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

  • Text size:

    • A
    • A
    • A

Political momentum is gathering against the proposal to fundamentally change the way the federal government funds and administers the National Airspace System. A week after two influential Republican congressmen categorically stated that no new user fees would be accepted to fund a privatized system, two Democratic members are joining a grassroots liberal movement  to end the whole privatization debate. In a statement released Tuesday, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) said they were joining an online petition that has gathered 130,000 names to stop the privatization bid. "An FAA reauthorization bill that includes severing and privatizing Air Traffic Control has not emerged, but, as petitions submitted today from the public demonstrate, the long suspense has understandably fed fears for public safety, loss and downgrading of middle class jobs, and increased costs passed on to passengers — unacceptable tradeoffs," Norton said in a statement quoted by The Hill.  A week before, Republican GA advocates Rep. Sam Graves (R-MO) and Rep. Todd Rokita (R-IN) wrote an opinion piece in the The Hill that suggests they've heard the aviation industry's concerns about "per-flight" user fees clearly.

In the article, the congressmen say they're in favor of kicking the table over on the current system but not if it hurts GA. "We have stood front and center in the fight against per-flight user fees on general aviation," they wrote. "That position remains unchanged, and we would not even entertain this transition discussion if we found out it would harm the general aviation community. Ultimately, we want to ensure that these aviators reap the benefits of a modern, efficient air traffic control system." The system they envision is a "user-funded, user-governed, not-for-profit organization, all in a manner that protects the small aircraft operators and private pilots who use the system." The debate is ramping up as the deadline to pass a reauthorization bill for the FAA looms on March 31.

Sponsor Announcement
AEA Pilots Guide to Avionics || Aircraft Electronics Association
Request Your 2015-16 Pilot's Guide to Avionics
The 2015-16 edition of the Aircraft Electronics Association's Pilot's Guide to Avionics is now available. The publication is a consumer's directory loaded with educational articles about the avionics industry, its products, and its people, which helps pilots and aircraft owners make better buying decisions and locate nearly 1,300 AEA member companies, including government-certified repair stations around the world. To request a complimentary copy, visit

Cape Air, one of the biggest independent regional airlines in the U.S., has cut another route, citing a shortage of pilots. The airline, which cancelled a route in Montana last week, will no longer fly from the Providence, Rhode Island, airport to Block Island, a popular vacation destination about 40 miles away. Trish Lorino, a spokesperson for Cape Air, told AVweb this week the airline doesn't expect to cut any more routes, and has a "robust training program … with enough pilots in the pipeline" to keep its airplanes flying. Some pilots have volunteered to fly extra routes, and the airline also is continuing to actively recruit new pilots, including retired airline pilots, she said. "All of the requirements for new pilots are posted on our website," she added. Cape Air hopes to revive the Providence-to-Block Island route next year, Lorino said. 

New FAA rules that took effect in 2014, requiring at least 1,000 hours instead of 250 for an ATP, have led to complaints from some airlines that it's harder to find qualified pilots. Lorino said the airline would need 155 pilots to serve all of its usual routes but only has 100. The Rhode Island Airport Corporation has reached out to New England Airlines, which operates flights to Block Island out of Westerly, to cover the route from Providence for this summer. Without the Block Island service, vacationers flying into Providence would have to drive about 30 miles to catch a ferry or to reach the Westerly airport. Cape Air flies a fleet of 83 twin-engine Cessna 402s, four Britten-Norman Islanders, two Cessna Caravan amphibians and two ATR turboprops.

Sponsor Announcement
The Very Best iPad Mounting System || 5 Years of Forward Thinking
The Very Best iPad Mounting System
In 2010, we introduced the first mounting system designed from the ground up to recognize that pilots' needs had changed. Today, MyGoFlight's industry-leading mounting systems for aviation are being used by more pilots flying with iPads than anyone else. All mounts are pilot-installable and can be semi-permanently or permanently mounted into place. Crafted from aviation-grade poly-carbonate, aluminum, and stainless steel, they are strong, lightweight, and have a solid feel. For more information, click here.

