This feed does not validate.
line 52, column 3: (27 occurrences) [help]
<p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/rocket-la ...
^
<p> </p>
^
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" > <channel> <title>Jetwhine</title> <atom:link href="https://www.jetwhine.com/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /> <link>https://www.jetwhine.com/</link> <description>Aviation buzz and bold opinion</description> <lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Apr 2024 15:52:44 +0000</lastBuildDate> <language>en-US</language> <sy:updatePeriod> hourly </sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency> 1 </sy:updateFrequency> <generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.4.4</generator> <item> <title>Why Don’t Rocket Launchers Pay Airway Trust Fund Taxes?</title> <link>https://www.jetwhine.com/2024/04/why-dont-rocket-launchers-pay-airway-trust-fund-taxes/</link> <comments>https://www.jetwhine.com/2024/04/why-dont-rocket-launchers-pay-airway-trust-fund-taxes/#comments</comments> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Scott Spangler]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 15 Apr 2024 15:52:44 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[Aerospace]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Air Traffic Control]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Business Aviation]]></category> <category><![CDATA[FAA]]></category> <category><![CDATA[general aviation]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Spaceflight]]></category> <category><![CDATA[The Buzz]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Airport Airway Trust Fund]]></category> <category><![CDATA[commercial space flight operations]]></category> <category><![CDATA[fuel taxes]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.jetwhine.com/?p=10416</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/rocket-launch.jpg"><img class="alignright size-full wp-image-10417" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/rocket-launch.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="822" /></a>Two stories reported near April 1 suggested a cruel prank. Just before 4/1 came news that the FY 2025 budget proposed to raise the per-gallon tax on business jet fuel nearly 400%, to $1.06 per gallon.</p><p>As a reminder, aviation fuel taxes are how the government funds the Airport and Airway Trust Fund that pays for airport improvements and some FAA operations such as air traffic control.</p><p>Shortly after 4/1, the <em>New York Times</em> revealed America’s commercial space launch operators contribute nothing to the trust fund even though each of the hundreds of rockets they have launched over the years require substantial FAA and ATC involvement.</p><p>Rocket launchers like SpaceX are for-profit companies just like the airlines, and they use the national airspace system just like each of the aviation communities that comprise general aviation—so why do they get a free ride?</p><p>Perhaps somewhere in the FY25 budget proposal that introduces the five-year fuel tax increase on bizjets will be some sort of equitable tax on rocket launches. And let’s hope that there’s another increase on the taxes paid by commercial airlines, who have an aviation tax deal second only to the rocket launchers.</p><p>As the <a href="https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/2022-07/ATTF_Excise_Tax_Rate_Structure_CY_2022.pdf">aviation fuel taxes stand now</a>, for all aspects of general aviation, piston flyers pay 0.193 cents per gallon of avgas and kerosene burners pay 0.218 cents for jet fuel. On March 2012, the government added a 14.1 cent per gallon surcharge for fuel burned by aircraft in fractional ownership programs, the majority of which are bizjets.</p><p>Regardless of fuel type, commercial aviation operators pay just 0.043 cents per gallon to the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. They also pay a ticket tax, but they certainly build this 7.5% fee into the price passengers pay ride their tubular cattle cars.</p><p>And I’m sure they do the same for the per passenger segment tax, defined as the flight between a takeoff and its next landing. Introduced on New Year’s Day 2002, it is indexed with the Consumer Price Index and is $5 in 2024.</p><p>By the way, the airline ticket tax does not include all off the fees the airlines so love for baggage, rebooking, legroom, and what have you. For the commercial operator, these fees are pure profit.</p><p>So here we are. The rocket launchers are getting free use of an understaffed, overworked air traffic control workforce that must rework and manage the traffic so their missiles can safely puncture the national airspace. And the airlines, which have been reporting substantial profits can add to their bottom lines with untaxed fees passengers pay when the rocket launchers disrupt their travels. And we wonder why our aviation infrastructure is failing us. – Scott Spangler, Editor</p>]]></description> <p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/rocket-launch.jpg"><img fetchpriority="high" decoding="async" class="alignright size-full wp-image-10417" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/rocket-launch.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="822" srcset="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/rocket-launch.jpg 1024w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/rocket-launch-300x241.jpg 300w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/rocket-launch-768x617.jpg 768w" sizes="(max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a>Two stories reported near April 1 suggested a cruel prank. Just before 4/1 came news that the FY 2025 budget proposed to raise the per-gallon tax on business jet fuel nearly 400%, to $1.06 per gallon.</p><p>As a reminder, aviation fuel taxes are how the government funds the Airport and Airway Trust Fund that pays for airport improvements and some FAA operations such as air traffic control.</p><p>Shortly after 4/1, the <em>New York Times</em> revealed America’s commercial space launch operators contribute nothing to the trust fund even though each of the hundreds of rockets they have launched over the years require substantial FAA and ATC involvement.</p><p>Rocket launchers like SpaceX are for-profit companies just like the airlines, and they use the national airspace system just like each of the aviation communities that comprise general aviation—so why do they get a free ride?</p><p>Perhaps somewhere in the FY25 budget proposal that introduces the five-year fuel tax increase on bizjets will be some sort of equitable tax on rocket launches. And let’s hope that there’s another increase on the taxes paid by commercial airlines, who have an aviation tax deal second only to the rocket launchers.</p><p>As the <a href="https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/2022-07/ATTF_Excise_Tax_Rate_Structure_CY_2022.pdf">aviation fuel taxes stand now</a>, for all aspects of general aviation, piston flyers pay 0.193 cents per gallon of avgas and kerosene burners pay 0.218 cents for jet fuel. On March 2012, the government added a 14.1 cent per gallon surcharge for fuel burned by aircraft in fractional ownership programs, the majority of which are bizjets.</p><p>Regardless of fuel type, commercial aviation operators pay just 0.043 cents per gallon to the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. They also pay a ticket tax, but they certainly build this 7.5% fee into the price passengers pay ride their tubular cattle cars.</p><p>And I’m sure they do the same for the per passenger segment tax, defined as the flight between a takeoff and its next landing. Introduced on New Year’s Day 2002, it is indexed with the Consumer Price Index and is $5 in 2024.</p><p>By the way, the airline ticket tax does not include all off the fees the airlines so love for baggage, rebooking, legroom, and what have you. For the commercial operator, these fees are pure profit.</p><p>So here we are. The rocket launchers are getting free use of an understaffed, overworked air traffic control workforce that must rework and manage the traffic so their missiles can safely puncture the national airspace. And the airlines, which have been reporting substantial profits can add to their bottom lines with untaxed fees passengers pay when the rocket launchers disrupt their travels. And we wonder why our aviation infrastructure is failing us. – Scott Spangler, Editor</p> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/rocket-launch.jpg"><img class="alignright size-full wp-image-10417" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/rocket-launch.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="822" /></a>Two stories reported near April 1 suggested a cruel prank. Just before 4/1 came news that the FY 2025 budget proposed to raise the per-gallon tax on business jet fuel nearly 400%, to $1.06 per gallon.</p><p>As a reminder, aviation fuel taxes are how the government funds the Airport and Airway Trust Fund that pays for airport improvements and some FAA operations such as air traffic control.</p><p>Shortly after 4/1, the <em>New York Times</em> revealed America’s commercial space launch operators contribute nothing to the trust fund even though each of the hundreds of rockets they have launched over the years require substantial FAA and ATC involvement.</p><p>Rocket launchers like SpaceX are for-profit companies just like the airlines, and they use the national airspace system just like each of the aviation communities that comprise general aviation—so why do they get a free ride?</p><p>Perhaps somewhere in the FY25 budget proposal that introduces the five-year fuel tax increase on bizjets will be some sort of equitable tax on rocket launches. And let’s hope that there’s another increase on the taxes paid by commercial airlines, who have an aviation tax deal second only to the rocket launchers.</p><p>As the <a href="https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/2022-07/ATTF_Excise_Tax_Rate_Structure_CY_2022.pdf">aviation fuel taxes stand now</a>, for all aspects of general aviation, piston flyers pay 0.193 cents per gallon of avgas and kerosene burners pay 0.218 cents for jet fuel. On March 2012, the government added a 14.1 cent per gallon surcharge for fuel burned by aircraft in fractional ownership programs, the majority of which are bizjets.</p><p>Regardless of fuel type, commercial aviation operators pay just 0.043 cents per gallon to the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. They also pay a ticket tax, but they certainly build this 7.5% fee into the price passengers pay ride their tubular cattle cars.</p><p>And I’m sure they do the same for the per passenger segment tax, defined as the flight between a takeoff and its next landing. Introduced on New Year’s Day 2002, it is indexed with the Consumer Price Index and is $5 in 2024.</p><p>By the way, the airline ticket tax does not include all off the fees the airlines so love for baggage, rebooking, legroom, and what have you. For the commercial operator, these fees are pure profit.</p><p>So here we are. The rocket launchers are getting free use of an understaffed, overworked air traffic control workforce that must rework and manage the traffic so their missiles can safely puncture the national airspace. And the airlines, which have been reporting substantial profits can add to their bottom lines with untaxed fees passengers pay when the rocket launchers disrupt their travels. And we wonder why our aviation infrastructure is failing us. – Scott Spangler, Editor</p>]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>https://www.jetwhine.com/2024/04/why-dont-rocket-launchers-pay-airway-trust-fund-taxes/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>1</slash:comments> </item> <item> <title>Does Flying During a Total Eclipse Count as Night Time?</title> <link>https://www.jetwhine.com/2024/04/is-flying-during-an-eclipse-night-time/</link> <comments>https://www.jetwhine.com/2024/04/is-flying-during-an-eclipse-night-time/#respond</comments> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Scott Spangler]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 01 Apr 2024 12:00:49 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[Aerospace]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Airports]]></category> <category><![CDATA[aviation safety]]></category> <category><![CDATA[FAA]]></category> <category><![CDATA[operations]]></category> <category><![CDATA[The Buzz]]></category> <category><![CDATA[eclipse]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Flight Time]]></category> <category><![CDATA[night flying]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.jetwhine.com/?p=10402</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/eclipse-times-1.png"><img class="alignright size-full wp-image-10406" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/eclipse-times-1.png" alt="" width="992" height="634" /></a>One week from today, on Monday April 8, as the moon’s shadow slides across the eastern third of the United States, the Great North American Eclipse will darken the skies over 458 US airports that are within 50 miles of the eclipse’s centerline track. (For of list of these aerodromes, see the FAA’s <a href="https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/domesticnotices/dom24008_gen.html">Domestic Notice </a>on how the eclipse will affect aviation operations.)</p><p>So, here’s my question: Can pilots flying in the shadow, perhaps following the track, log their time in the darkness at night flight time?</p><p>With the shadow’s afternoon transit of 13 states, no, clearly seems to be the answer.</p><p>FAR § 1.1, Definitions, says “Night means the time between the end of evening civil twilight and the beginning of morning civil twilight, as published in the Air Almanac, converted to local time.” FAR § 61.57 Recent flight experience: Pilot in command, in section (b) (1), Night Takeoff and Landing Experience: “Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, no person may act as pilot in command of an aircraft carrying passengers during the period beginning 1 hour after sunset and ending 1 hour before sunrise, unless within the preceding 90 days that person has made at least three takeoffs and three landings to a full stop during the period beginning 1 hour after sunset and ending 1 hour before sunrise.”</p><p>Total eclipses are nowhere mentioned in subsection (e) Exceptions.</p><p>The inability to log shadow flight time as “night” doesn’t mean things cannot get interesting. For many, the Great North American Eclipse will be a lifetime experience, so pilots will be flocking to the 458 airports in the total eclipse cone of darkness. The FAA Domestic Notice says pilots flying IFR should be prepared for holds, reroutes and EDCTs (Expect Departure Clearence Times) and “VFR departures may also expect delays for airborne pickup of IFR clearance within 50 NM either side of the path of the eclipse.”</p><p>Expect FBO ramp congestion, so pilots should coordinate their flights with their eclipse destinations well before the moon slides between the sun and Earth. Obviously, “There may be a higher traffic volume than normal anticipated at airports along the path of the eclipse. Traffic should anticipate delays during peak traffic periods. Parking may be limited – particularly at the smaller, uncontrolled airports. Practice approaches, touch-and-goes, flight following services and pilot training operations at airports in the path of the eclipse may be extremely limited and possibly prohibited during this time period. Airmen should check NOTAMs carefully for special procedures/restrictions that may be in place at affected airports.”</p><p>All of this assumes that Mother Nature cooperates and does not roll out a thick carpet of clouds between the Earth and the moon. For those contemplating an IFR flight through the carpet to view the eclipse on top, revisit the Domestic Notice’s warning of IFR delays. And regardless of where one is to witness the eclipse, <a href="https://science.nasa.gov/eclipses/safety/">practice safe viewing</a>, you don’t want the eclipse to be one of the last things you see clearly.</p><p>If Mother Nature cooperates, and the expected aerial traffic shows up, given the resulting delays, you still might get to log some night time on your way home. But please make sure you are night current—and proficient. – Scott Spangler, Editor</p>]]></description> <p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/eclipse-times-1.png"><img decoding="async" class="alignright size-full wp-image-10406" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/eclipse-times-1.png" alt="" width="992" height="634" srcset="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/eclipse-times-1.png 992w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/eclipse-times-1-300x192.png 300w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/eclipse-times-1-768x491.png 768w" sizes="(max-width: 992px) 100vw, 992px" /></a>One week from today, on Monday April 8, as the moon’s shadow slides across the eastern third of the United States, the Great North American Eclipse will darken the skies over 458 US airports that are within 50 miles of the eclipse’s centerline track. (For of list of these aerodromes, see the FAA’s <a href="https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/domesticnotices/dom24008_gen.html">Domestic Notice </a>on how the eclipse will affect aviation operations.)</p><p>So, here’s my question: Can pilots flying in the shadow, perhaps following the track, log their time in the darkness at night flight time?</p><p>With the shadow’s afternoon transit of 13 states, no, clearly seems to be the answer.</p><p>FAR § 1.1, Definitions, says “Night means the time between the end of evening civil twilight and the beginning of morning civil twilight, as published in the Air Almanac, converted to local time.” FAR § 61.57 Recent flight experience: Pilot in command, in section (b) (1), Night Takeoff and Landing Experience: “Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, no person may act as pilot in command of an aircraft carrying passengers during the period beginning 1 hour after sunset and ending 1 hour before sunrise, unless within the preceding 90 days that person has made at least three takeoffs and three landings to a full stop during the period beginning 1 hour after sunset and ending 1 hour before sunrise.”</p><p>Total eclipses are nowhere mentioned in subsection (e) Exceptions.</p><p>The inability to log shadow flight time as “night” doesn’t mean things cannot get interesting. For many, the Great North American Eclipse will be a lifetime experience, so pilots will be flocking to the 458 airports in the total eclipse cone of darkness. The FAA Domestic Notice says pilots flying IFR should be prepared for holds, reroutes and EDCTs (Expect Departure Clearence Times) and “VFR departures may also expect delays for airborne pickup of IFR clearance within 50 NM either side of the path of the eclipse.”</p><p>Expect FBO ramp congestion, so pilots should coordinate their flights with their eclipse destinations well before the moon slides between the sun and Earth. Obviously, “There may be a higher traffic volume than normal anticipated at airports along the path of the eclipse. Traffic should anticipate delays during peak traffic periods. Parking may be limited – particularly at the smaller, uncontrolled airports. Practice approaches, touch-and-goes, flight following services and pilot training operations at airports in the path of the eclipse may be extremely limited and possibly prohibited during this time period. Airmen should check NOTAMs carefully for special procedures/restrictions that may be in place at affected airports.”</p><p>All of this assumes that Mother Nature cooperates and does not roll out a thick carpet of clouds between the Earth and the moon. For those contemplating an IFR flight through the carpet to view the eclipse on top, revisit the Domestic Notice’s warning of IFR delays. And regardless of where one is to witness the eclipse, <a href="https://science.nasa.gov/eclipses/safety/">practice safe viewing</a>, you don’t want the eclipse to be one of the last things you see clearly.</p><p>If Mother Nature cooperates, and the expected aerial traffic shows up, given the resulting delays, you still might get to log some night time on your way home. But please make sure you are night current—and proficient. – Scott Spangler, Editor</p> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/eclipse-times-1.png"><img class="alignright size-full wp-image-10406" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/eclipse-times-1.png" alt="" width="992" height="634" /></a>One week from today, on Monday April 8, as the moon’s shadow slides across the eastern third of the United States, the Great North American Eclipse will darken the skies over 458 US airports that are within 50 miles of the eclipse’s centerline track. (For of list of these aerodromes, see the FAA’s <a href="https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/domesticnotices/dom24008_gen.html">Domestic Notice </a>on how the eclipse will affect aviation operations.)</p><p>So, here’s my question: Can pilots flying in the shadow, perhaps following the track, log their time in the darkness at night flight time?</p><p>With the shadow’s afternoon transit of 13 states, no, clearly seems to be the answer.</p><p>FAR § 1.1, Definitions, says “Night means the time between the end of evening civil twilight and the beginning of morning civil twilight, as published in the Air Almanac, converted to local time.” FAR § 61.57 Recent flight experience: Pilot in command, in section (b) (1), Night Takeoff and Landing Experience: “Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, no person may act as pilot in command of an aircraft carrying passengers during the period beginning 1 hour after sunset and ending 1 hour before sunrise, unless within the preceding 90 days that person has made at least three takeoffs and three landings to a full stop during the period beginning 1 hour after sunset and ending 1 hour before sunrise.”</p><p>Total eclipses are nowhere mentioned in subsection (e) Exceptions.</p><p>The inability to log shadow flight time as “night” doesn’t mean things cannot get interesting. For many, the Great North American Eclipse will be a lifetime experience, so pilots will be flocking to the 458 airports in the total eclipse cone of darkness. The FAA Domestic Notice says pilots flying IFR should be prepared for holds, reroutes and EDCTs (Expect Departure Clearence Times) and “VFR departures may also expect delays for airborne pickup of IFR clearance within 50 NM either side of the path of the eclipse.”</p><p>Expect FBO ramp congestion, so pilots should coordinate their flights with their eclipse destinations well before the moon slides between the sun and Earth. Obviously, “There may be a higher traffic volume than normal anticipated at airports along the path of the eclipse. Traffic should anticipate delays during peak traffic periods. Parking may be limited – particularly at the smaller, uncontrolled airports. Practice approaches, touch-and-goes, flight following services and pilot training operations at airports in the path of the eclipse may be extremely limited and possibly prohibited during this time period. Airmen should check NOTAMs carefully for special procedures/restrictions that may be in place at affected airports.”</p><p>All of this assumes that Mother Nature cooperates and does not roll out a thick carpet of clouds between the Earth and the moon. For those contemplating an IFR flight through the carpet to view the eclipse on top, revisit the Domestic Notice’s warning of IFR delays. And regardless of where one is to witness the eclipse, <a href="https://science.nasa.gov/eclipses/safety/">practice safe viewing</a>, you don’t want the eclipse to be one of the last things you see clearly.</p><p>If Mother Nature cooperates, and the expected aerial traffic shows up, given the resulting delays, you still might get to log some night time on your way home. But please make sure you are night current—and proficient. – Scott Spangler, Editor</p>]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>https://www.jetwhine.com/2024/04/is-flying-during-an-eclipse-night-time/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> </item> <item> <title>Bigger Doesn’t Always Mean Harder to Fly</title> <link>https://www.jetwhine.com/2024/03/bigger-doesnt-always-mean-harder-to-fly/</link> <comments>https://www.jetwhine.com/2024/03/bigger-doesnt-always-mean-harder-to-fly/#respond</comments> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Scott Spangler]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 18 Mar 2024 15:59:46 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[Airline Pilot]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Aviation Education]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Flight Training]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Recreational Aviation]]></category> <category><![CDATA[The Buzz]]></category> <category><![CDATA[flying]]></category> <category><![CDATA[pilot]]></category> <category><![CDATA[stick-and-rudder]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.jetwhine.com/?p=10395</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/b-737.jpeg"><img class="alignright wp-image-10398" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/b-737.jpeg" alt="" width="300" height="169" /></a>A long voicemail from my nephew is not what I expected after I ignored a call from an unknown number. Recently married, he was on his honeymoon in Cartegena, Colombia, and from their hotel they could see the airport. This led to what he described as an “argument” about whether it was easier to control a prop plane like a crop duster or an airliner like a Boeing 737. His wife asked, “which is more complicated to fly?”</p><p>In a series of back-and-forth voicemails and texts we defined “harder” and “complicated” as a pilot’s fundamental stick-and-rudder inputs needed for a safe flight. It took some time to explain why airline pilots have an easier time flying than those flying prop planes like ag aircraft.</p><p>Once he grasped the contribution made by an airliner’s flight management system and autopilot, and how it pretty much takes the airplane from Point A to Point B, he accepted the idea that airline pilots are busiest making the takeoff, landing, and taxiing to and from the gate. (And based on my simulator flights in a Boeing 737, 777, and Lockheed Tristar, steering an airliner around an airport with that twitchy tiller is the stuff of nightmares.)</p><p>Making the airliner’s flight even easier, I briefly explained the structured environment in which it flies. It is a routine and regimented operation defined by federal regulations, air traffic control, and the airline’s standard operating procedures that are supported by an expanded team that includes dispatchers and other experts in subjects such as meteorology and air traffic management. And the airline pilot is the member of a two-pilot team, each of whom have clearly defined duties and responsibilities.</p><p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/ag-airplane.jpg"><img class="alignright wp-image-10397" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/ag-airplane.jpg" alt="" width="302" height="170" /></a>A prop plane pilot, I explained, more often than not is the sole manipulator of the controls and, therefore, responsible for every aspect of conducting a flight safely. More often than not, prop pilots are not flying on an instrument flight plan, required for entry in the more structured air traffic-controlled highway in the sky system. There are regulations, like hemispheric cruising altitudes, that are supposed to keep these pilots from running into each other, but ultimately, they are individually ultimately responsible for seeing and avoiding each other.