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

  • Text size:

    • A
    • A
    • A

The FAA published a final rule on Tuesday that will allow operators to use an enhanced-vision flight system to descend all the way to the runway, under certain conditions. Currently, the FAA allows pilots to depend on enhanced vision in lieu of natural vision only to 100 feet above the runway, and only under certain straight-in landing procedures. The new rule requires pilots to be flying straight-in procedures on an instrument flight plan. The rule establishes pilot training and recent flight experience requirements for operators who use the equipment, and the aircraft flown also will be required to meet additional airworthiness requirements.

“The final rule takes advantage of advanced vision capabilities, thereby achieving the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) goals of increasing access, efficiency, and throughput at many airports when low visibility is the limiting factor,” the FAA said. “Additionally, it enables EFVS operations in reduced visibilities on a greater number of approach procedure types while maintaining an equivalent level of safety.” The new rule will take effect March 13, 2017.

NIC3 Cylinders || Corrosion Protection - Extended Cylinder Life - Available Now

The FAA has said it will conduct a study to see if a ban on jets landing at a Florida airport is justified, the Palm Beach Post reported this week. The Palm Beach County Park/Lantana Airport is the only one in the state with such a ban, according to the Post. The uncontrolled field has been in operation since the 1940s, and the ban on jets was put in place in 1973, after local residents complained about noise. Errol Forman, a retired Eastern Air Lines pilot, landed his newly acquired 1983 Cessna Citation I/SP jet there in May, prompting a call to authorities by a neighbor. Forman challenged the restriction and filed a formal complaint with the FAA, saying the county was violating conditions of its federal grants.

Forman told the Post jets are quieter now than they were in the 1970s, and the restriction no longer makes sense. The helicopters that use the airport are louder than his jet, he says, and loud for a longer period of time because they hover. He said even some smaller planes are louder than his jet as they swoop over the rooftops of nearby neighborhoods. “I don’t see it as a dispute. I see it as misinformation on their part,” Forman said. “They’re wrong now. They weren’t in 1973.” An airport neighbor told the Post the community won’t stand for a change to the ban. “We fear for our lives over here,” William Coakley said. “It was already saturated before the helicopters got here. Now they want jet traffic? It’s not going to happen. There will be a storm of protest.”

Boeing will sell 80 airplanes to Iran, the company announced on Sunday, closing a deal worth about $16 billion. The new orders, to start in 2018, will support nearly 100,000 jobs in U.S. plants, Boeing said. The sale includes the 737 Max and the 777x, both of which are still in development, as well as the 777-300ER. It’s the biggest business deal with Iran by any U.S. company since President Obama lifted sanctions against the country in January. The U.S. House already has passed a bill seeking to block the sale, and the Senate is expected to vote on a similar bill soon. It’s not yet clear if the Trump administration will back the deal when they sign on in January.

President-elect Trump tweeted last week that he would like to cancel a $4 billion contract with Boeing for the next Air Force One, and he also tweeted over the weekend about the military F-35 program, calling the costs “out of control.” After Jan. 20 “billions of dollars” will be saved on military and other purchases by the federal government, he said.

Give the Gift of ForeFlight - Buy Gift Certificate

Piper’s six-seat single-engine turboprop, the M600, is now certified in Australia, the company announced this week. “This is a significant milestone for the Piper M600,” said Piper Aircraft CEO Simon Caldecott. “Australian owner/operators tell us they are very keen on the greater range and enhanced safety features.” The airplane, which was FAA certified in June, comes with a new wing design and a Garmin G3000 panel. The new safety features include an emergency descent mode designed to prevent hypoxia-related accidents and electronic stability protection. The M600 flies at speeds up to 274 knots and has a maximum range of 1,484 nautical miles. It sells for $2.9 million.

The passenger seating area also got an update, with newly styled folding seats and enhanced side panels with an improved passenger interface, including USB charging ports and executive folding tables. AVweb contributor Larry Anglisano, editor of Aviation Consumer, flew the airplane this summer and filed this video report.

Sponsor Announcement
'Mountain Flying' by Sparky Imeson || Available at AVwebBooks.com
Mountain Flying
The classic by Sparky Imeson, and a "must-have" for any light airplane pilot venturing into mountainous terrain. Covers weather patterns; avoiding turbulence; density altitude and performance; weight and balance; instrument readings; and lots more to keep you safe and help you enjoy one of the true pleasures of flying. 246 pages.
Mountain Flying
book $   9.95
e-book $   7.95
book/e-book bundle $ 11.95

For more information, call (970) 726-5111 or click here.

Heard anything funny, unusual, or downright shocking on the radio lately? If you've been flying any length of time, you're sure to have eavesdropped on a few memorable exchanges. The ones that gave you a chuckle may do the same for your fellow AVweb readers. Share your radio funny with us, and, if we use it in a future "Short Final," we'll send you a sharp-looking AVweb hat to sport around your local airport. No joke.

Click here to submit your original, true, and previously unpublished story.

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.

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.com.)

Forward this email to a friend
Tailor your alerts!
Click here to update alerts preferences.
AVweb Insider

High-profile aviation accidents usually get a public hearing in which the NTSB reveals what it knows and allows input from other parties on the road to establishing probable cause. Such hearings offer tantalizing factuals but they rarely reveal jaw-dropping lack of judgment. But rarely is not the same as never and this week’s hearing on the crash of a high-occupant hot air balloon in Texas last July that killed 16 people qualifies for jaw-dropping revelations. It also places both the FAA and NTSB in a can’t-win regulatory canyon.