Aernnova, an aircraft-components manufacturer based in Spain, will collaborate with Spike in its project to develop a supersonic business jet, the two companies have announced. The partnership will accelerate Spike's engineering efforts, the companies said, by adding Aernnova's expertise in structural analysis to the project. Aernnova has over 4,300 employees in eight countries, including the U.S. The staff includes more than 1,000 engineers, who provide engineering services to aerospace manufacturers. "Aernnova will play an important role," said Tom Langer, Spike's senior engineer. Aernnova's experts "will help our engineering team optimize [the jet's] design, minimize loads, and reduce weight." These loads are compounded at high angles of attack or during turns, the company said.

Spike Aerospace, based in Boston, was launched in 2011, and employs a team of more than 40 senior aerospace engineers. The company says its S-512 design will fly 500 mph faster than any other civilian aircraft. The program is competing with Aerion, based in Reno, Nevada, which has teamed up with Airbus. Aerion officials said in November they were looking for a U.S. site to build a manufacturing facility to produce copies of their supersonic business-jet design.

Sponsor Announcement
Not All ADS-B Systems Are Created Equal || Buy Blue - Find Your Rangr Solution at

New technology in the works could make winter weather easier for pilots to bear, with one project seeking to make airport surfaces ice-free, and another aiming to keep ice off airplane wings. At the University of Nebraska, Lincoln campus, civil engineer Chris Tuan and his research team are testing a mix of steel shavings and carbon particles that are added to concrete surfaces, which then are electrified to prevent the buildup of ice. The modified concrete carries just enough electrical current to melt ice while remaining safe to the touch, according to the university. Field testing has found the material is effective in keeping bridges ice-free, and the FAA now is sponsoring this winter's research. If the results are good, the FAA plans to test the technology at a major U.S. airport, Tuan said. The FAA's first priority, he added, is not to keep runways clear, but to eliminate ice and snow around the airplane gates and loading areas.

At Virginia Tech, researchers are working to prevent the accumulation of frost on airplane surfaces. Using a technique called photolithography, engineer Jonathan Boreyko and his team have developed patterned surfaces that repel water, preventing the spread of frost. The patterns were inspired by the shell of the Namib Desert Beetle, Boreyko said. The insect has a bumpy shell that collects moisture, which then is directed down smooth channels into the insect's mouth. "I appreciate the irony of how an insect that lives in a hot, dry desert inspired us to make a discovery about frost," Boreyko said. "The main takeaway from the Desert Beetle is we can control where dew drops grow. When the dots are spaced far enough apart and one of the drops freezes into ice, the ice is no longer able to spread frost to the neighboring drops because they are too far away. Instead, the drops actually evaporate completely, creating a dry zone."


The new KC-46 tanker reached a milestone on Sunday when it completed its first aerial refueling, the U.S. Air Force has announced. The flight took place from Boeing Field, in Seattle. The crew transferred 1,600 pounds of fuel to an F-16. The new tanker uses a remote-vision system to operate the boom, instead of visual contact. The operator is stationed just behind the flight deck and maneuvers in reference to 3-D images provided by panoramic cameras with a 185-degree horizontal field of view. The new tanker also has other advanced systems that make the challenging aerial-refueling process easier for crews.

"Fuel management during aerial refueling is highly automated and the crew does not have to manually maintain aircraft center of gravity or manage fuel offload rate during fuel transfer," said KC-46 test pilot Lt. Col. Daryl Corneille. The new tanker also has more refueling capacity, improved efficiency and increased capabilities for cargo and aeromedical evacuation compared to the current design, which is more than 50 years old. The new tanker will provide aerial refueling support to the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps, as well as allied nation coalition aircraft, the USAF said. The airplane first flew last September.

Sponsor Announcement
Over 24,000 Happy GAMIjectors® Customers Can't Be Wrong!
GAMIjectors® have given these aircraft owners reduced cylinder head temperatures, reduced fuel consumption, and smoother engine operation. GAMIjectors® alter the fuel/air ratio in each cylinder so that each cylinder operates with a much more uniform fuel/air ratio than occurs with any other factory set of injectors. To speak to a GAMI engineer, call (888) FLY-GAMI, or go online for complete engineering details.