</p><p>The stick-and-rudder challenges ag pilots face are even more daunting because they so often fly so very close to the ground. Often their altitude, sometimes a single digit above the crop top, depends on the chemical they spreading. And just to make their flights more challenging, adjusting for whatever the wind is doing, they must plan each pass to ensure no plant goes unsprayed while avoiding obstacles such as trees, powerlines, wind turbines, and cell phone towers.</p><p>As our text conversation reached its conclusion, it seems that my nephew’s wife was arguing on behalf of the prop pilots, because he reported her “jumping around in victory.” –Scott Spangler, Editor</p><p> </p>]]></description> <p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/b-737.jpeg"><img decoding="async" class="alignright wp-image-10398" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/b-737.jpeg" alt="" width="300" height="169" srcset="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/b-737.jpeg 640w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/b-737-300x169.jpeg 300w" sizes="(max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px" /></a>A long voicemail from my nephew is not what I expected after I ignored a call from an unknown number. Recently married, he was on his honeymoon in Cartegena, Colombia, and from their hotel they could see the airport. This led to what he described as an “argument” about whether it was easier to control a prop plane like a crop duster or an airliner like a Boeing 737. His wife asked, “which is more complicated to fly?”</p><p>In a series of back-and-forth voicemails and texts we defined “harder” and “complicated” as a pilot’s fundamental stick-and-rudder inputs needed for a safe flight. It took some time to explain why airline pilots have an easier time flying than those flying prop planes like ag aircraft.</p><p>Once he grasped the contribution made by an airliner’s flight management system and autopilot, and how it pretty much takes the airplane from Point A to Point B, he accepted the idea that airline pilots are busiest making the takeoff, landing, and taxiing to and from the gate. (And based on my simulator flights in a Boeing 737, 777, and Lockheed Tristar, steering an airliner around an airport with that twitchy tiller is the stuff of nightmares.)</p><p>Making the airliner’s flight even easier, I briefly explained the structured environment in which it flies. It is a routine and regimented operation defined by federal regulations, air traffic control, and the airline’s standard operating procedures that are supported by an expanded team that includes dispatchers and other experts in subjects such as meteorology and air traffic management. And the airline pilot is the member of a two-pilot team, each of whom have clearly defined duties and responsibilities.</p><p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/ag-airplane.jpg"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignright wp-image-10397" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/ag-airplane.jpg" alt="" width="302" height="170" srcset="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/ag-airplane.jpg 1600w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/ag-airplane-300x169.jpg 300w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/ag-airplane-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/ag-airplane-768x432.jpg 768w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/ag-airplane-1536x864.jpg 1536w" sizes="(max-width: 302px) 100vw, 302px" /></a>A prop plane pilot, I explained, more often than not is the sole manipulator of the controls and, therefore, responsible for every aspect of conducting a flight safely. More often than not, prop pilots are not flying on an instrument flight plan, required for entry in the more structured air traffic-controlled highway in the sky system. There are regulations, like hemispheric cruising altitudes, that are supposed to keep these pilots from running into each other, but ultimately, they are individually ultimately responsible for seeing and avoiding each other.</p><p>The stick-and-rudder challenges ag pilots face are even more daunting because they so often fly so very close to the ground. Often their altitude, sometimes a single digit above the crop top, depends on the chemical they spreading. And just to make their flights more challenging, adjusting for whatever the wind is doing, they must plan each pass to ensure no plant goes unsprayed while avoiding obstacles such as trees, powerlines, wind turbines, and cell phone towers.</p><p>As our text conversation reached its conclusion, it seems that my nephew’s wife was arguing on behalf of the prop pilots, because he reported her “jumping around in victory.” –Scott Spangler, Editor</p><p> </p> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/b-737.jpeg"><img class="alignright wp-image-10398" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/b-737.jpeg" alt="" width="300" height="169" /></a>A long voicemail from my nephew is not what I expected after I ignored a call from an unknown number. Recently married, he was on his honeymoon in Cartegena, Colombia, and from their hotel they could see the airport. This led to what he described as an “argument” about whether it was easier to control a prop plane like a crop duster or an airliner like a Boeing 737. His wife asked, “which is more complicated to fly?”</p><p>In a series of back-and-forth voicemails and texts we defined “harder” and “complicated” as a pilot’s fundamental stick-and-rudder inputs needed for a safe flight. It took some time to explain why airline pilots have an easier time flying than those flying prop planes like ag aircraft.</p><p>Once he grasped the contribution made by an airliner’s flight management system and autopilot, and how it pretty much takes the airplane from Point A to Point B, he accepted the idea that airline pilots are busiest making the takeoff, landing, and taxiing to and from the gate. (And based on my simulator flights in a Boeing 737, 777, and Lockheed Tristar, steering an airliner around an airport with that twitchy tiller is the stuff of nightmares.)</p><p>Making the airliner’s flight even easier, I briefly explained the structured environment in which it flies. It is a routine and regimented operation defined by federal regulations, air traffic control, and the airline’s standard operating procedures that are supported by an expanded team that includes dispatchers and other experts in subjects such as meteorology and air traffic management. And the airline pilot is the member of a two-pilot team, each of whom have clearly defined duties and responsibilities.</p><p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/ag-airplane.jpg"><img class="alignright wp-image-10397" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/ag-airplane.jpg" alt="" width="302" height="170" /></a>A prop plane pilot, I explained, more often than not is the sole manipulator of the controls and, therefore, responsible for every aspect of conducting a flight safely. More often than not, prop pilots are not flying on an instrument flight plan, required for entry in the more structured air traffic-controlled highway in the sky system. There are regulations, like hemispheric cruising altitudes, that are supposed to keep these pilots from running into each other, but ultimately, they are individually ultimately responsible for seeing and avoiding each other.</p><p>The stick-and-rudder challenges ag pilots face are even more daunting because they so often fly so very close to the ground. Often their altitude, sometimes a single digit above the crop top, depends on the chemical they spreading. And just to make their flights more challenging, adjusting for whatever the wind is doing, they must plan each pass to ensure no plant goes unsprayed while avoiding obstacles such as trees, powerlines, wind turbines, and cell phone towers.</p><p>As our text conversation reached its conclusion, it seems that my nephew’s wife was arguing on behalf of the prop pilots, because he reported her “jumping around in victory.” –Scott Spangler, Editor</p><p> </p>]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>https://www.jetwhine.com/2024/03/bigger-doesnt-always-mean-harder-to-fly/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> </item> <item> <title>Can GPS Spoofing Fool a Flight Navigator?</title> <link>https://www.jetwhine.com/2024/03/following-gps-spoofing-down-the-navigation-rabbit-hole/</link> <comments>https://www.jetwhine.com/2024/03/following-gps-spoofing-down-the-navigation-rabbit-hole/#comments</comments> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Scott Spangler]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 04 Mar 2024 12:00:47 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[Aviation Education]]></category> <category><![CDATA[aviation safety]]></category> <category><![CDATA[FAA]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Flight Training]]></category> <category><![CDATA[navigation]]></category> <category><![CDATA[operations]]></category> <category><![CDATA[The Buzz]]></category> <category><![CDATA[flight navigstor]]></category> <category><![CDATA[GPS Navigation]]></category> <category><![CDATA[gps spoofing]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.jetwhine.com/?p=10382</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/h8083-18.jpg"><img class="alignright wp-image-10387" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/h8083-18.jpg" alt="" width="216" height="280" /></a>Given the state of the world, <a href="https://aviationweek.com/business-aviation/safety-ops-regulation/serious-threat-gps-spoofing-analysis">GPS spoofing has been in the news</a> with unsettling frequency. Transmitting a counterfeit GPS signal to override the real deal serves the real purpose of guiding aerial, maritime, or terrestrial vehicles where someone other than the vehicles master wants to go. Because the mind works in mysterious ways, reading the spoofing articles led me to wonder, does the FAA still issue the Flight Navigator Certificate, and do people still pursue them?</p><p>According to the <a href="https://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation_data_statistics/civil_airmen_statistics">US Civil Airmen Statistics</a>, the FAA is still issuing flight navigator certificates, but in rapidly decreasing numbers. It certificated 126 navigators in 2013, 102 in 2015, 64 in 2017, 40 in 2019, 30 in 2021, and 29 in 2022. The 2023 numbers aren’t out yet, but if you hold a navigator’s certificate, I would love to talk with you. If you’re interested, you can email me through my byline link at the end of this post.</p><p>Next stop, <a href="https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-63/subpart-C">14 CFR 63, Subpart C—Flight Navigators</a>. The certification requirements are in the ATP realm, at least 21 years old, read, write, speak, and understand English, hold at least a second class medical, and comply with the knowledge requirements in § 63.53, the experience requirements in § 63.55, skill requirements in § 63.57. As expected, there’s a written test and a practical test, which is itemized in <a href="https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-63/appendix-Appendix%20A%20to%20Part%2063">Appendix A</a>.</p><p>(Good luck trying to find, let alone rent an airplane for the flight test: “An applicant will provide an aircraft in which celestial observations can be taken in all directions. Minimum equipment shall include a table for plotting, a drift meter or absolute altimeter, an instrument for taking visual bearings, and a radio direction finder.”)</p><p>The knowledge requirements start with flight navigation, flight planning, cruise control, and practical meteorology, including analysis of weather maps, weather reports, and weather forecasts; and weather sequence abbreviations, symbols, and nomenclature. Then there’s the types of air navigation facilities and procedures in general use and how to calibrate and use air navigation instruments.</p><p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/celestial-sphere.png"><img class="alignright wp-image-10388" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/celestial-sphere.png" alt="" width="241" height="206" /></a>Applicants must be a graduate of an FAA-approved flight navigator course or document “(1) Satisfactory determination of his position in flight at least 25 times by night by celestial observations and at least 25 times by day by celestial observations in conjunction with other aids; and (2) At least 200 hours of satisfactory flight navigation including celestial and radio navigation and dead reckoning.” (Google did not reveal any approved civilian navigator courses. There is, however, <a href="https://www.abbottaerospace.com/downloads/faa-h-8083-18-flight-navigator-handbook/">FAA-H-8083-18 Flight Navigator Handbook</a>. I couldn’t find it on the FAA website, but the Abbott Aerospace UKK Techniccal Library has it for download. )</p><p>Scrolling through the list of exam areas in Appendix A was revealing…a few examples:</p><p>Identify without a star identifier, at least six navigational stars and all planets available for navigation at the time of the examination and explain the method of identification.</p><p>Take and plot one 3-star fix and 3 LOP’s [Line of Position] of the sun. Plotted fix or an average of LOP’s must fall within 5 miles of the actual position of the observer.</p><p>Demonstrate or explain the compensation and swinging of a liquid-type magnetic compass.</p><p>Demonstrate or explain a method of aligning one type of drift meter.</p><p>Demonstrate or explain a method of aligning an astro-compass or periscopic sextant.</p><p>Prepare a cruise control (howgozit) chart from the operator’s data.</p><p>Determine ground speed and wind by the timing method with a drift meter. When a drift meter is not part of the aircraft’s equipment, an oral examination on the procedure and a problem shall be completed.</p><p>There’s way more. Technology like GPS now provides most of this information, but that reconnects me to the challenge presented by spoofing. How do pilots gather the information to safely reach their destinations? <a href="mailto:scott@jetwhine.com">Scott Spangler—Editor</a></p>]]></description> <p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/h8083-18.jpg"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignright wp-image-10387" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/h8083-18.jpg" alt="" width="216" height="280" srcset="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/h8083-18.jpg 773w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/h8083-18-232x300.jpg 232w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/h8083-18-768x994.jpg 768w" sizes="(max-width: 216px) 100vw, 216px" /></a>Given the state of the world, <a href="https://aviationweek.com/business-aviation/safety-ops-regulation/serious-threat-gps-spoofing-analysis">GPS spoofing has been in the news</a> with unsettling frequency. Transmitting a counterfeit GPS signal to override the real deal serves the real purpose of guiding aerial, maritime, or terrestrial vehicles where someone other than the vehicles master wants to go. Because the mind works in mysterious ways, reading the spoofing articles led me to wonder, does the FAA still issue the Flight Navigator Certificate, and do people still pursue them?</p><p>According to the <a href="https://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation_data_statistics/civil_airmen_statistics">US Civil Airmen Statistics</a>, the FAA is still issuing flight navigator certificates, but in rapidly decreasing numbers. It certificated 126 navigators in 2013, 102 in 2015, 64 in 2017, 40 in 2019, 30 in 2021, and 29 in 2022. The 2023 numbers aren’t out yet, but if you hold a navigator’s certificate, I would love to talk with you. If you’re interested, you can email me through my byline link at the end of this post.</p><p>Next stop, <a href="https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-63/subpart-C">14 CFR 63, Subpart C—Flight Navigators</a>. The certification requirements are in the ATP realm, at least 21 years old, read, write, speak, and understand English, hold at least a second class medical, and comply with the knowledge requirements in § 63.53, the experience requirements in § 63.55, skill requirements in § 63.57. As expected, there’s a written test and a practical test, which is itemized in <a href="https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-63/appendix-Appendix%20A%20to%20Part%2063">Appendix A</a>.</p><p>(Good luck trying to find, let alone rent an airplane for the flight test: “An applicant will provide an aircraft in which celestial observations can be taken in all directions. Minimum equipment shall include a table for plotting, a drift meter or absolute altimeter, an instrument for taking visual bearings, and a radio direction finder.”)</p><p>The knowledge requirements start with flight navigation, flight planning, cruise control, and practical meteorology, including analysis of weather maps, weather reports, and weather forecasts; and weather sequence abbreviations, symbols, and nomenclature. Then there’s the types of air navigation facilities and procedures in general use and how to calibrate and use air navigation instruments.</p><p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/celestial-sphere.png"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignright wp-image-10388" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/celestial-sphere.png" alt="" width="241" height="206" srcset="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/celestial-sphere.png 308w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/celestial-sphere-300x256.png 300w" sizes="(max-width: 241px) 100vw, 241px" /></a>Applicants must be a graduate of an FAA-approved flight navigator course or document “(1) Satisfactory determination of his position in flight at least 25 times by night by celestial observations and at least 25 times by day by celestial observations in conjunction with other aids; and (2) At least 200 hours of satisfactory flight navigation including celestial and radio navigation and dead reckoning.” (Google did not reveal any approved civilian navigator courses. There is, however, <a href="https://www.abbottaerospace.com/downloads/faa-h-8083-18-flight-navigator-handbook/">FAA-H-8083-18 Flight Navigator Handbook</a>. I couldn’t find it on the FAA website, but the Abbott Aerospace UKK Techniccal Library has it for download. )</p><p>Scrolling through the list of exam areas in Appendix A was revealing…a few examples:</p><p>Identify without a star identifier, at least six navigational stars and all planets available for navigation at the time of the examination and explain the method of identification.</p><p>Take and plot one 3-star fix and 3 LOP’s [Line of Position] of the sun. Plotted fix or an average of LOP’s must fall within 5 miles of the actual position of the observer.</p><p>Demonstrate or explain the compensation and swinging of a liquid-type magnetic compass.</p><p>Demonstrate or explain a method of aligning one type of drift meter.</p><p>Demonstrate or explain a method of aligning an astro-compass or periscopic sextant.</p><p>Prepare a cruise control (howgozit) chart from the operator’s data.</p><p>Determine ground speed and wind by the timing method with a drift meter. When a drift meter is not part of the aircraft’s equipment, an oral examination on the procedure and a problem shall be completed.</p><p>There’s way more. Technology like GPS now provides most of this information, but that reconnects me to the challenge presented by spoofing. How do pilots gather the information to safely reach their destinations? <a href="mailto:scott@jetwhine.com">Scott Spangler—Editor</a></p> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/h8083-18.jpg"><img class="alignright wp-image-10387" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/h8083-18.jpg" alt="" width="216" height="280" /></a>Given the state of the world, <a href="https://aviationweek.com/business-aviation/safety-ops-regulation/serious-threat-gps-spoofing-analysis">GPS spoofing has been in the news</a> with unsettling frequency. Transmitting a counterfeit GPS signal to override the real deal serves the real purpose of guiding aerial, maritime, or terrestrial vehicles where someone other than the vehicles master wants to go. Because the mind works in mysterious ways, reading the spoofing articles led me to wonder, does the FAA still issue the Flight Navigator Certificate, and do people still pursue them?</p><p>According to the <a href="https://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation_data_statistics/civil_airmen_statistics">US Civil Airmen Statistics</a>, the FAA is still issuing flight navigator certificates, but in rapidly decreasing numbers. It certificated 126 navigators in 2013, 102 in 2015, 64 in 2017, 40 in 2019, 30 in 2021, and 29 in 2022. The 2023 numbers aren’t out yet, but if you hold a navigator’s certificate, I would love to talk with you. If you’re interested, you can email me through my byline link at the end of this post.</p><p>Next stop, <a href="https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-63/subpart-C">14 CFR 63, Subpart C—Flight Navigators</a>. The certification requirements are in the ATP realm, at least 21 years old, read, write, speak, and understand English, hold at least a second class medical, and comply with the knowledge requirements in § 63.53, the experience requirements in § 63.55, skill requirements in § 63.57. As expected, there’s a written test and a practical test, which is itemized in <a href="https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-63/appendix-Appendix%20A%20to%20Part%2063">Appendix A</a>.</p><p>(Good luck trying to find, let alone rent an airplane for the flight test: “An applicant will provide an aircraft in which celestial observations can be taken in all directions. Minimum equipment shall include a table for plotting, a drift meter or absolute altimeter, an instrument for taking visual bearings, and a radio direction finder.”)</p><p>The knowledge requirements start with flight navigation, flight planning, cruise control, and practical meteorology, including analysis of weather maps, weather reports, and weather forecasts; and weather sequence abbreviations, symbols, and nomenclature. Then there’s the types of air navigation facilities and procedures in general use and how to calibrate and use air navigation instruments.</p><p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/celestial-sphere.png"><img class="alignright wp-image-10388" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/celestial-sphere.png" alt="" width="241" height="206" /></a>Applicants must be a graduate of an FAA-approved flight navigator course or document “(1) Satisfactory determination of his position in flight at least 25 times by night by celestial observations and at least 25 times by day by celestial observations in conjunction with other aids; and (2) At least 200 hours of satisfactory flight navigation including celestial and radio navigation and dead reckoning.” (Google did not reveal any approved civilian navigator courses. There is, however, <a href="https://www.abbottaerospace.com/downloads/faa-h-8083-18-flight-navigator-handbook/">FAA-H-8083-18 Flight Navigator Handbook</a>. I couldn’t find it on the FAA website, but the Abbott Aerospace UKK Techniccal Library has it for download. )</p><p>Scrolling through the list of exam areas in Appendix A was revealing…a few examples:</p><p>Identify without a star identifier, at least six navigational stars and all planets available for navigation at the time of the examination and explain the method of identification.</p><p>Take and plot one 3-star fix and 3 LOP’s [Line of Position] of the sun. Plotted fix or an average of LOP’s must fall within 5 miles of the actual position of the observer.</p><p>Demonstrate or explain the compensation and swinging of a liquid-type magnetic compass.</p><p>Demonstrate or explain a method of aligning one type of drift meter.</p><p>Demonstrate or explain a method of aligning an astro-compass or periscopic sextant.</p><p>Prepare a cruise control (howgozit) chart from the operator’s data.</p><p>Determine ground speed and wind by the timing method with a drift meter. When a drift meter is not part of the aircraft’s equipment, an oral examination on the procedure and a problem shall be completed.</p><p>There’s way more. Technology like GPS now provides most of this information, but that reconnects me to the challenge presented by spoofing. How do pilots gather the information to safely reach their destinations? <a href="mailto:scott@jetwhine.com">Scott Spangler—Editor</a></p>]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>https://www.jetwhine.com/2024/03/following-gps-spoofing-down-the-navigation-rabbit-hole/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>2</slash:comments> </item> <item> <title>What Makes an Ace in the 21st Century?</title> <link>https://www.jetwhine.com/2024/02/what-makes-an-ace-in-the-21st-century/</link> <comments>https://www.jetwhine.com/2024/02/what-makes-an-ace-in-the-21st-century/#respond</comments> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Scott Spangler]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 19 Feb 2024 12:00:52 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[Aviation History]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Education]]></category> <category><![CDATA[General]]></category> <category><![CDATA[History]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Military]]></category> <category><![CDATA[The Buzz]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Combat Ace]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Military Aviation]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.jetwhine.com/?p=10371</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/drone-killer.webp"><img class="alignright wp-image-10374" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/drone-killer.webp" alt="" width="270" height="180" /></a>When it was revealed in a BBC interview, <a href="mailto:https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68227200">The Fighter Pilots Hunting Houthi Drones Over the Red Sea</a>, that Marine Captain Earl Ehrhart, an AV-8B Harrier pilot aboard the USS Bataan, had downed seven drones, subsequent stories on this action hailed him as America’s newest ace, the first since the last helo left Saigon in April 1975.</p><p>“The Houthis were launching a lot of suicide attack drones,” says Ehrhart, and to be effective against this rebel group, the marines needed to adapt, the BBC story reports. “’We took a Harrier jet and modified it for air defence,’ Ehrhart tells me. ‘We loaded it up with missiles and that way were able to respond to their drone attacks.’” In the next sentence, the experienced fighter pilot said he intercepted seven Houthi drones.</p><p>Nowhere in the BBC article is the word ace. It seems that aviation editor and authors applied this appellation without fully contemplating the necessary attributes of becoming an ace beyond five victories. For some concise insight, I turned to the <a href="https://www.americanfighteraces.org/?v=d43cf049304b">American Fighter Aces Association</a>, founded in 1960 to recognize the over 1,450 combat pilots from World War I to the present that achieved the status of American Fighter Ace by destroying five or more hostile aircraft in air-to-air combat.</p><p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/harrier-launch.webp"><img class="alignright wp-image-10375" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/harrier-launch.webp" alt="" width="269" height="151" /></a>Given their intent and mission, the Houthi drones are, without a doubt “hostile aircraft.” And Capt. Ehrhart and all the other AV-8B and F-18 pilots have certainly destroyed these pilotless drones. But the key ingredient missing in earning the title of ace is, as the American Fighter Aces Association clearly states, is destroying these “hostile aircraft in air-to-air combat.”