I wrote about the Lockhart, Texas crash shortly after it occurred on July 30. A balloon carrying 15 passengers and a pilot struck power lines—possibly while attempting to land—and all of the balloon’s occupants died in the subsequent impact and fire. It was one of the most gruesome general aviation accidents ever and the highest death toll of any single GA accident I can think of for many years.

The hearing, held on Friday in Washington, revealed, for me, at least, that the accident was far more appalling than the original news reports suggested. The pilot, who had a history of medical and psychiatric conditions, plus DUIs and drug convictions, was found to have ingested seven drugs at the time of the accident, including three that the FAA considers disqualifying for flight status. None of that necessarily means he was incapacitated at the time of the crash, but it serves as a marker about his attitude toward regulatory guidance. He did not, for example, report his DUIs, nor did he report drug convictions he also had. Both of these are required under FAR 61.15, even though balloon pilots are not required to have medicals. Failing to report these things is grounds for suspension and willfully lying on medical applications is a felony.

While the drug use and obfuscation of DUI and drug history are bad enough, what’s worse is the pilot’s documented decision to fly despite adverse weather. An FSS briefer told the pilot that poor visibility and low cloud existed at his proposed time of flight, but he replied, “We find a hole and we go.” A photo recovered from one of the passenger cellphones shows the balloon floating above a layer of dense ground fog or low cloud.

Was the pilot’s judgment impaired by the cocktail of drugs he had consumed, including oxycodone, or was he just a pilot willing to operate on the edge, even with passengers aboard? From a regulatory standpoint, I’m not sure it matters because regardless of what the NTSB recommends, the FAA will have a hell of time making meaningful regulation for balloons that isn't just for appearances.

At the hearing, NTSB member Robert Sumwalt said, "Unfortunately, sometimes it takes blood to get change. And we want to make sure there are changes made before there's more bloodshed." No one can argue the sentiment. The government, in representing the public, has a compelling interest to prevent a recurrence. But entirely ignoring the onerous burden of regulation that saddles general aviation, what kind of additional regulatory filter do we imagine would have prevented this tragic accident? Willful bad judgment has always been with us and always will be because in the end, the pilot still has to make go/no-go decisions. Being under the influence of drugs or alcohol may simply be a distractor irrelevant to the outcome. Or a leading indicator of an underlying personality ill suited for flying.

Federal Air Surgeon James Fraser said this at the hearing: “I feel a medical evaluation is a part of the holistic plan to keep the national airspace safe." Yet there's little convincing data to support this view or at least to show that any safety benefits are commensurate with the cost and effort of medical examinations. Perhaps pilot certificates could be issued with the proviso that the FAA can review the driver registry and/or criminal records. You authorize that when you sign the medical form. But no medical, no waiver.

The airlines and on-demand charter industries enhance safety through detailed operating specifications that have the effect of making pilots’ decisions for them, forcing a duty of care that might not otherwise be required. A single accident does not a trend make. I think it's inarguable that regulation is a critical part of the remarkable safety record U.S. commercial aviation has achieved. But it's also true that pilot judgment is the first and last defense against accidents.   

I flew Part 135 on-demand charter for a while and flew one trip as copilot for another pilot moonlighting from an airline job. One blustery winter morning, a bunch of gamblers wanted a ride back from Atlantic City. It was clear, but the unplowed runway was covered in light snow being blown around by a gusty crosswind. Our ops specs didn’t preclude the trip; we could have launched. If we had pranged it, we’d have hung on the 91.13 hook. But we cancelled and the unhappy gamblers took the bus. But no one was advising or watching us make the decision. No dispatcher checked a box; no chief pilot office stood by to buck up the decision.

As I said in the previous blog, the NTSB wants more oversight for the balloon industry. But the accident rate is so low and there are so few fatalities that it’s impossible to imagine even the most stringent regulation moving the needle at all. With all due respect, I understand regulators must consider the political optics of such high-visibility accidents, but those of us in the industry aren’t compelled to believe that what they devise will have the vaguest effect, other than to add cost and overhead for operators. In general aviation, we've been struggling for years to rid ourselves of the Third Class medical requirement, yet the FAA clings to it with the tenacity of the universe's strongest known force: bureaucratic inertia. 

I’ll admit I’m doing a bug-on-its-back here. I don’t have a response to this accident because bad judgment and irresponsibility are eternal if, fortunately, not that prolific. Perhaps require medicals for balloons carrying more than, say, four occupants or some other number that isn't 15. If there's any lemonade from lemons here, it may be this: If you’re tossing back a bunch of drugs, whether disqualifying or not, it may be worth taking a pause to consider if doing so is masking an even larger misjudgment. Or is itself a misjudgment. This is the insidious nature of subtle incapacitation due to sedating or psychotropic drugs. Personally, I feel blessed. Because I’m special, I can take as much of this stuff as I want and fly without worry. But you’re ordinary; you need to be careful.

Cash Back Returns from Aspen Avionics

Head up displays have been in military and commercial aircraft for decades but MyGoFlight is developing a system that is small enough and inexpensive enough for use in light aircraft. CEO Charlie Schneider walked AVweb through the SkyDisplay.

Pilots tend to be optimists. To be otherwise would bring into question our fantasies of cruising above the planet while sporting little more than wings braced with the aeronautical savvy needed to ace this quiz.

Click here to take the quiz.

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

Publisher
Tom Bliss

Editorial Director, Aviation Publications
Paul Bertorelli

Editor-in-Chief
Russ Niles

Webmaster
Scott Simmons

Contributing Editors
Mary Grady
Elaine Kauh

Contributors
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: