear was not extended. During the landing, the nose gear remained extended and the two main gear were retracted. The airplane came to rest on the runway and the passengers egressed without further incident.

January 7, 2019, Soddy-Daisy, Tenn.

Bellanca 17-30A Super Viking

At about 1334 Eastern time, the airplane was substantially damaged when it impacted a lake while maneuvering. The commercial pilot and passenger were fatally injured. Visual conditions prevailed.

A witness observed the airplane appear to perform “a tight U-turn” about two or three treetop heights above the water surface. The airplane then spiraled straight down counterclockwise and impacted the lake.

January 7, 2019, Colusa, Calif.

Beechcraft A36 Bonanza

The airplane collided with terrain at about 1050 Pacific time, two miles south of its departure airport. The private pilot and passenger aboard were fatally injured. The airplane was destroyed. Instrument conditions existed in the area; an IFR flight plan had been filed.

A witness saw the airplane taxi out and heard its pilot on the CTAF. The witness estimated the cloud ceiling was about 500 feet and visibility was about one mile. Preliminary data indicate the airplane departed to the southwest and climbed through about 1000 feet MSL when a right turn was followed by a rapid descent until radar contact was lost.

January 12, 2019, Uvalde, Texas

Canadair CL 600 2A12

At about 1130 Central time, the Challenger 601 business jet impacted terrain following a runway excursion while landing at a private airstrip. The airline transport pilot, first officer, flight attendant and six passengers were not injured. The airplane sustained substantial damage. Visual conditions prevailed.

According to an airport representative, the airplane landed hard and a tire either popped or the landing gear tore off. The airplane slid off the runway’s right side, proceeded through a ditch and struck a perimeter fence before coming to a stop. The right main and nose landing gear had collapsed and were damaged. Additional damage included the right wing, right inboard flap, nose and vertical stabilizer.

January 13, 2019, Salem, S.D.

Piper PA-28-181 Archer II/III

The airplane impacted terrain at about 1425 Central time. The solo private pilot was fatally injured; the airplane was substantially damaged. Visual conditions prevailed.

While en route, the instrument-rated pilot reported to ATC that he was having chest pains and was blacking out. The controller tried to get the pilot to land anywhere but lost contact with the airplane. The 69-year-old pilot’s third-class medical certificate was dated October 5, 2016. Weather at the nearby departure airport included wind from 200 degrees at 13 knots, 10 miles of visibility and an overcast at 1500 feet. The temperature was 1 degree C; dew point -3 degrees.

This article originally appeared in the April 2019 issue of Aviation Safety magazine.

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