At every show we attend, we see more aircraft applications for lithium ion batteries, although some safety concerns related to thermal protection remain a worry. At the U.S. Sport Aviation Expo in Sebring this week, Reg Nicosan of Earth-X, a major lithium ion manufacturer, gave AVweb an update on the state of the lithium ion market.

Nicosan said that although lithium ion batteries still cost more than twice as much as equivalent capacity lead acid batteries, they're also much lighter and more durable, lasting for years through thousands of charging cycles. In this podcast recorded at Sebring this week, Nicosan said within five year or so, lithium ion batteries for certified airplanes are likely to be a reality. In addition to lighter weight and better durability, these batteries will also offer much higher cranking capacity.

Sponsor Announcement
'Flying the Cessna 210: The Secrets Unlocked' by Chuck McGill || Available at
Flying the Cessna 210
This primer on the Cessna 210, including turbo and pressurized models, is dedicated to mastering the art of this complex airplane. While offering some background, the book focuses instead on systems and operations. Its 11 chapters and appendix offer insight into operational issues during preflight, taxi, takeoff, climb, cruise, descent, and landing unique to each model.
Flying the Cessna 210: The Secrets Unlocked
book or e-book $ 44.95
book/e-book bundle $ 53.95

For more information, call (970) 726-5111 or click here.
AVweb landed on the World Wide Web in 1995. Since then, we've amassed a huge archive of advice, analysis and inspiration. Travel back with us for a look at a classic article from AVweb's past.

Want more? Visit our advanced search page and enter a topic that interests you. You may be surprised at what you discover.

The Pilots LoungeI was sitting in one of the big chairs here in the pilot's lounge at the virtual airport when I read that the president, on June 6, 2002, had signed an executive order dictating that air traffic control is no longer an inherently federal function. That act was a significant procedural step toward imposition of one of the worst ideas that has been rattling around Washington, D.C., for over two decades: a fee-based, private ATC system in this country. The current administration, as with prior ones from both parties, claims that the federal budget will somehow look better, or the administration will be more ideologically pure (actually, I can't recall which excuse is currently in vogue — go ahead and pick one), if we let a private company run our ATC system. Apart from the fact that political ideology has no place in air safety, and that having to add the expense of a profitable return on capital to an existing system and then pay for a layer of FAA oversight on top of it all is fiscal foolishness, no one has yet addressed the lunacy of a fee-based ATC from the perspective of its true cost: more dead pilots and passengers.

Fine Tune The FAA's Involvement, Don't Toss It Out

I've been critical of the FAA in the past and will be in the future. It has serious internal management problems and has been notoriously unwilling to rid itself of its incompetent employees. Nevertheless, it has created the very best and safest ATC system in the world. No other country even comes remotely close to handling the level of traffic that is handled by the FAA. Don't believe me? Go spend some time flying IFR in some other countries and then let's talk. Oh, and don't forget to pay the bills you get for the "service" you receive in some of those countries. FAA controllers safely handle tens of thousands of aircraft daily in spite of obsolescent computer systems, fumbling managers, personnel shortages, and various other aches and pains. The important thing is not to confuse constructive criticism of the very best system in the world with some sophomoric desire to tear it down and toss it out.

Not only do we currently have a system that is head and shoulders above anywhere else, we largely finance it through the tax we pay on aviation fuel. It's about the most egalitarian method conceivable. If you send a document via one of the overnight services, the carrier pays a tax on the fuel it uses and passes that cost on to you. Thus, you pay your share of the cost of ATC, as well as for the pavement on which the airplane taxies and the ILS it uses to shoot the approach. If you fly an airplane, the tax you pay on avgas pays for the flight following you get en route or the other conversations you have with controllers.

Remember that day you had a bit of a panic because you smelled fuel in the cockpit and decided to divert into the larger airport nearby because that's where the fire trucks live? The avgas tax you've been paying paid for the controller that acted fast, spoke clearly and calmly when you were more than a little nervous, aimed you at an airport lost in the haze, and gave you priority to land.

Think for a moment. You were a little hesitant to make that call to ATC to start with, right? You weren't really sure what you were experiencing was enough of a problem to warrant admitting over the radio, were you? Didn't want to draw attention to yourself, did you? You worried about paperwork if you got priority handling (and discovered that there is none)? But you called. The pertinent question is: Would you have called if you knew that you would be billed for that conversation? You just hesitated a moment while you thought about the question, didn't you? It tossed another variable into a decision-making equation that shouldn't be there, didn't it?

Pssst, Hey, Buddy. Wanna Buy Some Time With ATC?

Air Traffic ControllerPrivatization would still give us the pleasure of paying a tax on avgas to help pay for ATC, airport improvements, navaids, and so forth. However, if one recalls Economics 101 (and the way costs shot up in the countries that have privatized ATC), the cost of having a natural monopoly run by a for-profit company is higher than one that does not have to pay a return on capital. (There is no truth to the rumor that both airplanes in the UK were in the air simultaneously in February, thus causing the current, serious monetary shortfall its privatized system is facing.) Then, surprise, surprise, on top of the cost of controllers, computers, radios, and return on investment, we will also have to pay for a layer of FAA oversight on the private company (and if that supervision is lax ... well, remember Enron and the price of electricity?), so the cost gets higher still. We get all this without any increase in the level of safety whatsoever, just a different structure for the system. Like it so far? In return for a new system, we will then have the distinct joy and privilege of paying a fee every time we talk with a controller. For any reason. You want flight following? You'll get a bill. Weather a little questionable, so an IFR flight plan might be a good idea? You'll pay just to file it, more if you actually use it. Want to get an instrument rating? Tack on the cost of every practice approach you shoot while talking with a controller.

Extortionists have gone to prison for less.

The Sneak Attack

In the past, presidents of both political persuasions have stood up for what they believed with regard to ATC (whether we the people agreed with it or not), and publicly sent proposals to Congress to privatize the system. Congress repeatedly did its homework and went about vigorously, and sensibly, shooting the proposals down. The direct, honest approach has not worked, so our current president skulked around to a back door technique (in the words of a critic of the use of an executive order by the previous president), used by presidents of both parties to jam an idea that will not stand public scrutiny down our collective throats. He signed an executive order redefining the rules of the game rather than let it be debated publicly. The basic concept of privatization of ATC is unpalatable; the method used to serve the dish to us in the aviation community showed questionable character on the part of a person who ran on a platform of honorable behavior. Perhaps he assumed that, because most pilots are politically conservative, he could get away with the executive-order approach.

Why A Bad Idea Won't Go Away
U.S. Capitol

The privatization of ATC is a prime example of the "inside the Beltway" system in action. It started when one of the presidential administrations, somewhere back in the last century, hired a bunch of just-out-of-school MBAs and law-school grads, educated beyond their intellect, as political interns. The shiny young kids were assigned the task of writing up a program that could be molded to look like it fit the ideology of the party in power, despite the fact that it actually just allowed a very large contract to be awarded to the appropriate major campaign donor. The young geniuses had no experience in the real world that would allow them to gauge the effect of their drafting, nor were they assigned to see how it would affect the average man or woman trying to make a living and have a decent quality of life. A proposal for a fee-based privatized ATC system emerged and has been trotted over to Congress annually, ever since.

If you are not convinced that ATC privatization is not just a method of awarding a juicy contract to the appropriate administration good boy, and you really believe that it is truly a more politically pure way to run the system (you probably still clap for Tinkerbell), take a look at the fact that this plum has been pursued by the last several presidents, whether Democratic or Republican. Look, I lived several years in Chicago, which probably isn't any more corrupt than any other major city — it's just more open about it. After a healthy dose of Chicago politics, one catches on that big programs are never about political beliefs: They are about who gets the juicy contracts. The fact that we citizens will have to pay more for airline tickets, air freight, and flying little airplanes when ATC is privatized is not significant to those administration officials inside the Beltway. Their overriding concern is to use their political clout to give a big contract to the company that will then provide them enough money to stay in a position of power.

For those of us doing our level best to fly safely within our budgets, it has been fortunate, in a way, that ATC privatization is a matter of who gets a contract worth billions; it hasn't been implemented, because both parties want it, and neither has had the political muscle necessary to give it to its chosen Sugar Daddy. On the downside, it means a stupid, expensive idea hasn't gone away.