</p><p>Downing a drone with a missile does not meet the definition or spirit of aerial combat, “a fight between individuals or groups.” Yes, the Houthis are a group, but all they are doing is programming their drones to hit terrestrial targets and ships, not defend themselves against a Harrier or Super Hornet. When artificial intelligence matures and undertakes a drone’s defensive capabilities, destroying it in air-to-air combat will count toward the title of ace. And if AI destroys its opponent, it will be one tally closer to the title.</p><p>Until that time, lets appreciate and recognize our aviators for the multitude of risks they face on every sortie but reserve the accolade of ace for those who achieve it in a competitive arena. –Scott Spangler, Editor</p>]]></description> <p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/drone-killer.webp"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignright wp-image-10374" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/drone-killer.webp" alt="" width="270" height="180" srcset="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/drone-killer.webp 1920w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/drone-killer-300x200.webp 300w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/drone-killer-1024x683.webp 1024w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/drone-killer-768x512.webp 768w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/drone-killer-1536x1024.webp 1536w" sizes="(max-width: 270px) 100vw, 270px" /></a>When it was revealed in a BBC interview, <a href="mailto:https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68227200">The Fighter Pilots Hunting Houthi Drones Over the Red Sea</a>, that Marine Captain Earl Ehrhart, an AV-8B Harrier pilot aboard the USS Bataan, had downed seven drones, subsequent stories on this action hailed him as America’s newest ace, the first since the last helo left Saigon in April 1975.</p><p>“The Houthis were launching a lot of suicide attack drones,” says Ehrhart, and to be effective against this rebel group, the marines needed to adapt, the BBC story reports. “’We took a Harrier jet and modified it for air defence,’ Ehrhart tells me. ‘We loaded it up with missiles and that way were able to respond to their drone attacks.’” In the next sentence, the experienced fighter pilot said he intercepted seven Houthi drones.</p><p>Nowhere in the BBC article is the word ace. It seems that aviation editor and authors applied this appellation without fully contemplating the necessary attributes of becoming an ace beyond five victories. For some concise insight, I turned to the <a href="https://www.americanfighteraces.org/?v=d43cf049304b">American Fighter Aces Association</a>, founded in 1960 to recognize the over 1,450 combat pilots from World War I to the present that achieved the status of American Fighter Ace by destroying five or more hostile aircraft in air-to-air combat.</p><p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/harrier-launch.webp"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignright wp-image-10375" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/harrier-launch.webp" alt="" width="269" height="151" srcset="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/harrier-launch.webp 1920w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/harrier-launch-300x169.webp 300w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/harrier-launch-1024x576.webp 1024w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/harrier-launch-768x432.webp 768w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/harrier-launch-1536x864.webp 1536w" sizes="(max-width: 269px) 100vw, 269px" /></a>Given their intent and mission, the Houthi drones are, without a doubt “hostile aircraft.” And Capt. Ehrhart and all the other AV-8B and F-18 pilots have certainly destroyed these pilotless drones. But the key ingredient missing in earning the title of ace is, as the American Fighter Aces Association clearly states, is destroying these “hostile aircraft in air-to-air combat.”</p><p>Downing a drone with a missile does not meet the definition or spirit of aerial combat, “a fight between individuals or groups.” Yes, the Houthis are a group, but all they are doing is programming their drones to hit terrestrial targets and ships, not defend themselves against a Harrier or Super Hornet. When artificial intelligence matures and undertakes a drone’s defensive capabilities, destroying it in air-to-air combat will count toward the title of ace. And if AI destroys its opponent, it will be one tally closer to the title.</p><p>Until that time, lets appreciate and recognize our aviators for the multitude of risks they face on every sortie but reserve the accolade of ace for those who achieve it in a competitive arena. –Scott Spangler, Editor</p> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/drone-killer.webp"><img class="alignright wp-image-10374" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/drone-killer.webp" alt="" width="270" height="180" /></a>When it was revealed in a BBC interview, <a href="mailto:https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68227200">The Fighter Pilots Hunting Houthi Drones Over the Red Sea</a>, that Marine Captain Earl Ehrhart, an AV-8B Harrier pilot aboard the USS Bataan, had downed seven drones, subsequent stories on this action hailed him as America’s newest ace, the first since the last helo left Saigon in April 1975.</p><p>“The Houthis were launching a lot of suicide attack drones,” says Ehrhart, and to be effective against this rebel group, the marines needed to adapt, the BBC story reports. “’We took a Harrier jet and modified it for air defence,’ Ehrhart tells me. ‘We loaded it up with missiles and that way were able to respond to their drone attacks.’” In the next sentence, the experienced fighter pilot said he intercepted seven Houthi drones.</p><p>Nowhere in the BBC article is the word ace. It seems that aviation editor and authors applied this appellation without fully contemplating the necessary attributes of becoming an ace beyond five victories. For some concise insight, I turned to the <a href="https://www.americanfighteraces.org/?v=d43cf049304b">American Fighter Aces Association</a>, founded in 1960 to recognize the over 1,450 combat pilots from World War I to the present that achieved the status of American Fighter Ace by destroying five or more hostile aircraft in air-to-air combat.</p><p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/harrier-launch.webp"><img class="alignright wp-image-10375" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/harrier-launch.webp" alt="" width="269" height="151" /></a>Given their intent and mission, the Houthi drones are, without a doubt “hostile aircraft.” And Capt. Ehrhart and all the other AV-8B and F-18 pilots have certainly destroyed these pilotless drones. But the key ingredient missing in earning the title of ace is, as the American Fighter Aces Association clearly states, is destroying these “hostile aircraft in air-to-air combat.”</p><p>Downing a drone with a missile does not meet the definition or spirit of aerial combat, “a fight between individuals or groups.” Yes, the Houthis are a group, but all they are doing is programming their drones to hit terrestrial targets and ships, not defend themselves against a Harrier or Super Hornet. When artificial intelligence matures and undertakes a drone’s defensive capabilities, destroying it in air-to-air combat will count toward the title of ace. And if AI destroys its opponent, it will be one tally closer to the title.</p><p>Until that time, lets appreciate and recognize our aviators for the multitude of risks they face on every sortie but reserve the accolade of ace for those who achieve it in a competitive arena. –Scott Spangler, Editor</p>]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>https://www.jetwhine.com/2024/02/what-makes-an-ace-in-the-21st-century/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> </item> <item> <title>Lessons Learned from an Industry Bankruptcy</title> <link>https://www.jetwhine.com/2024/02/lessons-learned-from-an-industry-bankruptcy/</link> <comments>https://www.jetwhine.com/2024/02/lessons-learned-from-an-industry-bankruptcy/#comments</comments> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert Mark]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 08 Feb 2024 01:35:30 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[aircraft accident]]></category> <category><![CDATA[airline safety]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Aviation Education]]></category> <category><![CDATA[FAA]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Safety]]></category> <category><![CDATA[The Buzz]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Alaska Airlines]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Boeing]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Boeing 737 Max]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Chapter 11 bankruptcy]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Dave Calhoun]]></category> <category><![CDATA[International Association of Machinists (IAM)]]></category> <category><![CDATA[jetwhine]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Michael Whitaker]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Midway Airlines]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Midway Airport]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Stan Deal]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.jetwhine.com/?p=10342</guid> <description><![CDATA[<h3><strong><em>It’s about trust</em></strong></h3><p><img class="alignleft wp-image-10331" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Midway-Boeing-737-200.jpg" alt="By Torsten Maiwald - <a rel="nofollow" class="external free" href="http://www.airliners.net/photo/Midway-Airlines/Boeing-737-2K9-Adv/0203522/L/">http://www.airliners.net/photo/Midway-Airlines/Boeing-737-2K9-Adv/0203522/L/</a>, GFDL 1.2, Link" width="430" height="265" />I remember riding our crew bus with a bunch of other pilots, and flight attendants in the spring of 1991 not long after our employer Midway Airlines had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. The old red and white school bus ran the flight crews from the parking lot on Midway Airport’s north side parking lot along 55<sup>th</sup> Street to the terminal so we could connect with our aircraft. Since pilots have all the solutions to every problem on Earth (just ask one) a bunch of us were complaining about the current state of the airline and our future. Being a big mouth – yes, even then – I wondered why Dave Hinson, our CEO was still running the place. “If Hinson was in charge when we entered bankruptcy, why should we expect he’ll be able to get us out?” After a few nods, the back of the bus was quiet for a few minutes before we moved on to complaining about the crew meals.</p><p>As it turned out, my worries about what the big guy at the airline’s helm would be able to accomplish continued as Midway Airline continued its decline. For a few weeks though, we thought there was a silver lining to the dark cloud we all found ourselves beneath when word came that Midway was about to be purchased by Northwest Airlines (Northwest was later absorbed by Delta). We were overjoyed that somehow the management team had managed to pull a save out from the throws of Chapter 11. Our celebrations were short-lived, however, when on November 12, 1991, Northwest informed Dave Hinson they were pulling out of the negotiations. The original Midway Airline ceased operation the next day on November 13, 1991.</p><h3>After Midway</h3><p>Many of those memories have come flooding back to me over the past few weeks as the latest crisis erupted at Boeing, a company also once headquartered in Chicago. The current mess began when a door plug ripped a gaping hole in the fuselage of an Alaska Airlines 737 Max 9 on January 5<sup>th</sup>. Luckily no one was killed although many cabin items not tied down were sucked out of that fuselage hole when the cabin depressurized. It all could have been much worse. The door plug was eventually located in the backyard of a local high school science teacher. I think his name was Bob.</p><p>And what’s the connection between my former life at Midway and Boeing’s current jam? A bunch of Midway employees didn’t think Dave Hinson and the airline’s board of directors back then could save the ailing carrier. And as for Boeing? A recent story in <a href="https://fortune.com/2024/01/16/boeing-board-plane-737-max-crash/"><em>Fortune</em> magazine</a> said, “Business pundits are <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vc45rHhmgT4">watching closely</a> to see whether CEO Dave Calhoun can lead Boeing through the aftermath of its latest crisis or if he’ll be replaced. But Boeing’s board also deserves scrutiny …”<!--more--></p><h3><strong>Boeing Today</strong></h3><div id="attachment_10332" style="width: 165px" class="wp-caption alignleft"><img aria-describedby="caption-attachment-10332" class="wp-image-10332" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/david-calhoun-400x540-1.jpeg" alt="" width="155" height="209" /><p id="caption-attachment-10332" class="wp-caption-text">Boeing CEO Dave Calhoun</p></div><p>What that Fortune story failed to mention was that Calhoun and the board are going to have <em>another</em> chance to fix Boeing. Calhoun was promoted from within the board (he’d joined in 2009) after then-CEO Denis Muilenburg was shown the door four years ago following the two crashes of 737 Max aircraft in 2018 and 2019. In both of the crashes, the software in the 737’s Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) went rogue in flight and shoved the nose of each aircraft down until they were unrecoverable. As it turned out, another flaw in the MCAS was that no 737 Max pilots were ever told of its existence, nor were they trained on how to recover if things went haywire. Those crashes claimed the lives of 346 men, women, and children. Not long after, the Max fleet was grounded around the world for 20 months, the longest in any airliner’s history.</p><p>Calhoun was supposed to give Boeing a fresh start following those tragedies, but that strategy was flawed from the get-go. Calhoun, a former GE executive believed strongly in the idea of increasing shareholder value as the primary direction for Boeing to point its compass.</p><p>To its credit, Boeing did add several new members to the board of directors, some with industry engineering experience on their resumes following the chaos of 2019. None of the men and women appointed to the board were line-hardened engineers, however, the kind of people who could bring real Boeing manufacturing experience to the table.</p><div id="attachment_10341" style="width: 175px" class="wp-caption alignright"><img aria-describedby="caption-attachment-10341" class="wp-image-10341" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/737-Max-without-bolts-216x300.jpg" alt="" width="165" height="229" /><p id="caption-attachment-10341" class="wp-caption-text">NTSB published a photo highlighting the areas of missing hardware on the Alaska Airlines aircraft.</p></div><p>Earlier this week the NTSB released the preliminary report of last month’s Alaska Airlines incident. The report included proof, with photos, that Boeing remains a company embroiled in manufacturing chaos. After repairs in Seattle, the door plug of the Alaska Airlines aircraft was reinstalled, but minus the hardware needed to hold it in place. Loose hardware was also discovered on other Alaska and some United Airlines aircraft following the incident. Again, it’s only luck that kept Boeing out of hot water surrounding another fatal accident.</p><h3><strong>Things Seem to Just Keep Getting </strong><strong>Worse</strong></h3><p>The past month has been ripe with accounts of faulty manufacturing processes from several people claiming to be Boeing employees. Last Sunday, <a href="https://www.boeing.com/737-9-updates#accordion-78d5956490-item-ac9b94e615">Boeing’s Commercial Aircraft president Stan </a><a href="https://www.boeing.com/737-9-updates#accordion-78d5956490-item-ac9b94e615">Deal said in a statement</a> that all manufacturing personnel would be taking a bit of a breather to reexamine the company’s quality processes. This came as he admitted, “a supplier notified us of a nonconformance in some 737 fuselages.” Because of that Boeing is holding on to an additional 50 fuselages to determine why several holes were incorrectly drilled. Boeing’s statement continued, “While this issue could delay some near-term 737 deliveries, this is the only course of action given our commitment to deliver perfect airplanes every time.” Additionally, “737 program employees submitted more than 1,000 improvement ideas during the [recent] Quality Stand Down” that idled the factory floors. “Elizabeth Lund and her team have been sorting through the feedback and prioritizing the ideas that can and should be implemented right away.” One that caught my eye was “The 737 program has set up a team to expedite the purchase of new tools so that all of our teams have the necessary equipment to perform installation work.” The right tool for the right job … what a pretty unique idea.</p><h3>Where’s the FAA on All of This?</h3><p>Whether the FAA can be of help at this point is unknown. The agency claimed they’d increase oversight of Boeing after the crashes in 2018 and 19, so we’ve heard these promises before. But we need to give the new FAA administrator Michael Whitaker a chance. He’s only been planted behind his desk in DC for about 4 months. A rather ironic topic the new administrator should find interesting is that Boeing updated the charter of its safety committee just weeks before the Alaska Airlines incident. Pay close attention to the committee’s purpose.</p><p style="text-align: center;">_____________________________</p><p style="text-align: center;"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-10344" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Boeing-Safety.jpg" alt="" width="936" height="526" />_____________________________</p><p>The problems at America’s largest aircraft builder date back a few decades to the change in business strategies that prioritized profits, cost-cutting, and increasing shareholder value above product quality. The board obviously knew there were manufacturing and design problems … at least as far back as 2018. Only now, when the board has their backs to the wall is the management team forced to admit their weaknesses. And we only know about the Alaska incident because the door plug fell off the aircraft. About now everyone is wondering what other parts of the 737 are lining up to fail. Of course, the board is another matter altogether.</p><h3>Boeing’s Board of Directors</h3><p>It’s high time that Boeing shareholders rise up and demand the board be remade into a working group that operates with a quality mandate rather than simply talking about fixing things. In fact, a number of shareholders have recently sued Boeing. A better board of directors should appoint some senior rank-and-file IAM members to keep an eye on the bean counters. The timing might be just right too since Boeing and the IAM will soon square off to open new contract negotiations next month. You can just bet the machinists haven’t forgotten the company’s preeminent cost-cutting efforts, like when Boeing built that new 787 plant in South Carolina just to avoid dealing with the union.</p><p>It’s also high time someone showed Mr. Calhoun and his lackeys the door. If they were able to fix what was wrong at the company, they had a chance to get moving more than five years after Lion Air 610 fell out of the sky. What we got instead was a door plug falling out of a fuselage at 15,000 feet. But maybe this time, any pink slips for the upper echelon won’t include huge severance packages like the $62 million they gave Denis Muilenburg when they fired him.</p><p>But I’m also thinking maybe Boeing needs a catchy marketing slogan to coincide with the revamp long before the company ever needs to file for Chapter 11. Hey Boeing, the folks at the old Zenith Electronics company had a pretty good one. “The quality goes in before the name goes on.”</p><p style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: #3366ff;"><em>Did someone forward this copy Jetwhine to you? <a style="color: #3366ff;" href="https://www.jetwhine.com/subscribe-to-jetwhine/">Click here</a> to subscribe</em></span></p>]]></description> <h3><strong><em>It’s about trust</em></strong></h3><p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignleft wp-image-10331" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Midway-Boeing-737-200.jpg" alt="By Torsten Maiwald - <a rel="nofollow" class="external free" href="http://www.airliners.net/photo/Midway-Airlines/Boeing-737-2K9-Adv/0203522/L/">http://www.airliners.net/photo/Midway-Airlines/Boeing-737-2K9-Adv/0203522/L/</a>, GFDL 1.2, Link" width="430" height="265" srcset="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Midway-Boeing-737-200.jpg 2048w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Midway-Boeing-737-200-300x185.jpg 300w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Midway-Boeing-737-200-1024x631.jpg 1024w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Midway-Boeing-737-200-768x473.jpg 768w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Midway-Boeing-737-200-1536x947.jpg 1536w" sizes="(max-width: 430px) 100vw, 430px" />I remember riding our crew bus with a bunch of other pilots, and flight attendants in the spring of 1991 not long after our employer Midway Airlines had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. The old red and white school bus ran the flight crews from the parking lot on Midway Airport’s north side parking lot along 55<sup>th</sup> Street to the terminal so we could connect with our aircraft. Since pilots have all the solutions to every problem on Earth (just ask one) a bunch of us were complaining about the current state of the airline and our future. Being a big mouth – yes, even then – I wondered why Dave Hinson, our CEO was still running the place. “If Hinson was in charge when we entered bankruptcy, why should we expect he’ll be able to get us out?” After a few nods, the back of the bus was quiet for a few minutes before we moved on to complaining about the crew meals.</p><p>As it turned out, my worries about what the big guy at the airline’s helm would be able to accomplish continued as Midway Airline continued its decline. For a few weeks though, we thought there was a silver lining to the dark cloud we all found ourselves beneath when word came that Midway was about to be purchased by Northwest Airlines (Northwest was later absorbed by Delta). We were overjoyed that somehow the management team had managed to pull a save out from the throws of Chapter 11. Our celebrations were short-lived, however, when on November 12, 1991, Northwest informed Dave Hinson they were pulling out of the negotiations. The original Midway Airline ceased operation the next day on November 13, 1991.</p><h3>After Midway</h3><p>Many of those memories have come flooding back to me over the past few weeks as the latest crisis erupted at Boeing, a company also once headquartered in Chicago. The current mess began when a door plug ripped a gaping hole in the fuselage of an Alaska Airlines 737 Max 9 on January 5<sup>th</sup>. Luckily no one was killed although many cabin items not tied down were sucked out of that fuselage hole when the cabin depressurized. It all could have been much worse. The door plug was eventually located in the backyard of a local high school science teacher. I think his name was Bob.</p><p>And what’s the connection between my former life at Midway and Boeing’s current jam? A bunch of Midway employees didn’t think Dave Hinson and the airline’s board of directors back then could save the ailing carrier. And as for Boeing? A recent story in <a href="https://fortune.com/2024/01/16/boeing-board-plane-737-max-crash/"><em>Fortune</em> magazine</a> said, “Business pundits are <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vc45rHhmgT4">watching closely</a> to see whether CEO Dave Calhoun can lead Boeing through the aftermath of its latest crisis or if he’ll be replaced. But Boeing’s board also deserves scrutiny …”<!--more--></p><h3><strong>Boeing Today</strong></h3><div id="attachment_10332" style="width: 165px" class="wp-caption alignleft"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-10332" class="wp-image-10332" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/david-calhoun-400x540-1.jpeg" alt="" width="155" height="209" srcset="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/david-calhoun-400x540-1.jpeg 400w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/david-calhoun-400x540-1-222x300.jpeg 222w" sizes="(max-width: 155px) 100vw, 155px" /><p id="caption-attachment-10332" class="wp-caption-text">Boeing CEO Dave Calhoun</p></div><p>What that Fortune story failed to mention was that Calhoun and the board are going to have <em>another</em> chance to fix Boeing. Calhoun was promoted from within the board (he’d joined in 2009) after then-CEO Denis Muilenburg was shown the door four years ago following the two crashes of 737 Max aircraft in 2018 and 2019. In both of the crashes, the software in the 737’s Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) went rogue in flight and shoved the nose of each aircraft down until they were unrecoverable. As it turned out, another flaw in the MCAS was that no 737 Max pilots were ever told of its existence, nor were they trained on how to recover if things went haywire. Those crashes claimed the lives of 346 men, women, and children. Not long after, the Max fleet was grounded around the world for 20 months, the longest in any airliner’s history.</p><p>Calhoun was supposed to give Boeing a fresh start following those tragedies, but that strategy was flawed from the get-go. Calhoun, a former GE executive believed strongly in the idea of increasing shareholder value as the primary direction for Boeing to point its compass.</p><p>To its credit, Boeing did add several new members to the board of directors, some with industry engineering experience on their resumes following the chaos of 2019. None of the men and women appointed to the board were line-hardened engineers, however, the kind of people who could bring real Boeing manufacturing experience to the table.</p><div id="attachment_10341" style="width: 175px" class="wp-caption alignright"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-10341" class="wp-image-10341" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/737-Max-without-bolts-216x300.jpg" alt="" width="165" height="229" srcset="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/737-Max-without-bolts-216x300.jpg 216w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/737-Max-without-bolts.jpg 554w" sizes="(max-width: 165px) 100vw, 165px" /><p id="caption-attachment-10341" class="wp-caption-text">NTSB published a photo highlighting the areas of missing hardware on the Alaska Airlines aircraft.</p></div><p>Earlier this week the NTSB released the preliminary report of last month’s Alaska Airlines incident. The report included proof, with photos, that Boeing remains a company embroiled in manufacturing chaos. After repairs in Seattle, the door plug of the Alaska Airlines aircraft was reinstalled, but minus the hardware needed to hold it in place. Loose hardware was also discovered on other Alaska and some United Airlines aircraft following the incident. Again, it’s only luck that kept Boeing out of hot water surrounding another fatal accident.