Heretofore, the argument against privatization made by those seeking to keep it out of the administration's hands (whether Republican or Democratic) has been based solely on economics, even though it is absolutely correct: fee-based, privatized ATC is expensive, inefficient, and wasteful. But because no one really wants a package this big killed, the economic argument is the only one wheeled out each time the issue is debated. It's time for both parties to face up to the real reason privatization of ATC has to be stopped: It ignores the realities of human behavior, and will therefore kill people.

We In Aviation Are Frustratingly (To The Politicians) Independent
VFR Flight

As anyone who has done any foreign travel or gotten to know people from other countries will attest, Americans are far more independent and far less willing to blindly follow government fiat than the citizens of any other country. We have an interesting tendency to say we love our country and hate our government, because the sentiment can be so true. More than anyone in the world, we tend to be defiantly self-reliant: an attitude largely responsible for propelling us to world-power status. We see this reflected in the percentage of Americans, as opposed to the citizens of other countries, who enter the world of general aviation, a world that requires independent decision-making. The decision to fly is a reflection of our propensity to make individual decisions and to let others do so as well, with a relative lack of outside interference.

We Americans fly for pleasure, for travel, for business, and to make a living, at a higher rate than any other country, and have far fewer restrictions on doing so. We aggressively defend our constitutional right to travel, and we do our best to do that travel by air. We don't like riding aerial buses. We want control of our destiny, so we fly ourselves. We are a recalcitrant lot, standing up for (and voicing) what we perceive to be our rights. We form user organizations to make our voices heard. We also complain about the spiraling costs of flying, and do our best to keep them down. We pay a hundred bucks to rent an airplane for an hour, and go nuclear over a $3 landing fee when we do not see a justification for it, because we know that if we do not speak up, the fee may be $15 next time, and because we have watched that pattern evolve in Europe.

Because of our independence, we Americans are also more willing than any others to break rules with which we strongly disagree. Remember the 55-mph national speed limit? We question authority when it imposes irrational rules upon us. Sometimes our questions reveal that an emperor has no clothes. We tend not to respect governmental action that increases our costs without a corresponding benefit.

As pilots, we are trained to respect the Federal Aviation Regulations, partially because we learn that the vast majority of them are pretty much common-sense safety rules. We have heard the disturbing statement that each FAR came about because of a dead pilot. Yet we still retain a healthy skepticism and do not respect a rule just because it is a number in a book: We do so because we have made our own decisions regarding its value. After all, we know that each rule was written by a mortal who may or may not have the aviation knowledge and experience we do. For example, alcohol plays a role in fully half of serious automobile and boat accidents, yet it shows up in a miniscule fraction of aircraft accidents. That isn't because the FAA requires eight hours of abstinence from the bottle before venturing aloft; it is because we know that the mandated time may not be nearly enough for alcohol to leave our systems, so we tend to allow a much longer period.

Pilots Make Rational, Level-Of-Safety Decisions Every Day

We pilots constantly make personal decisions regarding safety. We generally buy the level of safety we can afford. We pay for needed maintenance on our airplanes, install standby vacuum pumps and other redundancies, and carry handheld navcoms. While we know we would be much safer flying turbine-powered airplanes than piston, few of us can afford to do so, and therefore we plan appropriately for piston operations. We routinely decide that what we can afford to buy in the way of safety equipment is adequate to allow us to conduct our flights at an acceptable level of risk. We also routinely cancel proposed flights because we cannot afford to use an airplane with, say, icing protection, needed to fly in conditions that exist on a particular day.

Human Factors and Fee-Based ATC

Because we analyze risk versus benefit, if we are forced to pay to use ATC services, we are going to use the system less, automatically decreasing the overall level of safety. We will avoid filing flight plans when we do not see their value, and no amount of preaching will change our minds. We will be even less willing to call ATC in an emergency (we are loathe to declare an emergency now, for crying out loud), and even fewer of us than now will call ATC when things are merely uncertain. There is plenty of accident data to show that people have died because pilots didn't ask for help under the current system. Adding a user fee is not going to improve the situation, it will add a money factor to the natural hesitation to call for assistance, which means an additional percentage will die. Is that worth the price of awarding a big contract to a political crony?