</p><h3><strong>Things Seem to Just Keep Getting </strong><strong>Worse</strong></h3><p>The past month has been ripe with accounts of faulty manufacturing processes from several people claiming to be Boeing employees. Last Sunday, <a href="https://www.boeing.com/737-9-updates#accordion-78d5956490-item-ac9b94e615">Boeing’s Commercial Aircraft president Stan </a><a href="https://www.boeing.com/737-9-updates#accordion-78d5956490-item-ac9b94e615">Deal said in a statement</a> that all manufacturing personnel would be taking a bit of a breather to reexamine the company’s quality processes. This came as he admitted, “a supplier notified us of a nonconformance in some 737 fuselages.” Because of that Boeing is holding on to an additional 50 fuselages to determine why several holes were incorrectly drilled. Boeing’s statement continued, “While this issue could delay some near-term 737 deliveries, this is the only course of action given our commitment to deliver perfect airplanes every time.” Additionally, “737 program employees submitted more than 1,000 improvement ideas during the [recent] Quality Stand Down” that idled the factory floors. “Elizabeth Lund and her team have been sorting through the feedback and prioritizing the ideas that can and should be implemented right away.” One that caught my eye was “The 737 program has set up a team to expedite the purchase of new tools so that all of our teams have the necessary equipment to perform installation work.” The right tool for the right job … what a pretty unique idea.</p><h3>Where’s the FAA on All of This?</h3><p>Whether the FAA can be of help at this point is unknown. The agency claimed they’d increase oversight of Boeing after the crashes in 2018 and 19, so we’ve heard these promises before. But we need to give the new FAA administrator Michael Whitaker a chance. He’s only been planted behind his desk in DC for about 4 months. A rather ironic topic the new administrator should find interesting is that Boeing updated the charter of its safety committee just weeks before the Alaska Airlines incident. Pay close attention to the committee’s purpose.</p><p style="text-align: center;">_____________________________</p><p style="text-align: center;"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-10344" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Boeing-Safety.jpg" alt="" width="936" height="526" srcset="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Boeing-Safety.jpg 936w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Boeing-Safety-300x169.jpg 300w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Boeing-Safety-768x432.jpg 768w" sizes="(max-width: 936px) 100vw, 936px" />_____________________________</p><p>The problems at America’s largest aircraft builder date back a few decades to the change in business strategies that prioritized profits, cost-cutting, and increasing shareholder value above product quality. The board obviously knew there were manufacturing and design problems … at least as far back as 2018. Only now, when the board has their backs to the wall is the management team forced to admit their weaknesses. And we only know about the Alaska incident because the door plug fell off the aircraft. About now everyone is wondering what other parts of the 737 are lining up to fail. Of course, the board is another matter altogether.</p><h3>Boeing’s Board of Directors</h3><p>It’s high time that Boeing shareholders rise up and demand the board be remade into a working group that operates with a quality mandate rather than simply talking about fixing things. In fact, a number of shareholders have recently sued Boeing. A better board of directors should appoint some senior rank-and-file IAM members to keep an eye on the bean counters. The timing might be just right too since Boeing and the IAM will soon square off to open new contract negotiations next month. You can just bet the machinists haven’t forgotten the company’s preeminent cost-cutting efforts, like when Boeing built that new 787 plant in South Carolina just to avoid dealing with the union.</p><p>It’s also high time someone showed Mr. Calhoun and his lackeys the door. If they were able to fix what was wrong at the company, they had a chance to get moving more than five years after Lion Air 610 fell out of the sky. What we got instead was a door plug falling out of a fuselage at 15,000 feet. But maybe this time, any pink slips for the upper echelon won’t include huge severance packages like the $62 million they gave Denis Muilenburg when they fired him.</p><p>But I’m also thinking maybe Boeing needs a catchy marketing slogan to coincide with the revamp long before the company ever needs to file for Chapter 11. Hey Boeing, the folks at the old Zenith Electronics company had a pretty good one. “The quality goes in before the name goes on.”</p><p style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: #3366ff;"><em>Did someone forward this copy Jetwhine to you? <a style="color: #3366ff;" href="https://www.jetwhine.com/subscribe-to-jetwhine/">Click here</a> to subscribe</em></span></p> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<h3><strong><em>It’s about trust</em></strong></h3><p><img class="alignleft wp-image-10331" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Midway-Boeing-737-200.jpg" alt="By Torsten Maiwald - <a rel="nofollow" class="external free" href="http://www.airliners.net/photo/Midway-Airlines/Boeing-737-2K9-Adv/0203522/L/">http://www.airliners.net/photo/Midway-Airlines/Boeing-737-2K9-Adv/0203522/L/</a>, GFDL 1.2, Link" width="430" height="265" />I remember riding our crew bus with a bunch of other pilots, and flight attendants in the spring of 1991 not long after our employer Midway Airlines had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. The old red and white school bus ran the flight crews from the parking lot on Midway Airport’s north side parking lot along 55<sup>th</sup> Street to the terminal so we could connect with our aircraft. Since pilots have all the solutions to every problem on Earth (just ask one) a bunch of us were complaining about the current state of the airline and our future. Being a big mouth – yes, even then – I wondered why Dave Hinson, our CEO was still running the place. “If Hinson was in charge when we entered bankruptcy, why should we expect he’ll be able to get us out?” After a few nods, the back of the bus was quiet for a few minutes before we moved on to complaining about the crew meals.</p><p>As it turned out, my worries about what the big guy at the airline’s helm would be able to accomplish continued as Midway Airline continued its decline. For a few weeks though, we thought there was a silver lining to the dark cloud we all found ourselves beneath when word came that Midway was about to be purchased by Northwest Airlines (Northwest was later absorbed by Delta). We were overjoyed that somehow the management team had managed to pull a save out from the throws of Chapter 11. Our celebrations were short-lived, however, when on November 12, 1991, Northwest informed Dave Hinson they were pulling out of the negotiations. The original Midway Airline ceased operation the next day on November 13, 1991.</p><h3>After Midway</h3><p>Many of those memories have come flooding back to me over the past few weeks as the latest crisis erupted at Boeing, a company also once headquartered in Chicago. The current mess began when a door plug ripped a gaping hole in the fuselage of an Alaska Airlines 737 Max 9 on January 5<sup>th</sup>. Luckily no one was killed although many cabin items not tied down were sucked out of that fuselage hole when the cabin depressurized. It all could have been much worse. The door plug was eventually located in the backyard of a local high school science teacher. I think his name was Bob.</p><p>And what’s the connection between my former life at Midway and Boeing’s current jam? A bunch of Midway employees didn’t think Dave Hinson and the airline’s board of directors back then could save the ailing carrier. And as for Boeing? A recent story in <a href="https://fortune.com/2024/01/16/boeing-board-plane-737-max-crash/"><em>Fortune</em> magazine</a> said, “Business pundits are <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vc45rHhmgT4">watching closely</a> to see whether CEO Dave Calhoun can lead Boeing through the aftermath of its latest crisis or if he’ll be replaced. But Boeing’s board also deserves scrutiny …”<!--more--></p><h3><strong>Boeing Today</strong></h3><div id="attachment_10332" style="width: 165px" class="wp-caption alignleft"><img aria-describedby="caption-attachment-10332" class="wp-image-10332" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/david-calhoun-400x540-1.jpeg" alt="" width="155" height="209" /><p id="caption-attachment-10332" class="wp-caption-text">Boeing CEO Dave Calhoun</p></div><p>What that Fortune story failed to mention was that Calhoun and the board are going to have <em>another</em> chance to fix Boeing. Calhoun was promoted from within the board (he’d joined in 2009) after then-CEO Denis Muilenburg was shown the door four years ago following the two crashes of 737 Max aircraft in 2018 and 2019. In both of the crashes, the software in the 737’s Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) went rogue in flight and shoved the nose of each aircraft down until they were unrecoverable. As it turned out, another flaw in the MCAS was that no 737 Max pilots were ever told of its existence, nor were they trained on how to recover if things went haywire. Those crashes claimed the lives of 346 men, women, and children. Not long after, the Max fleet was grounded around the world for 20 months, the longest in any airliner’s history.</p><p>Calhoun was supposed to give Boeing a fresh start following those tragedies, but that strategy was flawed from the get-go. Calhoun, a former GE executive believed strongly in the idea of increasing shareholder value as the primary direction for Boeing to point its compass.</p><p>To its credit, Boeing did add several new members to the board of directors, some with industry engineering experience on their resumes following the chaos of 2019. None of the men and women appointed to the board were line-hardened engineers, however, the kind of people who could bring real Boeing manufacturing experience to the table.</p><div id="attachment_10341" style="width: 175px" class="wp-caption alignright"><img aria-describedby="caption-attachment-10341" class="wp-image-10341" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/737-Max-without-bolts-216x300.jpg" alt="" width="165" height="229" /><p id="caption-attachment-10341" class="wp-caption-text">NTSB published a photo highlighting the areas of missing hardware on the Alaska Airlines aircraft.</p></div><p>Earlier this week the NTSB released the preliminary report of last month’s Alaska Airlines incident. The report included proof, with photos, that Boeing remains a company embroiled in manufacturing chaos. After repairs in Seattle, the door plug of the Alaska Airlines aircraft was reinstalled, but minus the hardware needed to hold it in place. Loose hardware was also discovered on other Alaska and some United Airlines aircraft following the incident. Again, it’s only luck that kept Boeing out of hot water surrounding another fatal accident.</p><h3><strong>Things Seem to Just Keep Getting </strong><strong>Worse</strong></h3><p>The past month has been ripe with accounts of faulty manufacturing processes from several people claiming to be Boeing employees. Last Sunday, <a href="https://www.boeing.com/737-9-updates#accordion-78d5956490-item-ac9b94e615">Boeing’s Commercial Aircraft president Stan </a><a href="https://www.boeing.com/737-9-updates#accordion-78d5956490-item-ac9b94e615">Deal said in a statement</a> that all manufacturing personnel would be taking a bit of a breather to reexamine the company’s quality processes. This came as he admitted, “a supplier notified us of a nonconformance in some 737 fuselages.” Because of that Boeing is holding on to an additional 50 fuselages to determine why several holes were incorrectly drilled. Boeing’s statement continued, “While this issue could delay some near-term 737 deliveries, this is the only course of action given our commitment to deliver perfect airplanes every time.” Additionally, “737 program employees submitted more than 1,000 improvement ideas during the [recent] Quality Stand Down” that idled the factory floors. “Elizabeth Lund and her team have been sorting through the feedback and prioritizing the ideas that can and should be implemented right away.” One that caught my eye was “The 737 program has set up a team to expedite the purchase of new tools so that all of our teams have the necessary equipment to perform installation work.” The right tool for the right job … what a pretty unique idea.</p><h3>Where’s the FAA on All of This?</h3><p>Whether the FAA can be of help at this point is unknown. The agency claimed they’d increase oversight of Boeing after the crashes in 2018 and 19, so we’ve heard these promises before. But we need to give the new FAA administrator Michael Whitaker a chance. He’s only been planted behind his desk in DC for about 4 months. A rather ironic topic the new administrator should find interesting is that Boeing updated the charter of its safety committee just weeks before the Alaska Airlines incident. Pay close attention to the committee’s purpose.</p><p style="text-align: center;">_____________________________</p><p style="text-align: center;"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-10344" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Boeing-Safety.jpg" alt="" width="936" height="526" />_____________________________</p><p>The problems at America’s largest aircraft builder date back a few decades to the change in business strategies that prioritized profits, cost-cutting, and increasing shareholder value above product quality. The board obviously knew there were manufacturing and design problems … at least as far back as 2018. Only now, when the board has their backs to the wall is the management team forced to admit their weaknesses. And we only know about the Alaska incident because the door plug fell off the aircraft. About now everyone is wondering what other parts of the 737 are lining up to fail. Of course, the board is another matter altogether.</p><h3>Boeing’s Board of Directors</h3><p>It’s high time that Boeing shareholders rise up and demand the board be remade into a working group that operates with a quality mandate rather than simply talking about fixing things. In fact, a number of shareholders have recently sued Boeing. A better board of directors should appoint some senior rank-and-file IAM members to keep an eye on the bean counters. The timing might be just right too since Boeing and the IAM will soon square off to open new contract negotiations next month. You can just bet the machinists haven’t forgotten the company’s preeminent cost-cutting efforts, like when Boeing built that new 787 plant in South Carolina just to avoid dealing with the union.</p><p>It’s also high time someone showed Mr. Calhoun and his lackeys the door. If they were able to fix what was wrong at the company, they had a chance to get moving more than five years after Lion Air 610 fell out of the sky. What we got instead was a door plug falling out of a fuselage at 15,000 feet. But maybe this time, any pink slips for the upper echelon won’t include huge severance packages like the $62 million they gave Denis Muilenburg when they fired him.</p><p>But I’m also thinking maybe Boeing needs a catchy marketing slogan to coincide with the revamp long before the company ever needs to file for Chapter 11. Hey Boeing, the folks at the old Zenith Electronics company had a pretty good one. “The quality goes in before the name goes on.”</p><p style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: #3366ff;"><em>Did someone forward this copy Jetwhine to you? <a style="color: #3366ff;" href="https://www.jetwhine.com/subscribe-to-jetwhine/">Click here</a> to subscribe</em></span></p>]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>https://www.jetwhine.com/2024/02/lessons-learned-from-an-industry-bankruptcy/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>4</slash:comments> </item> <item> <title>Aviation Safety Semantics</title> <link>https://www.jetwhine.com/2024/02/aviation-safety-semantics/</link> <comments>https://www.jetwhine.com/2024/02/aviation-safety-semantics/#respond</comments> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Scott Spangler]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 05 Feb 2024 12:00:59 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[aircraft accident]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Aviation Education]]></category> <category><![CDATA[aviation safety]]></category> <category><![CDATA[The Buzz]]></category> <category><![CDATA[aviation accidents]]></category> <category><![CDATA[aviation mishaps]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.jetwhine.com/?p=10334</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/ga-mishap.jpg"><img class="alignright size-full wp-image-10336" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/ga-mishap.jpg" alt="" width="355" height="142" /></a>As a word merchant and an aviator, words are important. They are the foundation of communication, and in many instances they can be the difference between life and death. “Hold Short” is but one example. Equally important is our semantic understanding of the aviation lexicon, what each of the words mean.</p><p>Take “accident,” for example. Millions of words have been written and spoken about this word, its outcomes, its trends, and its persistent place in aviation. But have you ever given thought to what this word means? Here is what the 11<sup>th</sup> edition of <em>Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary</em> has to say:</p><p><strong>Accident—noun</strong></p><p><strong>1a:</strong> an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance</p><p><strong>b:</strong> lack of intention or necessity : CHANCE</p><p><strong>2a:</strong> an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or ignorance</p><p>As this relates to aviation, accidents are unfortunate and, for the most part, unplanned. Suicidal best describes pilots who take off intending to return to earth unsafely. Pilots who consider aviation’s unfortunate outcomes unforeseen may best be described by the second aspect of the definition: careless and ignorant.</p><p>Pilots have been choosing from the same menu of fatal outcomes for more than a century now, so how can anyone categorize them as “unforeseen?” No one is ever immune from the possibility of any of them on any flight. Regardless of our intentions we each are ultimately responsible for the consequences of our decisions.</p><p>Every student pilot learns, to some degree or another, about <a href="https://www.faasafety.gov/gslac/ALC/course_content.aspx?cID=723&sID=1448&preview=true">Five Hazardous Attitudes</a>, their symptoms, and the consequential umbrella that covers them all:</p><p><strong>Anti-authority:</strong> Those who do not like anyone telling them what to do.</p><p><strong>Impulsivity:</strong> Those who feel the need to do something, anything, immediately.</p><p><strong>Invulnerability: </strong>Those who believe that accidents happen to others.</p><p><strong>Macho:</strong> Those who are trying to prove that they are better than anyone else. “Watch this!</p><p><strong>Resignation:</strong> Those who do not see themselves making a difference.</p><p>Knowing about these attitudes is good, but it is just a halfway effort without balancing them with some beneficial attitudes pilots should relentlessly strive to embody. You can compile your list, but here’s one to get you started:</p><p><strong>Circumspect—adjective</strong></p><p>: careful to consider all circumstances and possible consequences : PRUDENT</p><p>Employing all that this word embodies to every aspect of aviation before acting can only improve safety. But just as we each are responsible for the consequences of decisions whether they be good or bad, we humans are not infallible, so unwanted outcomes will continue to occur with unwanted regularity. But we should stop referring to them as “accidents.” The military has a better word and definition for it:</p><p><strong>Mishap—noun</strong></p><p>: any unplanned, unintended event or series of events that results in death, injury, illness, or property damage.</p><p>But whatever word you use to describe it, remember to be circumspect. –Scott Spangler, Editor</p><p><em>Did someone forward JetWhine to you?</em> <a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/subscribe-to-jetwhine/">Subscribe Here</a> <em>and never miss another issue.</em></p>]]></description> <p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/ga-mishap.jpg"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignright size-full wp-image-10336" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/ga-mishap.jpg" alt="" width="355" height="142" srcset="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/ga-mishap.jpg 355w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/ga-mishap-300x120.jpg 300w" sizes="(max-width: 355px) 100vw, 355px" /></a>As a word merchant and an aviator, words are important. They are the foundation of communication, and in many instances they can be the difference between life and death. “Hold Short” is but one example. Equally important is our semantic understanding of the aviation lexicon, what each of the words mean.</p><p>Take “accident,” for example. Millions of words have been written and spoken about this word, its outcomes, its trends, and its persistent place in aviation. But have you ever given thought to what this word means? Here is what the 11<sup>th</sup> edition of <em>Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary</em> has to say:</p><p><strong>Accident—noun</strong></p><p><strong>1a:</strong> an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance</p><p><strong>b:</strong> lack of intention or necessity : CHANCE</p><p><strong>2a:</strong> an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or ignorance</p><p>As this relates to aviation, accidents are unfortunate and, for the most part, unplanned. Suicidal best describes pilots who take off intending to return to earth unsafely. Pilots who consider aviation’s unfortunate outcomes unforeseen may best be described by the second aspect of the definition: careless and ignorant.</p><p>Pilots have been choosing from the same menu of fatal outcomes for more than a century now, so how can anyone categorize them as “unforeseen?” No one is ever immune from the possibility of any of them on any flight. Regardless of our intentions we each are ultimately responsible for the consequences of our decisions.</p><p>Every student pilot learns, to some degree or another, about <a href="https://www.faasafety.gov/gslac/ALC/course_content.aspx?cID=723&sID=1448&preview=true">Five Hazardous Attitudes</a>, their symptoms, and the consequential umbrella that covers them all:</p><p><strong>Anti-authority:</strong> Those who do not like anyone telling them what to do.</p><p><strong>Impulsivity:</strong> Those who feel the need to do something, anything, immediately.</p><p><strong>Invulnerability: </strong>Those who believe that accidents happen to others.</p><p><strong>Macho:</strong> Those who are trying to prove that they are better than anyone else. “Watch this!</p><p><strong>Resignation:</strong> Those who do not see themselves making a difference.</p><p>Knowing about these attitudes is good, but it is just a halfway effort without balancing them with some beneficial attitudes pilots should relentlessly strive to embody. You can compile your list, but here’s one to get you started:</p><p><strong>Circumspect—adjective</strong></p><p>: careful to consider all circumstances and possible consequences : PRUDENT</p><p>Employing all that this word embodies to every aspect of aviation before acting can only improve safety. But just as we each are responsible for the consequences of decisions whether they be good or bad, we humans are not infallible, so unwanted outcomes will continue to occur with unwanted regularity. But we should stop referring to them as “accidents.” The military has a better word and definition for it:</p><p><strong>Mishap—noun</strong></p><p>: any unplanned, unintended event or series of events that results in death, injury, illness, or property damage.</p><p>But whatever word you use to describe it, remember to be circumspect. –Scott Spangler, Editor</p><p><em>Did someone forward JetWhine to you?</em> <a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/subscribe-to-jetwhine/">Subscribe Here</a> <em>and never miss another issue.</em></p> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/ga-mishap.jpg"><img class="alignright size-full wp-image-10336" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/ga-mishap.jpg" alt="" width="355" height="142" /></a>As a word merchant and an aviator, words are important. They are the foundation of communication, and in many instances they can be the difference between life and death. “Hold Short” is but one example. Equally important is our semantic understanding of the aviation lexicon, what each of the words mean.</p><p>Take “accident,” for example. Millions of words have been written and spoken about this word, its outcomes, its trends, and its persistent place in aviation. But have you ever given thought to what this word means? Here is what the 11<sup>th</sup> edition of <em>Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary</em> has to say:</p><p><strong>Accident—noun</strong></p><p><strong>1a:</strong> an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance</p><p><strong>b:</strong> lack of intention or necessity : CHANCE</p><p><strong>2a:</strong> an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or ignorance</p><p>As this relates to aviation, accidents are unfortunate and, for the most part, unplanned. Suicidal best describes pilots who take off intending to return to earth unsafely. Pilots who consider aviation’s unfortunate outcomes unforeseen may best be described by the second aspect of the definition: careless and ignorant.</p><p>Pilots have been choosing from the same menu of fatal outcomes for more than a century now, so how can anyone categorize them as “unforeseen?” No one is ever immune from the possibility of any of them on any flight. Regardless of our intentions we each are ultimately responsible for the consequences of our decisions.</p><p>Every student pilot learns, to some degree or another, about <a href="https://www.faasafety.gov/gslac/ALC/course_content.aspx?cID=723&sID=1448&preview=true">Five Hazardous Attitudes</a>, their symptoms, and the consequential umbrella that covers them all:</p><p><strong>Anti-authority:</strong> Those who do not like anyone telling them what to do.</p><p><strong>Impulsivity:</strong> Those who feel the need to do something, anything, immediately.</p><p><strong>Invulnerability: </strong>Those who believe that accidents happen to others.</p><p><strong>Macho:</strong> Those who are trying to prove that they are better than anyone else. “Watch this!</p><p><strong>Resignation:</strong> Those who do not see themselves making a difference.</p><p>Knowing about these attitudes is good, but it is just a halfway effort without balancing them with some beneficial attitudes pilots should relentlessly strive to embody. You can compile your list, but here’s one to get you started:</p><p><strong>Circumspect—adjective</strong></p><p>: careful to consider all circumstances and possible consequences : PRUDENT</p><p>Employing all that this word embodies to every aspect of aviation before acting can only improve safety. But just as we each are responsible for the consequences of decisions whether they be good or bad, we humans are not infallible, so unwanted outcomes will continue to occur with unwanted regularity. But we should stop referring to them as “accidents.” The military has a better word and definition for it:</p><p><strong>Mishap—noun</strong></p><p>: any unplanned, unintended event or series of events that results in death, injury, illness, or property damage.</p><p>But whatever word you use to describe it, remember to be circumspect. –Scott Spangler, Editor</p><p><em>Did someone forward JetWhine to you?</em> <a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/subscribe-to-jetwhine/">Subscribe Here</a> <em>and never miss another issue.</em></p>]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>https://www.jetwhine.com/2024/02/aviation-safety-semantics/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> </item> <item> <title>Do Electric Aircraft Face Lapse Rate Challenges?