Fewer Instrument Ratings — More Accidents
IFR Flight

Over the years we have learned that the process of upgrading knowledge, skills, and judgment when obtaining an instrument rating means that a pilot is less likely to be involved in an accident. Sure, an instrument rating is not for everyone, but even the insurance companies have recognized the benefit and offer lower rates to pilots who have demonstrated the ability to acquire the rating. The training involves a lot of communication with ATC. Having to pay for each of those instrument approaches, holding patterns, vectors, and missed approaches will jack the cost of the rating up nicely. That increase in cost is what economists would refer to as the "marginal cost." Every economist in the world will agree that when the marginal cost of doing something goes up, fewer people will do that thing. (Okay, there are some oddball exceptions: In the '60s, one of the lower-quality bourbons doubled its price and its sales shot up because people thought that a higher price meant higher quality.) A jump in the cost of the instrument rating means a certain percentage of pilots who would otherwise get the rating will not do so. Because of that, some of them will die in aircraft accidents who would otherwise have lived to a ripe old age.

We cannot prove which accidents will or will not happen, but a jump in the price of getting an instrument rating beyond normal inflation means that more pilots, and their passengers, will die because they made an economic decision forced on them by a politician who wanted to change a system that worked just fine.

Flight Following Today, Captain? Nah

ATC privatization means you will get a bill when you call approach control or center to get flight following on a pleasant VFR day. Will you make that call? A certain percentage of those who do so now will stop. They will rationally decide for themselves that the artificial cost imposed by a politician is not worth the benefit. Of those, some, along with their passengers, will die in midair collisions that would have been prevented by flight following. Is any one of those deaths worth the price of the privatization contract?

Filing IFR Today, Captain? Here's Your Bill

If the weather is at that "maybe go IFR — maybe go VFR" level where you would normally just file an IFR flight plan because it is less hassle than struggling along in marginal VFR, will you go VFR because of a politically generated fee? Human behavior says that a certain percentage of those decisions will be swayed to the side of going VFR. Yes, we know that the greatest risk to pilots is trying to fly VFR into IMC, yet despite training and more training, we continue to do it. The FAA knows that right now going IFR is a very good addition to one's level of safety in marginal VFR weather. The FAA also knows that when IFR flight plans cost money, more pilots will chose to go VFR, and more people will die. But the FAA cannot speak out against its political boss, who is for privatization. Isn't politics fun when an agency charged with improving aviation safety has a gag order on it on a topic involving safety?

The examples above show that ATC privatization means people are going to die because honest, legal decisions will become adversely affected by an artificial cost, politically imposed on the normal risk-vs.-benefit analysis made by individual pilots. The pilots are not stupid. They do not have death wishes. User-fee ATC privatization puts another variable into the equation that should not be there, especially when we have a perfectly workable method of funding a good ATC system through the avgas tax.

Fee-Based ATC Makes The Rogue Pilot More Dangerous
ATC Radar Screen

There is a darker side to this issue and it needs to be faced squarely. It became apparent when the controllers were fired after the strike in the 1980s. For a period of time, the system was so short-handed it could not come close to handling the IFR demand, so it was necessary to obtain a reservation and a slot to fly IFR. As I've written about before, there are a certain percentage of rogues, those who have little or no respect for the rules and mores of their society, in any group of people. (Over the years I've come to believe that aviation has a lower percentage of such lowlifes than the population as a whole, because the training involved in obtaining a certificate does serve to keep a certain amount of the riffraff out.) After the controllers were fired, some rogue pilots, upon being unable to get an IFR reservation, went ahead and flew in IMC without talking to anyone and without turning on their transponders. Over beers, the working controllers would break a sweat when they talked about the occasional primary target on their screen in an area where they knew the cloud tops were high and the bases were down to the deck. I looked at an accident in which a twin crashed short of the runway, in fog, killing all aboard. The pilot wasn't talking to anyone. The altimeter was still set correctly for the departure airport, but was well off for the low pressure existing at the destination. It indicated very nearly the minimum descent altitude for the approach to that airport.