</title> <link>https://www.jetwhine.com/2024/01/do-electric-aircraft-face-lapse-rate-challenges/</link> <comments>https://www.jetwhine.com/2024/01/do-electric-aircraft-face-lapse-rate-challenges/#respond</comments> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Scott Spangler]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 22 Jan 2024 12:00:24 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[Airlines]]></category> <category><![CDATA[The Buzz]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Urban Air Mobility]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Weather]]></category> <category><![CDATA[battery]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Electric Aircraft]]></category> <category><![CDATA[weather]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.jetwhine.com/?p=10311</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/snow-charge.jpg"><img class="alignright size-full wp-image-10313" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/snow-charge.jpg" alt="" width="220" height="349" /></a>Beyond worrying about the heating bill and bundling up for the sub-zero trek to the mail box, reports about how much of America has been dealing with the polar waterfall has stimulated an unexpected question: Given the reality that cold weather quickly sucks the electron life out of batteries, will electric aircraft face lapse-rate challenges?</p><p>While watching a TV news report about desperate owners trying to revive their cold-sucked dead Teslas in Chicagoland, what immediately popped into my head was the reality that the ambient temperature in a <a href="https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/06_phak_ch4_0.pdf">standard atmosphere surrenders (lapses) approximately 3.5 °F or 2 °C per thousand feet</a> up to 36,000 feet, which is approximately –65 °F or –55 °C. Above this point, the temperature is considered constant up to 80,000 feet.</p><p>That’s a lot higher than today’s prototype electric flyers now aviate, but I’m looking forward to their airline goals. But the temperatures at the airline’s cruising flight levels are a lot colder than it has been for the past week or so in much of the United States, roughly double our weeklong Wisconsin windchill. (This begs another question: Do batteries suffer from windchill, or is that just reserved for mammals? Google says it doesn’t.)</p><p>Installing battery warmers on these aircraft seems to be a logical solution, but they, too, would be electric, which would increase the draw on the storage system’s power reserves. And then there would be the added weight, the primary foe of power efficient flight. Battery temperature not only affects output, it has a negative effect on recharging the battery.</p><p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/std-atm.png"><img class="alignright wp-image-10314" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/std-atm.png" alt="" width="241" height="287" /></a>Electric vehicles, it turns out, have two batteries, one high-voltage and the other low, like the 12-volt battery that fires up an internal combustion powerplant. Apparently, like a vehicle that runs on dead dinosaurs, an electric vehicle with a cold-sucked 12 volt needs a jump to recharge its high-voltage counterpart more efficiently. Without the proper preparation, it seems, a recharge that takes an hour in milder temps can take four or five times longer when it’s cold. Not that airline turn-around crews need another time-suck challenge.</p><p>The <a href="https://www.tesla.com/ownersmanual/model3/en_us/GUID-F907200E-A619-4A95-A0CF-94E0D03BEBEF.html">Cold Weather Best Practices in the Tesla Model 3 Owner’s Manual</a> was eye opening. Just as ice and snow on an airframe is detrimental to flight, on an electric car, its “moving parts, such as the door handles, windows, mirrors, and wipers can freeze in place.” This includes the charging port. “In extremely cold weather or icy conditions, it is possible that your charge port latch may freeze in place. Some vehicles are equipped with a charge port inlet heater that turns on when you turn on the rear defrost in cold weather conditions. You can also thaw ice on the charge port latch by enabling Defrost Car on the mobile app.”</p><p>This assumes the vehicle still has some battery power left, not to mention the phone needed to run all the vehicle’s apps. I’m sure the electrical aviation engineers are working on all these challenges, and all the others I’m unaware of. I wish them well. The sun has warmed the outside temperature to a positive single digit, and the mail truck just delivered, so it’s time to bundle up. –Scott Spangler, Editor</p>]]></description> <p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/snow-charge.jpg"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignright size-full wp-image-10313" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/snow-charge.jpg" alt="" width="220" height="349" srcset="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/snow-charge.jpg 220w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/snow-charge-189x300.jpg 189w" sizes="(max-width: 220px) 100vw, 220px" /></a>Beyond worrying about the heating bill and bundling up for the sub-zero trek to the mail box, reports about how much of America has been dealing with the polar waterfall has stimulated an unexpected question: Given the reality that cold weather quickly sucks the electron life out of batteries, will electric aircraft face lapse-rate challenges?</p><p>While watching a TV news report about desperate owners trying to revive their cold-sucked dead Teslas in Chicagoland, what immediately popped into my head was the reality that the ambient temperature in a <a href="https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/06_phak_ch4_0.pdf">standard atmosphere surrenders (lapses) approximately 3.5 °F or 2 °C per thousand feet</a> up to 36,000 feet, which is approximately –65 °F or –55 °C. Above this point, the temperature is considered constant up to 80,000 feet.</p><p>That’s a lot higher than today’s prototype electric flyers now aviate, but I’m looking forward to their airline goals. But the temperatures at the airline’s cruising flight levels are a lot colder than it has been for the past week or so in much of the United States, roughly double our weeklong Wisconsin windchill. (This begs another question: Do batteries suffer from windchill, or is that just reserved for mammals? Google says it doesn’t.)</p><p>Installing battery warmers on these aircraft seems to be a logical solution, but they, too, would be electric, which would increase the draw on the storage system’s power reserves. And then there would be the added weight, the primary foe of power efficient flight. Battery temperature not only affects output, it has a negative effect on recharging the battery.</p><p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/std-atm.png"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignright wp-image-10314" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/std-atm.png" alt="" width="241" height="287" srcset="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/std-atm.png 321w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/std-atm-252x300.png 252w" sizes="(max-width: 241px) 100vw, 241px" /></a>Electric vehicles, it turns out, have two batteries, one high-voltage and the other low, like the 12-volt battery that fires up an internal combustion powerplant. Apparently, like a vehicle that runs on dead dinosaurs, an electric vehicle with a cold-sucked 12 volt needs a jump to recharge its high-voltage counterpart more efficiently. Without the proper preparation, it seems, a recharge that takes an hour in milder temps can take four or five times longer when it’s cold. Not that airline turn-around crews need another time-suck challenge.</p><p>The <a href="https://www.tesla.com/ownersmanual/model3/en_us/GUID-F907200E-A619-4A95-A0CF-94E0D03BEBEF.html">Cold Weather Best Practices in the Tesla Model 3 Owner’s Manual</a> was eye opening. Just as ice and snow on an airframe is detrimental to flight, on an electric car, its “moving parts, such as the door handles, windows, mirrors, and wipers can freeze in place.” This includes the charging port. “In extremely cold weather or icy conditions, it is possible that your charge port latch may freeze in place. Some vehicles are equipped with a charge port inlet heater that turns on when you turn on the rear defrost in cold weather conditions. You can also thaw ice on the charge port latch by enabling Defrost Car on the mobile app.”</p><p>This assumes the vehicle still has some battery power left, not to mention the phone needed to run all the vehicle’s apps. I’m sure the electrical aviation engineers are working on all these challenges, and all the others I’m unaware of. I wish them well. The sun has warmed the outside temperature to a positive single digit, and the mail truck just delivered, so it’s time to bundle up. –Scott Spangler, Editor</p> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/snow-charge.jpg"><img class="alignright size-full wp-image-10313" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/snow-charge.jpg" alt="" width="220" height="349" /></a>Beyond worrying about the heating bill and bundling up for the sub-zero trek to the mail box, reports about how much of America has been dealing with the polar waterfall has stimulated an unexpected question: Given the reality that cold weather quickly sucks the electron life out of batteries, will electric aircraft face lapse-rate challenges?</p><p>While watching a TV news report about desperate owners trying to revive their cold-sucked dead Teslas in Chicagoland, what immediately popped into my head was the reality that the ambient temperature in a <a href="https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/06_phak_ch4_0.pdf">standard atmosphere surrenders (lapses) approximately 3.5 °F or 2 °C per thousand feet</a> up to 36,000 feet, which is approximately –65 °F or –55 °C. Above this point, the temperature is considered constant up to 80,000 feet.</p><p>That’s a lot higher than today’s prototype electric flyers now aviate, but I’m looking forward to their airline goals. But the temperatures at the airline’s cruising flight levels are a lot colder than it has been for the past week or so in much of the United States, roughly double our weeklong Wisconsin windchill. (This begs another question: Do batteries suffer from windchill, or is that just reserved for mammals? Google says it doesn’t.)</p><p>Installing battery warmers on these aircraft seems to be a logical solution, but they, too, would be electric, which would increase the draw on the storage system’s power reserves. And then there would be the added weight, the primary foe of power efficient flight. Battery temperature not only affects output, it has a negative effect on recharging the battery.</p><p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/std-atm.png"><img class="alignright wp-image-10314" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/std-atm.png" alt="" width="241" height="287" /></a>Electric vehicles, it turns out, have two batteries, one high-voltage and the other low, like the 12-volt battery that fires up an internal combustion powerplant. Apparently, like a vehicle that runs on dead dinosaurs, an electric vehicle with a cold-sucked 12 volt needs a jump to recharge its high-voltage counterpart more efficiently. Without the proper preparation, it seems, a recharge that takes an hour in milder temps can take four or five times longer when it’s cold. Not that airline turn-around crews need another time-suck challenge.</p><p>The <a href="https://www.tesla.com/ownersmanual/model3/en_us/GUID-F907200E-A619-4A95-A0CF-94E0D03BEBEF.html">Cold Weather Best Practices in the Tesla Model 3 Owner’s Manual</a> was eye opening. Just as ice and snow on an airframe is detrimental to flight, on an electric car, its “moving parts, such as the door handles, windows, mirrors, and wipers can freeze in place.” This includes the charging port. “In extremely cold weather or icy conditions, it is possible that your charge port latch may freeze in place. Some vehicles are equipped with a charge port inlet heater that turns on when you turn on the rear defrost in cold weather conditions. You can also thaw ice on the charge port latch by enabling Defrost Car on the mobile app.”</p><p>This assumes the vehicle still has some battery power left, not to mention the phone needed to run all the vehicle’s apps. I’m sure the electrical aviation engineers are working on all these challenges, and all the others I’m unaware of. I wish them well. The sun has warmed the outside temperature to a positive single digit, and the mail truck just delivered, so it’s time to bundle up. –Scott Spangler, Editor</p>]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>https://www.jetwhine.com/2024/01/do-electric-aircraft-face-lapse-rate-challenges/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> </item> <item> <title>Making Like Maverick in an L-39</title> <link>https://www.jetwhine.com/2024/01/making-like-maverick-in-an-l-39/</link> <comments>https://www.jetwhine.com/2024/01/making-like-maverick-in-an-l-39/#respond</comments> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert Mark]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jan 2024 17:55:01 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[Aviation Education]]></category> <category><![CDATA[aviation safety]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Flight Training]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Military]]></category> <category><![CDATA[The Buzz]]></category> <category><![CDATA[AOPA Pilot Turbine edition]]></category> <category><![CDATA[jetwhine.com]]></category> <category><![CDATA[L-39]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Rob Mark]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.jetwhine.com/?p=9867</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p>By Rob Mark</p><p>An early scene in <em>An Officer and a Gentleman</em>, the 1982 movie about U.S. Navy recruits slogging their way through officer candidate school, has granite-tough Marine Gunnery Sgt. Foley (actor Lou Gossett Jr.) confronting candidate Zack Mayo (actor Richard Gere) nose to nose.</p><p>“Now why would a slick little hustler like you sign up for the Navy?” asks Foley.</p><p>Mayo’s response grabbed me. “Because I want to fly jets, sir!”</p><p>I’ve been flying jets for years as a corporate pilot, but not real jets to some … like fighter jets. When opportunity knocked with an offer to fly an Aero Vodochody L–39 Albatros (one “s” in the Czech spelling)—a single-engine bird still used as a basic trainer for some nation’s fighter pilots—I jumped at the chance. And I <em>seldom</em> thought much about <em>Top Gun</em> either (“Do some of that pilot stuff, Maverick”) before my first day of training at Gauntlet Warbirds, based at Aurora Municipal Airport (KARR) west of Chicago. In a nice-job-if-you-can-get-it situation, Greg Morris serves as Gauntlet’s owner and chief pilot (see “Pilots: Greg Morris,” December 2011 AOPA Pilot).</p><p><cite><img class="alignleft wp-image-10304" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/L-39-285x300.jpg" alt="" width="198" height="208" /><span style="color: #3366ff;">The panel on the L–39 is a conglomeration of normal gauges, except some, are labeled in English, and others still in Cyrillic.</span></cite></p><p>My goal in these Gauntlet jet-training sessions? Cram enough L–39 knowledge and skill into my brain to pass a type-rating checkride. With very little onboard deice equipment, the L–39 is, however, a VFR-only bird. In a non-U.S.-certified Experimental aircraft like the L–39, the end result is called an Experimental Aircraft Authorization. Morris explained that the Experimental moniker also prevents Gauntlet from charging for rides. A pilot with any kind of certificate can begin training right away in the familiarization course where dual instruction is $2,200 per hour. Only if a pilot chooses the complete course with a checkride is an instrument rating required. The total cost will vary according to the student’s experience level and can run from six to 20 hours. And almost before I could ask, Morris said, “The FAA allows P–51 rides, though, under a special exemption. If they’d grant us an exception, I’d need another L–39 immediately to handle the business.”</p><p><strong>The Walk Around</strong></p><p>Morris and I began with a walk around N992RT, a 1974 C-model Albatros. Other versions ready the L–39 for light-attack missions. On first glance at its near-stiletto nose, it’s clear the 10,300-pound Albatros is fast. Down low, maximum speeds can easily exceed 425 knots. However, this airplane is also designed with systems simple enough—and handling qualities docile enough—to allow no-jet-time aviators to confidently solo in as little as 15 hours. But good jet flying is still demanding. Morris says that his no-previous-jet-time customers usually need between 15 and 20 hours to complete the training. “You’d think pilot problems would be all about stick-and-rudder skills here,” he said. “But most of the time, problems pop up because students simply haven’t spent enough time with the books. They need to know the L–39’s systems and our profiles cold when they walk in the door.” Not much different than corporate flying.</p><p>Preflight means ensuring the controls move properly, the pitot probes are undamaged, the oil level is sufficient, and both engine intakes—so dark you always need a flashlight—are clear of debris. You scramble up the side of the Albatros before you climb in, where the L–39 seat is not comfortable, not even a little bit. But then, you’re sitting on a parachute and a disarmed ejection seat. I eventually did find some degree of comfort, even with that big, fat, five-point harness; a helmet; visor; and an oxygen mask.</p><p><img class="photoc alignleft" src="https://www.aopa.org/-/media/Images/Legacy/AOPA/Home/News/All/2012/April/Flying-a-Real-Jet/1204p-l39-flaps-class.jpg?w=670&h=241&as=1&hash=E35FFA9CFBE6D56BA9C81A9323DECF32" alt="L39 Ground School and Flaps" width="500" height="180" /></p><p><span style="color: #3366ff;">The author and Greg Morris review the aircraft flight envelope during ground school (right). The L–39’s Fowler flaps are clearly visible during the preflight inside Gauntlet Warbird’s hangar at Aurora Municipal Airport (left).</span></p><p>Many of the panel gauge identifications are written in Cyrillic, with metric scales, the panel looks much like that of a U.S.-built fighter jet—including the narrow and mildly pressurized (4 psi) cockpit. The big throttle on the left side includes a thumb-operated speed-brake switch to make extension and retraction of the boards beneath the belly easy. The checkout includes a brief on the L–39’s castering nose gear. Steering happens through coordinated use of brakeless rudder pedals augmented by a handbrake, which looks like it was swiped from a 10-speed bike, attached to the control stick. Need a right turn? Hold full right rudder and gently grab the handbrake. “That braking system is the single thing that gets everyone,” Morris told me. “I constantly get thrown around in the backseat while we’re on the ground as folks get used to it.” He joked, “That’s one reason I wear the helmet.”</p><p><img class="photor alignright" src="https://www.aopa.org/-/media/Images/Legacy/AOPA/Home/News/All/2012/April/Flying-a-Real-Jet/1204p-l39-flying01.jpg?w=300&h=212&as=1&hash=A3CA4B5C8BE0B87261B43E10D31E7237" alt="L39 in flight" width="238" height="168" /></p><p>The 3,800-pound-thrust Ukrainian-built AI25-TL engine needs an air-assisted start provided by the onboard Sapphire APU. Once it spins up the engine we begin taxi practice to the runway, something a bit akin to learning to steer my old taildragger. Like most jets, before-takeoff items are few, except for the slam check, where I shove the throttle from idle to full power to time how long it takes to reach full power, normally about 12 to 14 seconds, which is why you almost never, ever pull the throttle back to idle if you’re high or fast on final, for example, where speed brakes would be adding drag as well.</p><p><strong>A Bit Like a Taildragger</strong></p><p>I still zig and zag a bit with those brakes for the lineup and hold them while I run the engine to full power—106 percent—before releasing the brake handle. Steering is quite easy as we shoot down the runway. At 90 knots I ease the stick back and we’re through 140 knots with gear and flaps coming up before I know it. In a 200-knot climb, we’re rocketing at 3,000 fpm toward the VFR Gauntlet practice area west of Aurora Airport.</p><p>Morris was right. The L–39 is a breeze to fly—light and responsive on the controls. My 200-knot steep turns begin at 14,500 feet with gentle banks. Morris asks to show me a few. He effortlessly cranks that puppy into 45- to 50-degree banks. I try and now it’s really fun, even though the L–39 is clearly sensitive in pitch. “You really need to include the attitude indicator in your scan,” he tells me. “Even a small angular change from the horizon quickly translates into a huge velocity change.” I’ll need to work on these.</p><p><img class="photoc alignleft" src="https://www.aopa.org/-/media/Images/Legacy/AOPA/Home/News/All/2012/April/Flying-a-Real-Jet/1204p-l39-preflight.jpg?w=670&h=216&as=1&hash=A5BDA52CCF930EBE11DF0C0753215F5A" alt="L39 Preflight" width="561" height="181" /></p><p><span style="color: #3366ff;">Preflight demands a check of the ram air turbine (right), pneumatic pressure (middle), and a look inside the variety of other access panels (left).</span></p><p>Next comes a roll looking out the huge glass canopy. Now I’m really loving this airplane. The stalls are very simple—wait for the buffet and recover. But a secondary stall awaits any pilot who recovers with too much back pressure, too quickly.</p><p>The traffic pattern is where the fun really begins as we try out the Albatros as a touch-and-go birds. I was almost exhausted after the first hour-long pattern session before I realized that bizjet pilots don’t normally fly VFR touch and go; approaches and go-arounds, yes, but not touch and goes. Because the Albatros can accelerate so quickly, Morris tells me to fly the upwind and prepare for a quick 180-degree turn back to downwind all at once, pulling the power back just before we reach pattern altitude.</p><p><strong>Let the Nose Fall??</strong></p><p>In the pattern, you can’t let the speed get away from you or the patterns become ugly, as Morris mentioned in the briefing. It sounded easy, but on the first few, I found myself with the power back, nose up high, and in a turn wondering what might be coming next. “Don’t try to hold everything up,” Morris instructs. “Just let the nose fall as you turn. If you don’t reduce the power quickly as you unload the nose, you’ll easily gain 70 knots turning downwind.” After a few tries, my turns plunk me right on downwind at just under 200 knots. “That’s perfect,” Morris announces. I began to breathe a bit as each landing started to improve on the last.</p><p><img class="photo alignleft" src="https://www.aopa.org/-/media/Images/Legacy/AOPA/Home/News/All/2012/April/Flying-a-Real-Jet/1204p-l39-hero.jpg?w=300&h=391&as=1&hash=D594873C0B16A9E51C9BCC72484479CB" alt="L39" width="233" height="304" />Reminding me of that slow engine spool-up time, Morris said we’d fly base at 140 knots with the speed brakes extended, demanding high power settings that prepare the engine for instant response in the event of a go-around. On short final, I slow to 120 knots and hold it off like a Cirrus. Some were even more fun as I held the nose up high for a little aerodynamic braking, just like those F–16s I always watch at AirVenture. On a touch and go, as soon as the nosewheel was down, I slammed the throttle in because of that spool-up time again. By the time I return the flaps to takeoff, we’ve reached 90, and the power’s back at max.</p><p>In L–39s, the last maneuver to learn is a Simulated Flame Out (SFO) approach, essentially like the instructor pulling back the throttle of a 172 to watch the pilot’s reaction. Since engine failures in fighters are likely to happen up high, simply looking out the window for a great field seldom works. A successful maneuver becomes all about energy management, so pilots don’t end up too high or too fast at the wrong time. Now the blackboard drawings Morris made illustrating Gauntlet’s SFO procedures made more sense. “Some people try to make up their own procedures when they’re nervous,” Morris told me. “When they eventually start flying the way we teach them, it usually all falls into place.”</p><p>The SFO practice actually begins near the airport at roughly 3,000 feet agl. Turn final two miles out at 200 knots and cross the numbers headed upwind, a point called High Key. Students set the throttle at 70 percent N1 and try to not touch it again until just before the touchdown. The pilot now blends only the use of flaps, gear, and speed brakes together with a pitch to make the runway. At the numbers, the pilot begins a single 180-degree turn back to downwind. At the Low Key point, opposite the numbers, it becomes easier to figure out whether the plan will work. Morris says a good instructor can see a successful SFO coming a half-mile away. I’m still working on mine.</p><p>And so the training hours passed and I eventually began to feel more comfortable in this tiny fighter-plane cockpit—now that I was accustomed to the myriad foreign-language dials and gauges, that is. In the end, the L–39—as slick as I thought it was during that first round of touch and goes—flies just like an airplane, a quite good one, of course, thinking back to a roll rate that could easily knock my eyeballs from side to side if I wasn’t careful. When I look back at checking out in a Cirrus SR22, I thought that, too, was quite an eye-opening experience at the time. Now that I was preparing for the check ride, I realized the L–39 too would someday become just another airplane in the list of those I’ve flown. Yeah, right, Maverick!</p><p><em>Robert Mark publishes <a href="http://www.jetwhine.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Jetwhine.com</a>. This story was reprinted here with permission of <a href="https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/publications/turbine-pilot">AOPA Pilot</a> where it ran originally.</em></p>]]></description> <p>By Rob Mark</p><p>An early scene in <em>An Officer and a Gentleman</em>, the 1982 movie about U.S. Navy recruits slogging their way through officer candidate school, has granite-tough Marine Gunnery Sgt. Foley (actor Lou Gossett Jr.) confronting candidate Zack Mayo (actor Richard Gere) nose to nose.</p><p>“Now why would a slick little hustler like you sign up for the Navy?” asks Foley.</p><p>Mayo’s response grabbed me. “Because I want to fly jets, sir!”</p><p>I’ve been flying jets for years as a corporate pilot, but not real jets to some … like fighter jets. When opportunity knocked with an offer to fly an Aero Vodochody L–39 Albatros (one “s” in the Czech spelling)—a single-engine bird still used as a basic trainer for some nation’s fighter pilots—I jumped at the chance. And I <em>seldom</em> thought much about <em>Top Gun</em> either (“Do some of that pilot stuff, Maverick”) before my first day of training at Gauntlet Warbirds, based at Aurora Municipal Airport (KARR) west of Chicago. In a nice-job-if-you-can-get-it situation, Greg Morris serves as Gauntlet’s owner and chief pilot (see “Pilots: Greg Morris,” December 2011 AOPA Pilot).</p><p><cite><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignleft wp-image-10304" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/L-39-285x300.jpg" alt="" width="198" height="208" srcset="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/L-39-285x300.jpg 285w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/L-39.jpg 626w" sizes="(max-width: 198px) 100vw, 198px" /><span style="color: #3366ff;">The panel on the L–39 is a conglomeration of normal gauges, except some, are labeled in English, and others still in Cyrillic.</span></cite></p><p>My goal in these Gauntlet jet-training sessions? Cram enough L–39 knowledge and skill into my brain to pass a type-rating checkride. With very little onboard deice equipment, the L–39 is, however, a VFR-only bird. In a non-U.S.