During the hysteria following the Cerritos, California midair between the Cherokee and the DC-9 in the LAX TCA (now Class B airspace), the FAA enlarged the LAX TCA and took away the VFR corridors through it. Then controllers quit issuing clearances for VFR airplanes to enter the TCA. The alternative was a nearly 80-mile slog around the monster to get from one side of L.A. to the other. Faced with such bureaucratic stupidity, some rogues simply turned off their transponders and flew through the TCA anyway.

Because we know what rogue pilots have done in the past, making the decision to set up a fee-based ATC system means that the rogues are going to fly in IMC without talking to anyone rather than pay the fee. While we can predict that it will not be very many, it's a safe prediction that some of them are going to kill people as a result. It's an ugly reality, but it has to be faced.

And no, the solution to the fact we are willing to recognize a problem with rogue pilots is not to ground all general aviation and impose fee-based ATC just because they exist. It is to honestly recognize that a fee-based ATC enhances an existing problem and factor it into the process of deciding whether to tear down the current system. The predictable behavior of rogues is merely one more factor that militates against privatization.

The Administration's "Fix" Is Worse Than The Problem

Why change a system that works pretty well? A simple lack of perfection is never reason to abandon a system. There is no need to use a meat axe to deal with the current challenges facing our ATC system. The system is not failing. It needs to be fine-tuned, not tossed out. A fee-based, privatized ATC system is a corrupt, dangerous concept that politicians want for their own reasons, not because it will make any improvements to our ATC system. Should it ever be implemented, some of us are going to die.

Mr. President, on behalf of those who have a very personal interest in how safe our skies are, rescind your executive order of June 6, 2002, and continue to recognize what we have known for over 60 years: that ATC is an inherently federal function, and drop any plans you have to set up a fee-based system.

See you next month.

Sponsor Announcement
Subscribe to 'IFR Refresher' and Receive a Gift
IFR Refresher — Don't Just Stay Current, Stay Proficient!
If you don't fly frequently, your memory of instrument rules and procedures can fade fast. Remove the rust with IFR Refresher and reinforce your skills — guaranteed! And when you subscribe, now you'll receive the book On the Approach absolutely free! Click here for details.

Our best stories start with you. If you've heard something the flying world might want to know about, tell us. Submit news tips via e-mail here. (Or send them direct to Newstips at


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

Tom Bliss

Editorial Director, Aviation Publications
Paul Bertorelli

Russ Niles

Scott Simmons

Contributing Editors
Mary Grady
Elaine Kauh

Rick Durden
Kevin Lane-Cummings
Paul Berge
Larry Anglisano

Ad Coordinator
Karen Lund

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

Comments or questions about the news should be sent here.

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

Forward this email to a friend
Tailor your alerts!
Click here to update alerts preferences.
AVweb Insider <="225573">

The ego—especially the male ego—is a curious thing; a cursed delight that's inextricably tangled up in this pilot thing we all seem to enjoy. From the ego flows the self confidence required to learn flying and overcome the inherent risks in operating an airplane. If you didn't have it, you'd cower in the den with your stamp collection. The ego is also the thing that causes us to overreach in the unshakeable conviction that a 23-knot crosswind is only for the little people to fear and it's the second thing that gets dented when this proves mistaken. The first thing is some part of the airplane that gets smashed, scuffed, ripped, bent, torn, burned, cracked, sliced or otherwise rendered into a condition it wasn't in when you started.

This comes up because last week a good friend had a little set to with a taildragger that put it up on its nose with a chewed up prop. It was in a new LSA being demonstrated. I know both the demonstrator and the demonstree and know both to be experienced, skilled pilots, so I seriously doubt there was any overreach. But that really has nothing to do with the post-prang turn of events. If you've ever had occasion to speak to someone who's crumped an airplane within a few hours of the smoke clearing, you'll recognize this: It's like talking to someone who just had a death in the family. The voice is subdued, the eyes are hollow and there's a countenance of shock and disbelief. (I've had the feeling myself, so I know what it's like.) You have to resist the inclination to speak to such a person as though you were attending a wake.

Would you feel the same if you'd just run your car into a ditch and torn off the struts? My guess is no. So why should airplanes be different? It's not because they're more expensive than cars, because in some cases they aren't. It's not because they're difficult, expensive and time consuming to repair, either. Nor is because the airport might have rolled the equipment just because you skidded off the runway and took out a runway light and your right wheel pant. Nope, none of that. It's the ego thing.