-certified Experimental aircraft like the L–39, the end result is called an Experimental Aircraft Authorization. Morris explained that the Experimental moniker also prevents Gauntlet from charging for rides. A pilot with any kind of certificate can begin training right away in the familiarization course where dual instruction is $2,200 per hour. Only if a pilot chooses the complete course with a checkride is an instrument rating required. The total cost will vary according to the student’s experience level and can run from six to 20 hours. And almost before I could ask, Morris said, “The FAA allows P–51 rides, though, under a special exemption. If they’d grant us an exception, I’d need another L–39 immediately to handle the business.”</p><p><strong>The Walk Around</strong></p><p>Morris and I began with a walk around N992RT, a 1974 C-model Albatros. Other versions ready the L–39 for light-attack missions. On first glance at its near-stiletto nose, it’s clear the 10,300-pound Albatros is fast. Down low, maximum speeds can easily exceed 425 knots. However, this airplane is also designed with systems simple enough—and handling qualities docile enough—to allow no-jet-time aviators to confidently solo in as little as 15 hours. But good jet flying is still demanding. Morris says that his no-previous-jet-time customers usually need between 15 and 20 hours to complete the training. “You’d think pilot problems would be all about stick-and-rudder skills here,” he said. “But most of the time, problems pop up because students simply haven’t spent enough time with the books. They need to know the L–39’s systems and our profiles cold when they walk in the door.” Not much different than corporate flying.</p><p>Preflight means ensuring the controls move properly, the pitot probes are undamaged, the oil level is sufficient, and both engine intakes—so dark you always need a flashlight—are clear of debris. You scramble up the side of the Albatros before you climb in, where the L–39 seat is not comfortable, not even a little bit. But then, you’re sitting on a parachute and a disarmed ejection seat. I eventually did find some degree of comfort, even with that big, fat, five-point harness; a helmet; visor; and an oxygen mask.</p><p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="photoc alignleft" src="https://www.aopa.org/-/media/Images/Legacy/AOPA/Home/News/All/2012/April/Flying-a-Real-Jet/1204p-l39-flaps-class.jpg?w=670&h=241&as=1&hash=E35FFA9CFBE6D56BA9C81A9323DECF32" alt="L39 Ground School and Flaps" width="500" height="180" /></p><p><span style="color: #3366ff;">The author and Greg Morris review the aircraft flight envelope during ground school (right). The L–39’s Fowler flaps are clearly visible during the preflight inside Gauntlet Warbird’s hangar at Aurora Municipal Airport (left).</span></p><p>Many of the panel gauge identifications are written in Cyrillic, with metric scales, the panel looks much like that of a U.S.-built fighter jet—including the narrow and mildly pressurized (4 psi) cockpit. The big throttle on the left side includes a thumb-operated speed-brake switch to make extension and retraction of the boards beneath the belly easy. The checkout includes a brief on the L–39’s castering nose gear. Steering happens through coordinated use of brakeless rudder pedals augmented by a handbrake, which looks like it was swiped from a 10-speed bike, attached to the control stick. Need a right turn? Hold full right rudder and gently grab the handbrake. “That braking system is the single thing that gets everyone,” Morris told me. “I constantly get thrown around in the backseat while we’re on the ground as folks get used to it.” He joked, “That’s one reason I wear the helmet.”</p><p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="photor alignright" src="https://www.aopa.org/-/media/Images/Legacy/AOPA/Home/News/All/2012/April/Flying-a-Real-Jet/1204p-l39-flying01.jpg?w=300&h=212&as=1&hash=A3CA4B5C8BE0B87261B43E10D31E7237" alt="L39 in flight" width="238" height="168" /></p><p>The 3,800-pound-thrust Ukrainian-built AI25-TL engine needs an air-assisted start provided by the onboard Sapphire APU. Once it spins up the engine we begin taxi practice to the runway, something a bit akin to learning to steer my old taildragger. Like most jets, before-takeoff items are few, except for the slam check, where I shove the throttle from idle to full power to time how long it takes to reach full power, normally about 12 to 14 seconds, which is why you almost never, ever pull the throttle back to idle if you’re high or fast on final, for example, where speed brakes would be adding drag as well.</p><p><strong>A Bit Like a Taildragger</strong></p><p>I still zig and zag a bit with those brakes for the lineup and hold them while I run the engine to full power—106 percent—before releasing the brake handle. Steering is quite easy as we shoot down the runway. At 90 knots I ease the stick back and we’re through 140 knots with gear and flaps coming up before I know it. In a 200-knot climb, we’re rocketing at 3,000 fpm toward the VFR Gauntlet practice area west of Aurora Airport.</p><p>Morris was right. The L–39 is a breeze to fly—light and responsive on the controls. My 200-knot steep turns begin at 14,500 feet with gentle banks. Morris asks to show me a few. He effortlessly cranks that puppy into 45- to 50-degree banks. I try and now it’s really fun, even though the L–39 is clearly sensitive in pitch. “You really need to include the attitude indicator in your scan,” he tells me. “Even a small angular change from the horizon quickly translates into a huge velocity change.” I’ll need to work on these.</p><p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="photoc alignleft" src="https://www.aopa.org/-/media/Images/Legacy/AOPA/Home/News/All/2012/April/Flying-a-Real-Jet/1204p-l39-preflight.jpg?w=670&h=216&as=1&hash=A5BDA52CCF930EBE11DF0C0753215F5A" alt="L39 Preflight" width="561" height="181" /></p><p><span style="color: #3366ff;">Preflight demands a check of the ram air turbine (right), pneumatic pressure (middle), and a look inside the variety of other access panels (left).</span></p><p>Next comes a roll looking out the huge glass canopy. Now I’m really loving this airplane. The stalls are very simple—wait for the buffet and recover. But a secondary stall awaits any pilot who recovers with too much back pressure, too quickly.</p><p>The traffic pattern is where the fun really begins as we try out the Albatros as a touch-and-go birds. I was almost exhausted after the first hour-long pattern session before I realized that bizjet pilots don’t normally fly VFR touch and go; approaches and go-arounds, yes, but not touch and goes. Because the Albatros can accelerate so quickly, Morris tells me to fly the upwind and prepare for a quick 180-degree turn back to downwind all at once, pulling the power back just before we reach pattern altitude.</p><p><strong>Let the Nose Fall??</strong></p><p>In the pattern, you can’t let the speed get away from you or the patterns become ugly, as Morris mentioned in the briefing. It sounded easy, but on the first few, I found myself with the power back, nose up high, and in a turn wondering what might be coming next. “Don’t try to hold everything up,” Morris instructs. “Just let the nose fall as you turn. If you don’t reduce the power quickly as you unload the nose, you’ll easily gain 70 knots turning downwind.” After a few tries, my turns plunk me right on downwind at just under 200 knots. “That’s perfect,” Morris announces. I began to breathe a bit as each landing started to improve on the last.</p><p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="photo alignleft" src="https://www.aopa.org/-/media/Images/Legacy/AOPA/Home/News/All/2012/April/Flying-a-Real-Jet/1204p-l39-hero.jpg?w=300&h=391&as=1&hash=D594873C0B16A9E51C9BCC72484479CB" alt="L39" width="233" height="304" />Reminding me of that slow engine spool-up time, Morris said we’d fly base at 140 knots with the speed brakes extended, demanding high power settings that prepare the engine for instant response in the event of a go-around. On short final, I slow to 120 knots and hold it off like a Cirrus. Some were even more fun as I held the nose up high for a little aerodynamic braking, just like those F–16s I always watch at AirVenture. On a touch and go, as soon as the nosewheel was down, I slammed the throttle in because of that spool-up time again. By the time I return the flaps to takeoff, we’ve reached 90, and the power’s back at max.</p><p>In L–39s, the last maneuver to learn is a Simulated Flame Out (SFO) approach, essentially like the instructor pulling back the throttle of a 172 to watch the pilot’s reaction. Since engine failures in fighters are likely to happen up high, simply looking out the window for a great field seldom works. A successful maneuver becomes all about energy management, so pilots don’t end up too high or too fast at the wrong time. Now the blackboard drawings Morris made illustrating Gauntlet’s SFO procedures made more sense. “Some people try to make up their own procedures when they’re nervous,” Morris told me. “When they eventually start flying the way we teach them, it usually all falls into place.”</p><p>The SFO practice actually begins near the airport at roughly 3,000 feet agl. Turn final two miles out at 200 knots and cross the numbers headed upwind, a point called High Key. Students set the throttle at 70 percent N1 and try to not touch it again until just before the touchdown. The pilot now blends only the use of flaps, gear, and speed brakes together with a pitch to make the runway. At the numbers, the pilot begins a single 180-degree turn back to downwind. At the Low Key point, opposite the numbers, it becomes easier to figure out whether the plan will work. Morris says a good instructor can see a successful SFO coming a half-mile away. I’m still working on mine.</p><p>And so the training hours passed and I eventually began to feel more comfortable in this tiny fighter-plane cockpit—now that I was accustomed to the myriad foreign-language dials and gauges, that is. In the end, the L–39—as slick as I thought it was during that first round of touch and goes—flies just like an airplane, a quite good one, of course, thinking back to a roll rate that could easily knock my eyeballs from side to side if I wasn’t careful. When I look back at checking out in a Cirrus SR22, I thought that, too, was quite an eye-opening experience at the time. Now that I was preparing for the check ride, I realized the L–39 too would someday become just another airplane in the list of those I’ve flown. Yeah, right, Maverick!</p><p><em>Robert Mark publishes <a href="http://www.jetwhine.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Jetwhine.com</a>. This story was reprinted here with permission of <a href="https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/publications/turbine-pilot">AOPA Pilot</a> where it ran originally.</em></p> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>By Rob Mark</p><p>An early scene in <em>An Officer and a Gentleman</em>, the 1982 movie about U.S. Navy recruits slogging their way through officer candidate school, has granite-tough Marine Gunnery Sgt. Foley (actor Lou Gossett Jr.) confronting candidate Zack Mayo (actor Richard Gere) nose to nose.</p><p>“Now why would a slick little hustler like you sign up for the Navy?” asks Foley.</p><p>Mayo’s response grabbed me. “Because I want to fly jets, sir!”</p><p>I’ve been flying jets for years as a corporate pilot, but not real jets to some … like fighter jets. When opportunity knocked with an offer to fly an Aero Vodochody L–39 Albatros (one “s” in the Czech spelling)—a single-engine bird still used as a basic trainer for some nation’s fighter pilots—I jumped at the chance. And I <em>seldom</em> thought much about <em>Top Gun</em> either (“Do some of that pilot stuff, Maverick”) before my first day of training at Gauntlet Warbirds, based at Aurora Municipal Airport (KARR) west of Chicago. In a nice-job-if-you-can-get-it situation, Greg Morris serves as Gauntlet’s owner and chief pilot (see “Pilots: Greg Morris,” December 2011 AOPA Pilot).</p><p><cite><img class="alignleft wp-image-10304" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/L-39-285x300.jpg" alt="" width="198" height="208" /><span style="color: #3366ff;">The panel on the L–39 is a conglomeration of normal gauges, except some, are labeled in English, and others still in Cyrillic.</span></cite></p><p>My goal in these Gauntlet jet-training sessions? Cram enough L–39 knowledge and skill into my brain to pass a type-rating checkride. With very little onboard deice equipment, the L–39 is, however, a VFR-only bird. In a non-U.S.-certified Experimental aircraft like the L–39, the end result is called an Experimental Aircraft Authorization. Morris explained that the Experimental moniker also prevents Gauntlet from charging for rides. A pilot with any kind of certificate can begin training right away in the familiarization course where dual instruction is $2,200 per hour. Only if a pilot chooses the complete course with a checkride is an instrument rating required. The total cost will vary according to the student’s experience level and can run from six to 20 hours. And almost before I could ask, Morris said, “The FAA allows P–51 rides, though, under a special exemption. If they’d grant us an exception, I’d need another L–39 immediately to handle the business.”</p><p><strong>The Walk Around</strong></p><p>Morris and I began with a walk around N992RT, a 1974 C-model Albatros. Other versions ready the L–39 for light-attack missions. On first glance at its near-stiletto nose, it’s clear the 10,300-pound Albatros is fast. Down low, maximum speeds can easily exceed 425 knots. However, this airplane is also designed with systems simple enough—and handling qualities docile enough—to allow no-jet-time aviators to confidently solo in as little as 15 hours. But good jet flying is still demanding. Morris says that his no-previous-jet-time customers usually need between 15 and 20 hours to complete the training. “You’d think pilot problems would be all about stick-and-rudder skills here,” he said. “But most of the time, problems pop up because students simply haven’t spent enough time with the books. They need to know the L–39’s systems and our profiles cold when they walk in the door.” Not much different than corporate flying.</p><p>Preflight means ensuring the controls move properly, the pitot probes are undamaged, the oil level is sufficient, and both engine intakes—so dark you always need a flashlight—are clear of debris. You scramble up the side of the Albatros before you climb in, where the L–39 seat is not comfortable, not even a little bit. But then, you’re sitting on a parachute and a disarmed ejection seat. I eventually did find some degree of comfort, even with that big, fat, five-point harness; a helmet; visor; and an oxygen mask.</p><p><img class="photoc alignleft" src="https://www.aopa.org/-/media/Images/Legacy/AOPA/Home/News/All/2012/April/Flying-a-Real-Jet/1204p-l39-flaps-class.jpg?w=670&h=241&as=1&hash=E35FFA9CFBE6D56BA9C81A9323DECF32" alt="L39 Ground School and Flaps" width="500" height="180" /></p><p><span style="color: #3366ff;">The author and Greg Morris review the aircraft flight envelope during ground school (right). The L–39’s Fowler flaps are clearly visible during the preflight inside Gauntlet Warbird’s hangar at Aurora Municipal Airport (left).</span></p><p>Many of the panel gauge identifications are written in Cyrillic, with metric scales, the panel looks much like that of a U.S.-built fighter jet—including the narrow and mildly pressurized (4 psi) cockpit. The big throttle on the left side includes a thumb-operated speed-brake switch to make extension and retraction of the boards beneath the belly easy. The checkout includes a brief on the L–39’s castering nose gear. Steering happens through coordinated use of brakeless rudder pedals augmented by a handbrake, which looks like it was swiped from a 10-speed bike, attached to the control stick. Need a right turn? Hold full right rudder and gently grab the handbrake. “That braking system is the single thing that gets everyone,” Morris told me. “I constantly get thrown around in the backseat while we’re on the ground as folks get used to it.” He joked, “That’s one reason I wear the helmet.”</p><p><img class="photor alignright" src="https://www.aopa.org/-/media/Images/Legacy/AOPA/Home/News/All/2012/April/Flying-a-Real-Jet/1204p-l39-flying01.jpg?w=300&h=212&as=1&hash=A3CA4B5C8BE0B87261B43E10D31E7237" alt="L39 in flight" width="238" height="168" /></p><p>The 3,800-pound-thrust Ukrainian-built AI25-TL engine needs an air-assisted start provided by the onboard Sapphire APU. Once it spins up the engine we begin taxi practice to the runway, something a bit akin to learning to steer my old taildragger. Like most jets, before-takeoff items are few, except for the slam check, where I shove the throttle from idle to full power to time how long it takes to reach full power, normally about 12 to 14 seconds, which is why you almost never, ever pull the throttle back to idle if you’re high or fast on final, for example, where speed brakes would be adding drag as well.</p><p><strong>A Bit Like a Taildragger</strong></p><p>I still zig and zag a bit with those brakes for the lineup and hold them while I run the engine to full power—106 percent—before releasing the brake handle. Steering is quite easy as we shoot down the runway. At 90 knots I ease the stick back and we’re through 140 knots with gear and flaps coming up before I know it. In a 200-knot climb, we’re rocketing at 3,000 fpm toward the VFR Gauntlet practice area west of Aurora Airport.</p><p>Morris was right. The L–39 is a breeze to fly—light and responsive on the controls. My 200-knot steep turns begin at 14,500 feet with gentle banks. Morris asks to show me a few. He effortlessly cranks that puppy into 45- to 50-degree banks. I try and now it’s really fun, even though the L–39 is clearly sensitive in pitch. “You really need to include the attitude indicator in your scan,” he tells me. “Even a small angular change from the horizon quickly translates into a huge velocity change.” I’ll need to work on these.</p><p><img class="photoc alignleft" src="https://www.aopa.org/-/media/Images/Legacy/AOPA/Home/News/All/2012/April/Flying-a-Real-Jet/1204p-l39-preflight.jpg?w=670&h=216&as=1&hash=A5BDA52CCF930EBE11DF0C0753215F5A" alt="L39 Preflight" width="561" height="181" /></p><p><span style="color: #3366ff;">Preflight demands a check of the ram air turbine (right), pneumatic pressure (middle), and a look inside the variety of other access panels (left).</span></p><p>Next comes a roll looking out the huge glass canopy. Now I’m really loving this airplane. The stalls are very simple—wait for the buffet and recover. But a secondary stall awaits any pilot who recovers with too much back pressure, too quickly.</p><p>The traffic pattern is where the fun really begins as we try out the Albatros as a touch-and-go birds. I was almost exhausted after the first hour-long pattern session before I realized that bizjet pilots don’t normally fly VFR touch and go; approaches and go-arounds, yes, but not touch and goes. Because the Albatros can accelerate so quickly, Morris tells me to fly the upwind and prepare for a quick 180-degree turn back to downwind all at once, pulling the power back just before we reach pattern altitude.</p><p><strong>Let the Nose Fall??</strong></p><p>In the pattern, you can’t let the speed get away from you or the patterns become ugly, as Morris mentioned in the briefing. It sounded easy, but on the first few, I found myself with the power back, nose up high, and in a turn wondering what might be coming next. “Don’t try to hold everything up,” Morris instructs. “Just let the nose fall as you turn. If you don’t reduce the power quickly as you unload the nose, you’ll easily gain 70 knots turning downwind.” After a few tries, my turns plunk me right on downwind at just under 200 knots. “That’s perfect,” Morris announces. I began to breathe a bit as each landing started to improve on the last.</p><p><img class="photo alignleft" src="https://www.aopa.org/-/media/Images/Legacy/AOPA/Home/News/All/2012/April/Flying-a-Real-Jet/1204p-l39-hero.jpg?w=300&h=391&as=1&hash=D594873C0B16A9E51C9BCC72484479CB" alt="L39" width="233" height="304" />Reminding me of that slow engine spool-up time, Morris said we’d fly base at 140 knots with the speed brakes extended, demanding high power settings that prepare the engine for instant response in the event of a go-around. On short final, I slow to 120 knots and hold it off like a Cirrus. Some were even more fun as I held the nose up high for a little aerodynamic braking, just like those F–16s I always watch at AirVenture. On a touch and go, as soon as the nosewheel was down, I slammed the throttle in because of that spool-up time again. By the time I return the flaps to takeoff, we’ve reached 90, and the power’s back at max.</p><p>In L–39s, the last maneuver to learn is a Simulated Flame Out (SFO) approach, essentially like the instructor pulling back the throttle of a 172 to watch the pilot’s reaction. Since engine failures in fighters are likely to happen up high, simply looking out the window for a great field seldom works. A successful maneuver becomes all about energy management, so pilots don’t end up too high or too fast at the wrong time. Now the blackboard drawings Morris made illustrating Gauntlet’s SFO procedures made more sense. “Some people try to make up their own procedures when they’re nervous,” Morris told me. “When they eventually start flying the way we teach them, it usually all falls into place.”</p><p>The SFO practice actually begins near the airport at roughly 3,000 feet agl. Turn final two miles out at 200 knots and cross the numbers headed upwind, a point called High Key. Students set the throttle at 70 percent N1 and try to not touch it again until just before the touchdown. The pilot now blends only the use of flaps, gear, and speed brakes together with a pitch to make the runway. At the numbers, the pilot begins a single 180-degree turn back to downwind. At the Low Key point, opposite the numbers, it becomes easier to figure out whether the plan will work. Morris says a good instructor can see a successful SFO coming a half-mile away. I’m still working on mine.</p><p>And so the training hours passed and I eventually began to feel more comfortable in this tiny fighter-plane cockpit—now that I was accustomed to the myriad foreign-language dials and gauges, that is. In the end, the L–39—as slick as I thought it was during that first round of touch and goes—flies just like an airplane, a quite good one, of course, thinking back to a roll rate that could easily knock my eyeballs from side to side if I wasn’t careful. When I look back at checking out in a Cirrus SR22, I thought that, too, was quite an eye-opening experience at the time. Now that I was preparing for the check ride, I realized the L–39 too would someday become just another airplane in the list of those I’ve flown. Yeah, right, Maverick!</p><p><em>Robert Mark publishes <a href="http://www.jetwhine.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Jetwhine.com</a>. This story was reprinted here with permission of <a href="https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/publications/turbine-pilot">AOPA Pilot</a> where it ran originally.</em></p>]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>https://www.jetwhine.com/2024/01/making-like-maverick-in-an-l-39/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> </item> <item> <title>2024: Looking Up with Eager Anticipation</title> <link>https://www.jetwhine.com/2024/01/2024-looking-up-with-eager-anticipation/</link> <comments>https://www.jetwhine.com/2024/01/2024-looking-up-with-eager-anticipation/#respond</comments> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Scott Spangler]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 08 Jan 2024 12:00:43 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[Aerospace]]></category> <category><![CDATA[General]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Lifestyle]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Spaceflight]]></category> <category><![CDATA[The Buzz]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Aerospace Research]]></category> <category><![CDATA[eclipse]]></category> <category><![CDATA[rockets]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.jetwhine.com/?p=10285</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/total_eclipse_map-1.webp"><img class="alignright size-full wp-image-10287" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/total_eclipse_map-1.webp" alt="" width="768" height="500" /></a>If you keep up with current events, 2024 has the potential for global grimness. All that’s needed is for China to make a move on Taiwan to fan conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East into World War III, and the US political polarization to devolve into a zero-sum civil war. Ignoring these very real possibilities will not make them disappear, but we can mitigate their contributions to emotional angst by looking up and forward to more gratifying events that are planned for 2024.</p><p>And we won’t have to wait long. What’s being called the “<a href="https://science.nasa.gov/eclipses/future-eclipses/eclipse-2024/where-when/">Great North American Eclipse</a>” will commence on April 8, when the moon orbits between it and the sun. The moon’s shadow will start in Mexico, cross the river into Texas, and march through Arkansas, Missouri, and into Southern Illinois. It then darkens Indiana, Ohio, western New York, and leaves the continent at Canada’s east coast. Those of us north of this path will only be partially in the dark, but now is the time to Google ways to watch the eclipse safely.</p><p>Before our moon casts its shadow on North America, on January 19 it will be the intended landing site for <a href="https://www.planetary.org/space-missions/slim-japans-precision-lunar-lander">a small experimental spacecraft, SLIM, that Japan</a> launched last September. Just before SLIM attempts its landing, Astrobotic, one of the two private companies hired by NASA will launch its lander, <a href="https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraft/display.action?id=PEREGRN-1">Peregrine</a>, for its lunar landing site near the Ocean of Storms on January 8. The other company, <a href="https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraft/display.action?id=IM-1-NOVA">Intuitive Machines</a>, will launch its lunar lander sometime in February. China is also planning another moon mission, <a href="https://www.planetary.org/space-missions/change-6-collecting-the-first-lunar-farside-samples">Chang’e-6</a>, its fourth, to land on the far side of the moon in May, with the goal of returning rocks and dust for further study.</p><p>Looking at our solar system, NASA has several exploratory missions planned. The <a href="https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/europa-clipper">Europa Clipper</a> is off to Jupiter’s moon in October. But you need patience for this one because the Clipper won’t reach Europa until 2030. It will not attempt to land, but its sensors will attempt to penetrate its icy atmosphere as it orbits above it. Below this icy veil, scientists think there might be an ocean that might support life. The Clipper hopes to ferret out every possible bit of data to answer that hypothesis.</p><p>In the realm of possibilities, SpaceX might attempt the next step with its Starship, and Boeing and NASA might finally launch its patient crew of <a href="https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/tag/starliner-spacecraft/">Starliner astronauts</a> to the International Space Station, but there’s a deadline on this destination because NASA plans on deorbiting the ISS in 2030, about the time the Europa Clipper arrives at Jupiter. Both are something to look forward to. –Scott Spangler, Editor</p>]]></description> <p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/total_eclipse_map-1.webp"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignright size-full wp-image-10287" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/total_eclipse_map-1.webp" alt="" width="768" height="500" srcset="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/total_eclipse_map-1.webp 768w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/total_eclipse_map-1-300x195.webp 300w" sizes="(max-width: 768px) 100vw, 768px" /></a>If you keep up with current events, 2024 has the potential for global grimness. All that’s needed is for China to make a move on Taiwan to fan conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East into World War III, and the US political polarization to devolve into a zero-sum civil war. Ignoring these very real possibilities will not make them disappear, but we can mitigate their contributions to emotional angst by looking up and forward to more gratifying events that are planned for 2024.</p><p>And we won’t have to wait long. What’s being called the “<a href="https://science.nasa.gov/eclipses/future-eclipses/eclipse-2024/where-when/">Great North American Eclipse</a>” will commence on April 8, when the moon orbits between it and the sun. The moon’s shadow will start in Mexico, cross the river into Texas, and march through Arkansas, Missouri, and into Southern Illinois. It then darkens Indiana, Ohio, western New York, and leaves the continent at Canada’s east coast. Those of us north of this path will only be partially in the dark, but now is the time to Google ways to watch the eclipse safely.</p><p>Before our moon casts its shadow on North America, on January 19 it will be the intended landing site for <a href="https://www.planetary.org/space-missions/slim-japans-precision-lunar-lander">a small experimental spacecraft, SLIM, that Japan</a> launched last September. Just before SLIM attempts its landing, Astrobotic, one of the two private companies hired by NASA will launch its lander, <a href="https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraft/display.action?id=PEREGRN-1">Peregrine</a>, for its lunar landing site near the Ocean of Storms on January 8. The other company, <a href="https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraft/display.action?id=IM-1-NOVA">Intuitive Machines</a>, will launch its lunar lander sometime in February. China is also planning another moon mission, <a href="https://www.planetary.org/space-missions/change-6-collecting-the-first-lunar-farside-samples">Chang’e-6</a>, its fourth, to land on the far side of the moon in May, with the goal of returning rocks and dust for further study.</p><p>Looking at our solar system, NASA has several exploratory missions planned. The <a href="https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/europa-clipper">Europa Clipper</a> is off to Jupiter’s moon in October. But you need patience for this one because the Clipper won’t reach Europa until 2030. It will not attempt to land, but its sensors will attempt to penetrate its icy atmosphere as it orbits above it. Below this icy veil, scientists think there might be an ocean that might support life. The Clipper hopes to ferret out every possible bit of data to answer that hypothesis.</p><p>In the realm of possibilities, SpaceX might attempt the next step with its Starship, and Boeing and NASA might finally launch its patient crew of <a href="https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/tag/starliner-spacecraft/">Starliner astronauts</a> to the International Space Station, but there’s a deadline on this destination because NASA plans on deorbiting the ISS in 2030, about the time the Europa Clipper arrives at Jupiter. Both are something to look forward to. –Scott Spangler, Editor</p> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/total_eclipse_map-1.webp"><img class="alignright size-full wp-image-10287" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/total_eclipse_map-1.webp" alt="" width="768" height="500" /></a>If you keep up with current events, 2024 has the potential for global grimness. All that’s needed is for China to make a move on Taiwan to fan conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East into World War III, and the US political polarization to devolve into a zero-sum civil war. Ignoring these very real possibilities will not make them disappear, but we can mitigate their contributions to emotional angst by looking up and forward to more gratifying events that are planned for 2024.</p><p>And we won’t have to wait long. What’s being called the “<a href="https://science.nasa.gov/eclipses/future-eclipses/eclipse-2024/where-when/">Great North American Eclipse</a>” will commence on April 8, when the moon orbits between it and the sun. The moon’s shadow will start in Mexico, cross the river into Texas, and march through Arkansas, Missouri, and into Southern Illinois. It then darkens Indiana, Ohio, western New York, and leaves the continent at Canada’s east coast. Those of us north of this path will only be partially in the dark, but now is the time to Google ways to watch the eclipse safely.</p><p>Before our moon casts its shadow on North America, on January 19 it will be the intended landing site for <a href="https://www.planetary.org/space-missions/slim-japans-precision-lunar-lander">a small experimental spacecraft, SLIM, that Japan</a> launched last September. Just before SLIM attempts its landing, Astrobotic, one of the two private companies hired by NASA will launch its lander, <a href="https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraft/display.action?id=PEREGRN-1">Peregrine</a>, for its lunar landing site near the Ocean of Storms on January 8. The other company, <a href="https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraft/display.action?id=IM-1-NOVA">Intuitive Machines</a>, will launch its lunar lander sometime in February. China is also planning another moon mission, <a href="https://www.planetary.org/space-missions/change-6-collecting-the-first-lunar-farside-samples">Chang’e-6</a>, its fourth, to land on the far side of the moon in May, with the goal of returning rocks and dust for further study.</p><p>Looking at our solar system, NASA has several exploratory missions planned. The <a href="https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/europa-clipper">Europa Clipper</a> is off to Jupiter’s moon in October. But you need patience for this one because the Clipper won’t reach Europa until 2030. It will not attempt to land, but its sensors will attempt to penetrate its icy atmosphere as it orbits above it. Below this icy veil, scientists think there might be an ocean that might support life. The Clipper hopes to ferret out every possible bit of data to answer that hypothesis.</p><p>In the realm of possibilities, SpaceX might attempt the next step with its Starship, and Boeing and NASA might finally launch its patient crew of <a href="https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/tag/starliner-spacecraft/">Starliner astronauts</a> to the International Space Station, but there’s a deadline on this destination because NASA plans on deorbiting the ISS in 2030, about the time the Europa Clipper arrives at Jupiter. Both are something to look forward to. –Scott Spangler, Editor</p>]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>https://www.jetwhine.com/2024/01/2024-looking-up-with-eager-anticipation/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> </item> <item> <title>What if the Haneda Crash Had Occurred in the US?</title> <link>https://www.jetwhine.com/2024/01/what-if-the-haneda-crash-had-occurred-in-the-us/</link> <comments>https://www.jetwhine.com/2024/01/what-if-the-haneda-crash-had-occurred-in-the-us/#comments</comments> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert Mark]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 05 Jan 2024 17:17:56 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[aircraft accident]]></category> <category><![CDATA[The Buzz]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.jetwhine.com/?p=10293</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignleft wp-image-10295" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Haneda-Kyoto-photo-300x199.jpg" alt="" width="240" height="159" />I saw the videos of the raging firestorm engulfing the A-350 on a runway before I heard any of the audio on Tuesday, so I assumed the accident had occurred here in America. From the pictures alone, the loss of life should have been mind-numbing. Considering how many close calls we had last year at major airports in the US, my assumptions were justifiable, some 19 serious near collisions. A serious near collision is about as close as two aircraft can come without metal scraping metal.</p><p>Once I pumped up the sound on our widescreen though, I learned the accident had happened on the runway at Tokyo’s Haneda Airport. A Japan Airlines A-350 and a Japanese Coast Guard Dash-8 regional aircraft had collided during the early evening hours. I watched the growing orange glow of the Airbus sliding to a stop after the collision and wondered how anyone could have survived.</p><p>Miraculously though, all 379 passengers and crew aboard the Airbus escaped with only a few minor injuries reported. The crew of the Dash 8, which apparently was sitting on the runway in the path of the Airbus, did not fare as well. The aircraft was destroyed claiming the lives of five crewmembers. Only the Dash 8’s captain survived and is listed in critical condition with severe burns.</p><p>The A-350 is certified to be capable of an emergency evacuation in less than 90 seconds. Although it took some 18 minutes to evacuate the A-350 that night, the initial and recurrent training of the eight flight attendants aboard the Japanese airliner is most likely the reason everyone escaped with their lives. This accident would have made for a nightmare of a training scenario for any crew during recurrent because the inferno outside blocked five of the eight emergency exits. That number eventually dwindled to just two.</p><p><!--more--></p><p><strong>Survivability</strong></p><p>A key factor in the survivability of all aboard the Airbus was that almost no one stopped to grab any of their carry-on baggage. While we still have no idea just why the evacuation took as long as it did, imagine the results if people had swarmed toward those few exits while hundreds of others blocked the aisles trying to grab their laptops or overcoats.<img class="alignright wp-image-10296" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Evacuation-300x194.png" alt="" width="226" height="146" /></p><p>A flight attendant friend told me today she doubted whether as many people would have survived a similar accident had it occurred here in the US, despite the superb training of our flight attendant force. The reason? Americans are considerably more stubborn and self-absorbed, she said. “I think it’s their [Asian] culture to abide by rules,” she told me of the Tokyo passengers. “During an emergency, passengers over here are told to leave everything behind, ” she said. “But you should see the pictures of the luggage piled near the galley exits that flight attendants have grabbed as passengers attempted to drag them down an emergency slide.” Many people simply don’t realize they’re risking their lives as well as the lives of others around them by their actions. My friend told me to consider the persona of a US flight attendant. “We have a complete [but a well-earned] lack of respect for and the general assumption that our passengers are simply uneducated humans. I think non-compliance with a flight attendant’s directions here would be more common than compliance.”</p><p>At first, her comments scared the Hell out of me. But then I thought about what the men and women who are charged with the safety of an aircraft cabin experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic simply trying to get passengers to comply with the federal mandates in place back then. And how often are they dragged into the middle of an airborne brawl with a drunken passenger or two who just refuse to listen?</p><p>Now, I don’t find her accusations of the flying public all that startling.</p><p>I just hope we don’t prove her predictions as true.</p><p>Rob Mark</p>]]></description> <p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignleft wp-image-10295" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Haneda-Kyoto-photo-300x199.jpg" alt="" width="240" height="159" srcset="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Haneda-Kyoto-photo-300x199.jpg 300w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Haneda-Kyoto-photo-1024x681.jpg 1024w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Haneda-Kyoto-photo-768x510.jpg 768w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Haneda-Kyoto-photo-1536x1021.jpg 1536w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Haneda-Kyoto-photo-2048x1361.jpg 2048w" sizes="(max-width: 240px) 100vw, 240px" />I saw the videos of the raging firestorm engulfing the A-350 on a runway before I heard any of the audio on Tuesday, so I assumed the accident had occurred here in America. From the pictures alone, the loss of life should have been mind-numbing. Considering how many close calls we had last year at major airports in the US, my assumptions were justifiable, some 19 serious near collisions. A serious near collision is about as close as two aircraft can come without metal scraping metal.</p><p>Once I pumped up the sound on our widescreen though, I learned the accident had happened on the runway at Tokyo’s Haneda Airport. A Japan Airlines A-350 and a Japanese Coast Guard Dash-8 regional aircraft had collided during the early evening hours. I watched the growing orange glow of the Airbus sliding to a stop after the collision and wondered how anyone could have survived.</p><p>Miraculously though, all 379 passengers and crew aboard the Airbus escaped with only a few minor injuries reported. The crew of the Dash 8, which apparently was sitting on the runway in the path of the Airbus, did not fare as well. The aircraft was destroyed claiming the lives of five crewmembers. Only the Dash 8’s captain survived and is listed in critical condition with severe burns.</p><p>The A-350 is certified to be capable of an emergency evacuation in less than 90 seconds. Although it took some 18 minutes to evacuate the A-350 that night, the initial and recurrent training of the eight flight attendants aboard the Japanese airliner is most likely the reason everyone escaped with their lives. This accident would have made for a nightmare of a training scenario for any crew during recurrent because the inferno outside blocked five of the eight emergency exits. That number eventually dwindled to just two.</p><p><!--more--></p><p><strong>Survivability</strong></p><p>A key factor in the survivability of all aboard the Airbus was that almost no one stopped to grab any of their carry-on baggage. While we still have no idea just why the evacuation took as long as it did, imagine the results if people had swarmed toward those few exits while hundreds of others blocked the aisles trying to grab their laptops or overcoats.<img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignright wp-image-10296" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Evacuation-300x194.png" alt="" width="226" height="146" srcset="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Evacuation-300x194.png 300w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Evacuation.png 720w" sizes="(max-width: 226px) 100vw, 226px" /></p><p>A flight attendant friend told me today she doubted whether as many people would have survived a similar accident had it occurred here in the US, despite the superb training of our flight attendant force. The reason? Americans are considerably more stubborn and self-absorbed, she said. “I think it’s their [Asian] culture to abide by rules,” she told me of the Tokyo passengers. “During an emergency, passengers over here are told to leave everything behind, ” she said. “But you should see the pictures of the luggage piled near the galley exits that flight attendants have grabbed as passengers attempted to drag them down an emergency slide.” Many people simply don’t realize they’re risking their lives as well as the lives of others around them by their actions. My friend told me to consider the persona of a US flight attendant. “We have a complete [but a well-earned] lack of respect for and the general assumption that our passengers are simply uneducated humans. I think non-compliance with a flight attendant’s directions here would be more common than compliance.”</p><p>At first, her comments scared the Hell out of me. But then I thought about what the men and women who are charged with the safety of an aircraft cabin experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic simply trying to get passengers to comply with the federal mandates in place back then. And how often are they dragged into the middle of an airborne brawl with a drunken passenger or two who just refuse to listen?</p><p>Now, I don’t find her accusations of the flying public all that startling.</p><p>I just hope we don’t prove her predictions as true.</p><p>Rob Mark</p> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignleft wp-image-10295" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Haneda-Kyoto-photo-300x199.jpg" alt="" width="240" height="159" />I saw the videos of the raging firestorm engulfing the A-350 on a runway before I heard any of the audio on Tuesday, so I assumed the accident had occurred here in America. From the pictures alone, the loss of life should have been mind-numbing. Considering how many close calls we had last year at major airports in the US, my assumptions were justifiable, some 19 serious near collisions. A serious near collision is about as close as two aircraft can come without metal scraping metal.</p><p>Once I pumped up the sound on our widescreen though, I learned the accident had happened on the runway at Tokyo’s Haneda Airport. A Japan Airlines A-350 and a Japanese Coast Guard Dash-8 regional aircraft had collided during the early evening hours. I watched the growing orange glow of the Airbus sliding to a stop after the collision and wondered how anyone could have survived.</p><p>Miraculously though, all 379 passengers and crew aboard the Airbus escaped with only a few minor injuries reported. The crew of the Dash 8, which apparently was sitting on the runway in the path of the Airbus, did not fare as well. The aircraft was destroyed claiming the lives of five crewmembers. Only the Dash 8’s captain survived and is listed in critical condition with severe burns.</p><p>The A-350 is certified to be capable of an emergency evacuation in less than 90 seconds. Although it took some 18 minutes to evacuate the A-350 that night, the initial and recurrent training of the eight flight attendants aboard the Japanese airliner is most likely the reason everyone escaped with their lives. This accident would have made for a nightmare of a training scenario for any crew during recurrent because the inferno outside blocked five of the eight emergency exits. That number eventually dwindled to just two.</p><p><!--more--></p><p><strong>Survivability</strong></p><p>A key factor in the survivability of all aboard the Airbus was that almost no one stopped to grab any of their carry-on baggage. While we still have no idea just why the evacuation took as long as it did, imagine the results if people had swarmed toward those few exits while hundreds of others blocked the aisles trying to grab their laptops or overcoats.<img class="alignright wp-image-10296" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Evacuation-300x194.png" alt="" width="226" height="146" /></p><p>A flight attendant friend told me today she doubted whether as many people would have survived a similar accident had it occurred here in the US, despite the superb training of our flight attendant force. The reason? Americans are considerably more stubborn and self-absorbed, she said. “I think it’s their [Asian] culture to abide by rules,” she told me of the Tokyo passengers. “During an emergency, passengers over here are told to leave everything behind, ” she said. “But you should see the pictures of the luggage piled near the galley exits that flight attendants have grabbed as passengers attempted to drag them down an emergency slide.” Many people simply don’t realize they’re risking their lives as well as the lives of others around them by their actions. My friend told me to consider the persona of a US flight attendant. “We have a complete [but a well-earned] lack of respect for and the general assumption that our passengers are simply uneducated humans. I think non-compliance with a flight attendant’s directions here would be more common than compliance.”</p><p>At first, her comments scared the Hell out of me. But then I thought about what the men and women who are charged with the safety of an aircraft cabin experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic simply trying to get passengers to comply with the federal mandates in place back then. And how often are they dragged into the middle of an airborne brawl with a drunken passenger or two who just refuse to listen?</p><p>Now, I don’t find her accusations of the flying public all that startling.</p><p>I just hope we don’t prove her predictions as true.</p><p>Rob Mark</p>]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>https://www.jetwhine.com/2024/01/what-if-the-haneda-crash-had-occurred-in-the-us/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>4</slash:comments> </item> <item> <title>Champ Ornament of Aviation Appreciation</title> <link>https://www.jetwhine.com/2023/12/champ-ornament-of-aviation-appreciation/</link> <comments>https://www.jetwhine.com/2023/12/champ-ornament-of-aviation-appreciation/#respond</comments> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Scott Spangler]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 25 Dec 2023 11:00:44 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[Airports]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Education]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Flight Training]]></category> <category><![CDATA[general aviation]]></category> <category><![CDATA[regional airlines]]></category> <category><![CDATA[The Buzz]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.jetwhine.com/?p=10278</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/2023-champ.jpg"><img class="alignright size-full wp-image-10280" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/2023-champ.jpg" alt="" width="477" height="560" /></a>Each year for as long as I can remember, Sporty’s Pilot Shop has sent its annual crystal airplane ornament with the Christmas card it sends to members of the aviation media. We hung our growing collection of them each year until our boys moved on and out to start their own families, and our downsized tree wasn’t robust enough to sustain them. Instead of creating a Charlie Brown Christmas tree of airplane ornaments, we passed along the ornaments to friends and family who look up when they hear an airplane above them.</p><p>But we still hang with honored appreciation the annual ornament, in 2023 an Aeronca Champ. “Produced in large volumes in the late 1940s, the simple high wing design with fabric-covered wings was used primarily for training,” reads the card that describes each year’s airplane. “The Champ was one of the few taildragger airplanes that could be flown solo from the front seat, which greatly improved the visibility for the pilot in command. With Aeronca’s Cincinnati roots, the Champ is a favorite for many of the Sporty’s flight crew.”</p><p>Beholding the Champ’s etched outlines recalled some of my most cherished flight time and the teachers, Paul King and John Coplantz, who really taught me how to fly in December 1996, two decades after passing my private pilot practical test at Eagle Aviation in Long Beach, California. Seeking an endorsement, I was enrolled in the 15-hour tailwheel transition course at Stick and Rudder Aviation’s “Academy of Flight and Taildragmanship” in Watsonville, California.</p><p>Their three-ship training fleet consisted of a Champ, its military sibling, the L-16, and a clip-wing L-4, a Piper J-3 Cub drafted for liaison service during World War II. Battery-powered intercoms and handheld transceivers were the only things electric in all three airplanes, so how to safely hand-prop their 85-horse Continental engines was an early lesson. If you are a 1940-sized human, yes, you can solo the Champ from the front seat, but as an oversize mid-century monster, I barely fit in the cushionless back seat. My futile attempts at gracefully folding myself into the Champ always drew a flightline audience.</p><p>My first six flights were in the Champ, and its lessons served me well on every flight since in which I’ve been the sole manipulator of an airplane’s controls because it calibrated the seat of my pants. In flight, the Champ handled quite like the Cessna 172 in which I learned to fly at Eagle Aviation. And then Paul asked me to make a no-rudder turn to the left. Easing the stick over, the right wing fell back a good three feet and my hip moved smartly to the left as the Champ made a slipping left turn. So, this was adverse yaw.</p><p>Paul encouraged me to experiment, so I played with the rudder and concentrated on the seat of my pants. My butt became the turn-and-bank’s ball. With deft rudder inputs I could put it where I wanted — centered, half a cheek out, or full displacement. Cool. This is but one of the many lasting lessons I learned at Stick and Rudder, all of them clear, concise, and often unique, like the bicycle wheel with a screwdriver axel that taught gyroscopic precession. Before spinning the wheel, Paul asked me to hold my “fuselage” (arm) in a nose-high, three-point attitude. When I raised the tail, the prop twisted my wrist to the left. After another spin, the prop forced my fuselage to the right when I lowered the tail to a three-point attitude.</p><p>Sadly, Stick and Rudder in Watsonville is no more, but it lives on in those who continue to appreciate the lessons it taught. And at this time of year, it seems only right that we make time to appreciate all the gifts of life and learning, and the people who gave them. Thank you. Scott Spangler—Editor</p>]]></description> <p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/2023-champ.jpg"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignright size-full wp-image-10280" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/2023-champ.jpg" alt="" width="477" height="560" srcset="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/2023-champ.jpg 477w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/2023-champ-256x300.jpg 256w" sizes="(max-width: 477px) 100vw, 477px" /></a>Each year for as long as I can remember, Sporty’s Pilot Shop has sent its annual crystal airplane ornament with the Christmas card it sends to members of the aviation media. We hung our growing collection of them each year until our boys moved on and out to start their own families, and our downsized tree wasn’t robust enough to sustain them. Instead of creating a Charlie Brown Christmas tree of airplane ornaments, we passed along the ornaments to friends and family who look up when they hear an airplane above them.</p><p>But we still hang with honored appreciation the annual ornament, in 2023 an Aeronca Champ. “Produced in large volumes in the late 1940s, the simple high wing design with fabric-covered wings was used primarily for training,” reads the card that describes each year’s airplane. “The Champ was one of the few taildragger airplanes that could be flown solo from the front seat, which greatly improved the visibility for the pilot in command. With Aeronca’s Cincinnati roots, the Champ is a favorite for many of the Sporty’s flight crew.”</p><p>Beholding the Champ’s etched outlines recalled some of my most cherished flight time and the teachers, Paul King and John Coplantz, who really taught me how to fly in December 1996, two decades after passing my private pilot practical test at Eagle Aviation in Long Beach, California. Seeking an endorsement, I was enrolled in the 15-hour tailwheel transition course at Stick and Rudder Aviation’s “Academy of Flight and Taildragmanship” in Watsonville, California.