If you're a pilot, you understand that you dwell in a small (and dwindling) community and not everyone can do this. It takes a rare mindset and some fearlessness to become a pilot. Dare I say it? We're a little special, aren't we? It's quite likely that a fair bit of your personal identity is invested in being a good pilot and good pilots don't break airplanes. This, by the way, is one of the fallacies of aviation right up there with downwind turns and flying on the step. Good pilots break airplanes all the time. Every day. It's just that good pilots—all pilots—make mistakes sometimes and sometimes these have ego- and metal-denting consequences. Have you ever said or heard said, "In XX years of flying, I've never damaged an airplane?" If so, you're describing a piece of baggage the size of a steamer trunk just begging to be heaved over the side to lighten the load a little.

I know this because I've been through it myself and you really have to to figure out how to extricate yourself from the notion that your self worth is in any way tied to never having had a groundloop. The summer before last, during a takeoff roll on a grass strip, my attention lapsed and the Cub drifted left, striking a concrete runway edge marker. Didn't even scratch the marker, but it cracked the left gear strut. The worst of it was waiting months to have the part made. The best of it was that when we installed the new strut, we fixed the misalignment caused by the last guy who did the same thing 40 or 50 years ago. And we got a look at the work done to fix the dents caused by the guy before him. And so on. The point being that a nearly 80-year-old taildragger will have lived a storied life. I added a chapter. I also developed a commitment not to make that particular mistake again.

I'm certain for a couple of days I had that blood-drained-from-the-face feeling that my two friends were suffering. I got over it when a self-examination revealed to me that my personal human worth is like a pie with a lot of slices. The ones that matter are labeled truthful, reliable, honest, fair, consistent, intelligent (I hope) and although there might be one in there labeled cynical, I couldn't find one that said "good pilot" or "never makes mistakes." Might have been one labled "admits to mistakes." So now I have divested myself of the need to ever say, "In 45 years of flying, I've never wrecked an airplane." To tell you the truth, I feel relieved of a certain burden.

If you're carrying around the same load, I'm certainly not suggesting you go out and taxi into a snow drift. But if you do, you might just find the experience liberating after a couple of days of rumination. And to reach for the marble a little and borrow from that famous speech we all had to memorize in elementary school, the world will little note nor long remember that you swapped paint with the Gasboy in the fuel pit. And when the insurance check clears, you'll wonder what all the fuss was about.

With a Full Line of Premium ANR Headsets, Lightspeed Has a Headset for EVERY MISSION || Zulu PFX - Tango - Zulu.2 - Sierra

Even LSA models will require an ADS-B Out solution to meet the FAA's approaching 2020 equipage mandate.  Flight Design USA has just the solution with the new CTLSi, using Dynon's 1090ES extended squitter transponder, plus a few options for ADS-B In data.  In this video, Aviation Consumer editor Larry Anglisano caught up with Flight Design USA's Tom Peghini at this year's U.S. Sport Aviation Expo in Sebring, Florida for a closer look.

Evolution Flight Display System Angle of Attack Indicator (AOA) || Aspen Avionics - Technology That Matters

At the U.S. Sport Aviation Expo in Sebring this week, a company called Commuter Craft debuted a flying example of its Innovator aircraft, a two-place canard design that will eventually morph into an LSA.

TouchTrainer from FlyThisSim || Log Time & Stay Current in YOUR Model

At the U.S. Sport Aviation Expo in Sebring, American Legend was showing off its new Super Legend HP, equipped with a 180-hp Titan engine.  AVweb's Paul Bertorelli took a demo flight in the new airplane.

A20 Aviation Headset || Now with Enhanced Features

"Affordable aircraft" are what the U.S. Sport Aviation Expo is touting in its tagline this year, and we've found one: the $34,000 Merlin PSA, which Aeromarine LSA debuted at the show.  Chip Erwin shows us around the eminently affordable experimental in this video, and you can read more here.

Picture of the Week <="225538">
Picture of the Week

Larry Uzelac of Auburn, CA delivers the goods in our latest installment of "PotW" — which, incidentally, features a great batch of other photos from AVweb readers. Click through to enjoy their work.