</p><p>Their three-ship training fleet consisted of a Champ, its military sibling, the L-16, and a clip-wing L-4, a Piper J-3 Cub drafted for liaison service during World War II. Battery-powered intercoms and handheld transceivers were the only things electric in all three airplanes, so how to safely hand-prop their 85-horse Continental engines was an early lesson. If you are a 1940-sized human, yes, you can solo the Champ from the front seat, but as an oversize mid-century monster, I barely fit in the cushionless back seat. My futile attempts at gracefully folding myself into the Champ always drew a flightline audience.</p><p>My first six flights were in the Champ, and its lessons served me well on every flight since in which I’ve been the sole manipulator of an airplane’s controls because it calibrated the seat of my pants. In flight, the Champ handled quite like the Cessna 172 in which I learned to fly at Eagle Aviation. And then Paul asked me to make a no-rudder turn to the left. Easing the stick over, the right wing fell back a good three feet and my hip moved smartly to the left as the Champ made a slipping left turn. So, this was adverse yaw.</p><p>Paul encouraged me to experiment, so I played with the rudder and concentrated on the seat of my pants. My butt became the turn-and-bank’s ball. With deft rudder inputs I could put it where I wanted — centered, half a cheek out, or full displacement. Cool. This is but one of the many lasting lessons I learned at Stick and Rudder, all of them clear, concise, and often unique, like the bicycle wheel with a screwdriver axel that taught gyroscopic precession. Before spinning the wheel, Paul asked me to hold my “fuselage” (arm) in a nose-high, three-point attitude. When I raised the tail, the prop twisted my wrist to the left. After another spin, the prop forced my fuselage to the right when I lowered the tail to a three-point attitude.</p><p>Sadly, Stick and Rudder in Watsonville is no more, but it lives on in those who continue to appreciate the lessons it taught. And at this time of year, it seems only right that we make time to appreciate all the gifts of life and learning, and the people who gave them. Thank you. Scott Spangler—Editor</p> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/2023-champ.jpg"><img class="alignright size-full wp-image-10280" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/2023-champ.jpg" alt="" width="477" height="560" /></a>Each year for as long as I can remember, Sporty’s Pilot Shop has sent its annual crystal airplane ornament with the Christmas card it sends to members of the aviation media. We hung our growing collection of them each year until our boys moved on and out to start their own families, and our downsized tree wasn’t robust enough to sustain them. Instead of creating a Charlie Brown Christmas tree of airplane ornaments, we passed along the ornaments to friends and family who look up when they hear an airplane above them.</p><p>But we still hang with honored appreciation the annual ornament, in 2023 an Aeronca Champ. “Produced in large volumes in the late 1940s, the simple high wing design with fabric-covered wings was used primarily for training,” reads the card that describes each year’s airplane. “The Champ was one of the few taildragger airplanes that could be flown solo from the front seat, which greatly improved the visibility for the pilot in command. With Aeronca’s Cincinnati roots, the Champ is a favorite for many of the Sporty’s flight crew.”</p><p>Beholding the Champ’s etched outlines recalled some of my most cherished flight time and the teachers, Paul King and John Coplantz, who really taught me how to fly in December 1996, two decades after passing my private pilot practical test at Eagle Aviation in Long Beach, California. Seeking an endorsement, I was enrolled in the 15-hour tailwheel transition course at Stick and Rudder Aviation’s “Academy of Flight and Taildragmanship” in Watsonville, California.</p><p>Their three-ship training fleet consisted of a Champ, its military sibling, the L-16, and a clip-wing L-4, a Piper J-3 Cub drafted for liaison service during World War II. Battery-powered intercoms and handheld transceivers were the only things electric in all three airplanes, so how to safely hand-prop their 85-horse Continental engines was an early lesson. If you are a 1940-sized human, yes, you can solo the Champ from the front seat, but as an oversize mid-century monster, I barely fit in the cushionless back seat. My futile attempts at gracefully folding myself into the Champ always drew a flightline audience.</p><p>My first six flights were in the Champ, and its lessons served me well on every flight since in which I’ve been the sole manipulator of an airplane’s controls because it calibrated the seat of my pants. In flight, the Champ handled quite like the Cessna 172 in which I learned to fly at Eagle Aviation. And then Paul asked me to make a no-rudder turn to the left. Easing the stick over, the right wing fell back a good three feet and my hip moved smartly to the left as the Champ made a slipping left turn. So, this was adverse yaw.</p><p>Paul encouraged me to experiment, so I played with the rudder and concentrated on the seat of my pants. My butt became the turn-and-bank’s ball. With deft rudder inputs I could put it where I wanted — centered, half a cheek out, or full displacement. Cool. This is but one of the many lasting lessons I learned at Stick and Rudder, all of them clear, concise, and often unique, like the bicycle wheel with a screwdriver axel that taught gyroscopic precession. Before spinning the wheel, Paul asked me to hold my “fuselage” (arm) in a nose-high, three-point attitude. When I raised the tail, the prop twisted my wrist to the left. After another spin, the prop forced my fuselage to the right when I lowered the tail to a three-point attitude.</p><p>Sadly, Stick and Rudder in Watsonville is no more, but it lives on in those who continue to appreciate the lessons it taught. And at this time of year, it seems only right that we make time to appreciate all the gifts of life and learning, and the people who gave them. Thank you. Scott Spangler—Editor</p>]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>https://www.jetwhine.com/2023/12/champ-ornament-of-aviation-appreciation/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> </item> <item> <title>Dynamic Flight Maneuvers: Stop, Look, Remember</title> <link>https://www.jetwhine.com/2023/12/dynamic-flight-stop-look-remember/</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Scott Spangler]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 11 Dec 2023 13:00:19 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[Aviation Education]]></category> <category><![CDATA[aviation safety]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Flight Training]]></category> <category><![CDATA[The Buzz]]></category> <category><![CDATA[chandelle]]></category> <category><![CDATA[dynamic flight]]></category> <category><![CDATA[flight maneuvers]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.jetwhine.com/?p=10270</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Chandelle.jpg"><img class="alignright wp-image-10272 " src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Chandelle-e1702159762326.jpg" alt="" width="301" height="175" /></a>Given the traffic seen on my daily stroll around town, except for the EAA AirVenture Oshkosh late summer interlude, the sky over Omro seems to be a no-fly zone. When the wind is right, I’ll see a regional jet whining its way north to Appleton International, and there’s the occasional business jet or turboprop on its way to Wittman Field, roughly 10 miles to the east. But when I hear a piston engine, I stop and look. If I’m lucky, like I was last week, it is a Cessna 172 from the Fox Valley Tech program out practicing maneuvers and other essential stick and rudder skills. On this day the lesson was clearly stalls and slow flight.</p><p>Rooted at a standstill in the middle of the sidewalk, I watched and heard the pilot work though the roster of approach and departure loss of lift attitudes, and after each of them, the Cessna recovered smoothly with no wah-wah of uncertain power changes. The Cessna demonstrated the same sure smoothness as it eased into slow flight, extended full flaps, and then slowly retracted them with little or no apparent loss of altitude. With the lesson apparently over, the Cessna and I turned east for our respective homes.</p><p>As the Cessna diminished to a muter pinpoint, I wondered if the pilot enjoyed the rewards of the practice of dynamic flight, the skillful manipulation of the flight controls and go-lever to achieve the desired three-dimensional goal. I hope so. Never a hundred-dollar hamburger guy, my most rewarding flights focused on perfecting the fundamental flight skills. And to challenge myself, I would combine a series of maneuvers and aim for predetermined goals with a plus-or-minus nothing deviation from the appropriate altitude or speed.</p><p>One of my favorite combinations was appending the slow flight flap exercise to the end of a chandelle. A climbing 180-degree turn introduced during my education for a commercial pilot certificate, it requires precision control that is more challenging than it at first seems. You enter the maneuver at a predetermined heading and airspeed. Rolling into a turn (left or right) starts the maneuver, gently banking to—and maintain—30°.</p><p>At the same time, you smoothy apply full power and increase pitch to control airspeed, with the goal being just shy of the critical angle of attack. I relied on the tenor range of the Cessna’s stall warning. The bass note told me I was getting close, and the soprano stridently told me I’d gone too far. Halfway through the 180° heading change (a predetermined plus-or-minus goal calculated on my entry heading) the challenge changes, from holding a constant bank while increasing pitch to maintaining the stall warning’s tenor pitch while gradually rolling out of the bank that exactly opposite of my entry heading.</p><p>Because I was already at the critical angle of attack at full power, slowly adding full Cessna barndoors without stalling really challenged the seat of my pants and visual scan, and it was a good way to practice recovering from stalls, as well. Success depends on smooth and precise inputs. More importantly (to me, at least), it was fun, as striving to be better usually is. Scott Spangler, Editor</p>]]></description> <p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Chandelle.jpg"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignright wp-image-10272 " src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Chandelle-e1702159762326.jpg" alt="" width="301" height="175" srcset="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Chandelle-e1702159762326.jpg 813w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Chandelle-e1702159762326-300x175.jpg 300w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Chandelle-e1702159762326-768x447.jpg 768w" sizes="(max-width: 301px) 100vw, 301px" /></a>Given the traffic seen on my daily stroll around town, except for the EAA AirVenture Oshkosh late summer interlude, the sky over Omro seems to be a no-fly zone. When the wind is right, I’ll see a regional jet whining its way north to Appleton International, and there’s the occasional business jet or turboprop on its way to Wittman Field, roughly 10 miles to the east. But when I hear a piston engine, I stop and look. If I’m lucky, like I was last week, it is a Cessna 172 from the Fox Valley Tech program out practicing maneuvers and other essential stick and rudder skills. On this day the lesson was clearly stalls and slow flight.</p><p>Rooted at a standstill in the middle of the sidewalk, I watched and heard the pilot work though the roster of approach and departure loss of lift attitudes, and after each of them, the Cessna recovered smoothly with no wah-wah of uncertain power changes. The Cessna demonstrated the same sure smoothness as it eased into slow flight, extended full flaps, and then slowly retracted them with little or no apparent loss of altitude. With the lesson apparently over, the Cessna and I turned east for our respective homes.</p><p>As the Cessna diminished to a muter pinpoint, I wondered if the pilot enjoyed the rewards of the practice of dynamic flight, the skillful manipulation of the flight controls and go-lever to achieve the desired three-dimensional goal. I hope so. Never a hundred-dollar hamburger guy, my most rewarding flights focused on perfecting the fundamental flight skills. And to challenge myself, I would combine a series of maneuvers and aim for predetermined goals with a plus-or-minus nothing deviation from the appropriate altitude or speed.</p><p>One of my favorite combinations was appending the slow flight flap exercise to the end of a chandelle. A climbing 180-degree turn introduced during my education for a commercial pilot certificate, it requires precision control that is more challenging than it at first seems. You enter the maneuver at a predetermined heading and airspeed. Rolling into a turn (left or right) starts the maneuver, gently banking to—and maintain—30°.</p><p>At the same time, you smoothy apply full power and increase pitch to control airspeed, with the goal being just shy of the critical angle of attack. I relied on the tenor range of the Cessna’s stall warning. The bass note told me I was getting close, and the soprano stridently told me I’d gone too far. Halfway through the 180° heading change (a predetermined plus-or-minus goal calculated on my entry heading) the challenge changes, from holding a constant bank while increasing pitch to maintaining the stall warning’s tenor pitch while gradually rolling out of the bank that exactly opposite of my entry heading.</p><p>Because I was already at the critical angle of attack at full power, slowly adding full Cessna barndoors without stalling really challenged the seat of my pants and visual scan, and it was a good way to practice recovering from stalls, as well. Success depends on smooth and precise inputs. More importantly (to me, at least), it was fun, as striving to be better usually is. Scott Spangler, Editor</p> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Chandelle.jpg"><img class="alignright wp-image-10272 " src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Chandelle-e1702159762326.jpg" alt="" width="301" height="175" /></a>Given the traffic seen on my daily stroll around town, except for the EAA AirVenture Oshkosh late summer interlude, the sky over Omro seems to be a no-fly zone. When the wind is right, I’ll see a regional jet whining its way north to Appleton International, and there’s the occasional business jet or turboprop on its way to Wittman Field, roughly 10 miles to the east. But when I hear a piston engine, I stop and look. If I’m lucky, like I was last week, it is a Cessna 172 from the Fox Valley Tech program out practicing maneuvers and other essential stick and rudder skills. On this day the lesson was clearly stalls and slow flight.</p><p>Rooted at a standstill in the middle of the sidewalk, I watched and heard the pilot work though the roster of approach and departure loss of lift attitudes, and after each of them, the Cessna recovered smoothly with no wah-wah of uncertain power changes. The Cessna demonstrated the same sure smoothness as it eased into slow flight, extended full flaps, and then slowly retracted them with little or no apparent loss of altitude. With the lesson apparently over, the Cessna and I turned east for our respective homes.</p><p>As the Cessna diminished to a muter pinpoint, I wondered if the pilot enjoyed the rewards of the practice of dynamic flight, the skillful manipulation of the flight controls and go-lever to achieve the desired three-dimensional goal. I hope so. Never a hundred-dollar hamburger guy, my most rewarding flights focused on perfecting the fundamental flight skills. And to challenge myself, I would combine a series of maneuvers and aim for predetermined goals with a plus-or-minus nothing deviation from the appropriate altitude or speed.</p><p>One of my favorite combinations was appending the slow flight flap exercise to the end of a chandelle. A climbing 180-degree turn introduced during my education for a commercial pilot certificate, it requires precision control that is more challenging than it at first seems. You enter the maneuver at a predetermined heading and airspeed. Rolling into a turn (left or right) starts the maneuver, gently banking to—and maintain—30°.</p><p>At the same time, you smoothy apply full power and increase pitch to control airspeed, with the goal being just shy of the critical angle of attack. I relied on the tenor range of the Cessna’s stall warning. The bass note told me I was getting close, and the soprano stridently told me I’d gone too far. Halfway through the 180° heading change (a predetermined plus-or-minus goal calculated on my entry heading) the challenge changes, from holding a constant bank while increasing pitch to maintaining the stall warning’s tenor pitch while gradually rolling out of the bank that exactly opposite of my entry heading.</p><p>Because I was already at the critical angle of attack at full power, slowly adding full Cessna barndoors without stalling really challenged the seat of my pants and visual scan, and it was a good way to practice recovering from stalls, as well. Success depends on smooth and precise inputs. More importantly (to me, at least), it was fun, as striving to be better usually is. Scott Spangler, Editor</p>]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title>21st Century Airship Development Preserves History</title> <link>https://www.jetwhine.com/2023/11/21st-century-airship-development-preserves-history/</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Scott Spangler]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 13 Nov 2023 19:15:52 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[Aerospace]]></category> <category><![CDATA[balloon]]></category> <category><![CDATA[History]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Lighter-than-air]]></category> <category><![CDATA[The Buzz]]></category> <category><![CDATA[airship]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Aviation History]]></category> <category><![CDATA[dirigible]]></category> <category><![CDATA[lighter than air]]></category> <category><![CDATA[moffett field]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.jetwhine.com/?p=10255</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/pf1-testing.webp"><img class="alignright wp-image-10257" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/pf1-testing.webp" alt="" width="285" height="160" /></a>The most fascinating nugget of news in the announcement of the FAA’s issuance of special airworthiness certificate to <a href="https://www.ltaresearch.com/technology">Pathfinder 1, LTA’s prototype 21<sup>st</sup> century rigid airship</a>, is the authorization to fly it in Class D airspace defined by California’s Moffett Federal Field (NUQ) and Palo Alto Airport (PAO), which is next door, so to speak. The nugget was nestled in LTA’s certificate application. The airship’s experimental flight test program would establish its flight envelope through “substantial <em>indoor</em> and outdoor ground testing.”</p><p>I emphasized <em>indoor</em> because rigid airships are not small flying machines. Pathfinder is 124.5 meters of carbon-fiber-polymer tubes connected by titanium hubs. You need some pretty good indoor space to fly something 136 feet long. Fortunately, LTA Research, founded by Google cofounder Sergey Brin, has options. And in acquiring them, he has saved significant parts of American lighter than air history and national historic landmarks that continue to make contributions to aviation, and would be nearly impossible to replace or recreate.</p><p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Last_Look_at_Hangar_One-scaled.jpg"><img class="alignright wp-image-10259" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Last_Look_at_Hangar_One-scaled.jpg" alt="" width="276" height="216" /></a>Moffett Field is south of San Francisco, established in 1931 as the Navy’s West Coast rigid airship facility. (Lakehurst, New Jersey, served America’s sunrise coast.) It is home to three airship hangars. The Navy built Hangar 1 in 1933 for the USS Macon, ARS-5. In 2011, Google’s founders saved Hangar 1 from demolition by underwriting its restoration. Three years later, Google subsidiary Planetary Ventures signed a 60-year lease with the General Services Administration to manage Hangar 1 and the surrounding airfield.</p><p>Across the main runways from Hangar 1 are the smaller Hangars 2 and 3, two of the world’s largest freestanding structures. They are two of the 17 wood blimp hangars the Navy built during World War II for its antisubmarine blimp fleet. Hangars 2 and 3 are two of the seven survivors (there are two more in Tustin, California, two at Lakehurst, New Jersey, and one at Tillamook, Oregon). Pathfinder 1 made its first flight inside Moffett’s Hangar 2 on May 12, 2023.</p><p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Goodyear_Airdock_exterior.jpg"><img class="alignright wp-image-10256" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Goodyear_Airdock_exterior.jpg" alt="" width="281" height="198" /></a>After Pathfinder 1 finishes if Moffett Field flights, it will move to Akron, Ohio, home of the 1175-by-325-foot <a href="https://clevelandhistorical.org/items/show/281">Akron Airdock</a>, which LTA bought in 2022. Once the world’s largest structure without internal supports (it covers 364,000-square-feet, roughly 7 football fields), the Goodyear Zeppelin Corporation built it in 1929. From it emerged the US Navy dirigibles Akron, ARS-4, in 1931, and the Macon, ARS-5, in 1934.</p><p>Pathfinder 1 is but a prototype, to be followed by larger iterations as the test program progresses. And, in time, it will offer aviation aficionados the unique opportunity to witness the past, present, and future of one (lighter than air) aspect of aviation. –Scott Spangler, editor</p>]]></description> <p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/pf1-testing.webp"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignright wp-image-10257" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/pf1-testing.webp" alt="" width="285" height="160" srcset="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/pf1-testing.webp 1600w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/pf1-testing-300x169.webp 300w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/pf1-testing-1024x576.webp 1024w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/pf1-testing-768x432.webp 768w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/pf1-testing-1536x864.webp 1536w" sizes="(max-width: 285px) 100vw, 285px" /></a>The most fascinating nugget of news in the announcement of the FAA’s issuance of special airworthiness certificate to <a href="https://www.ltaresearch.com/technology">Pathfinder 1, LTA’s prototype 21<sup>st</sup> century rigid airship</a>, is the authorization to fly it in Class D airspace defined by California’s Moffett Federal Field (NUQ) and Palo Alto Airport (PAO), which is next door, so to speak. The nugget was nestled in LTA’s certificate application. The airship’s experimental flight test program would establish its flight envelope through “substantial <em>indoor</em> and outdoor ground testing.”</p><p>I emphasized <em>indoor</em> because rigid airships are not small flying machines. Pathfinder is 124.5 meters of carbon-fiber-polymer tubes connected by titanium hubs. You need some pretty good indoor space to fly something 136 feet long. Fortunately, LTA Research, founded by Google cofounder Sergey Brin, has options. And in acquiring them, he has saved significant parts of American lighter than air history and national historic landmarks that continue to make contributions to aviation, and would be nearly impossible to replace or recreate.</p><p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Last_Look_at_Hangar_One-scaled.jpg"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignright wp-image-10259" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Last_Look_at_Hangar_One-scaled.jpg" alt="" width="276" height="216" srcset="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Last_Look_at_Hangar_One-scaled.jpg 2560w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Last_Look_at_Hangar_One-300x235.jpg 300w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Last_Look_at_Hangar_One-1024x802.jpg 1024w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Last_Look_at_Hangar_One-768x602.jpg 768w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Last_Look_at_Hangar_One-1536x1203.jpg 1536w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Last_Look_at_Hangar_One-2048x1604.jpg 2048w" sizes="(max-width: 276px) 100vw, 276px" /></a>Moffett Field is south of San Francisco, established in 1931 as the Navy’s West Coast rigid airship facility. (Lakehurst, New Jersey, served America’s sunrise coast.) It is home to three airship hangars. The Navy built Hangar 1 in 1933 for the USS Macon, ARS-5. In 2011, Google’s founders saved Hangar 1 from demolition by underwriting its restoration. Three years later, Google subsidiary Planetary Ventures signed a 60-year lease with the General Services Administration to manage Hangar 1 and the surrounding airfield.</p><p>Across the main runways from Hangar 1 are the smaller Hangars 2 and 3, two of the world’s largest freestanding structures. They are two of the 17 wood blimp hangars the Navy built during World War II for its antisubmarine blimp fleet. Hangars 2 and 3 are two of the seven survivors (there are two more in Tustin, California, two at Lakehurst, New Jersey, and one at Tillamook, Oregon). Pathfinder 1 made its first flight inside Moffett’s Hangar 2 on May 12, 2023.</p><p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Goodyear_Airdock_exterior.jpg"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignright wp-image-10256" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Goodyear_Airdock_exterior.jpg" alt="" width="281" height="198" srcset="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Goodyear_Airdock_exterior.jpg 964w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Goodyear_Airdock_exterior-300x212.jpg 300w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Goodyear_Airdock_exterior-768x542.jpg 768w" sizes="(max-width: 281px) 100vw, 281px" /></a>After Pathfinder 1 finishes if Moffett Field flights, it will move to Akron, Ohio, home of the 1175-by-325-foot <a href="https://clevelandhistorical.org/items/show/281">Akron Airdock</a>, which LTA bought in 2022. Once the world’s largest structure without internal supports (it covers 364,000-square-feet, roughly 7 football fields), the Goodyear Zeppelin Corporation built it in 1929. From it emerged the US Navy dirigibles Akron, ARS-4, in 1931, and the Macon, ARS-5, in 1934.</p><p>Pathfinder 1 is but a prototype, to be followed by larger iterations as the test program progresses. And, in time, it will offer aviation aficionados the unique opportunity to witness the past, present, and future of one (lighter than air) aspect of aviation. –Scott Spangler, editor</p> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/pf1-testing.webp"><img class="alignright wp-image-10257" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/pf1-testing.webp" alt="" width="285" height="160" /></a>The most fascinating nugget of news in the announcement of the FAA’s issuance of special airworthiness certificate to <a href="https://www.ltaresearch.com/technology">Pathfinder 1, LTA’s prototype 21<sup>st</sup> century rigid airship</a>, is the authorization to fly it in Class D airspace defined by California’s Moffett Federal Field (NUQ) and Palo Alto Airport (PAO), which is next door, so to speak. The nugget was nestled in LTA’s certificate application. The airship’s experimental flight test program would establish its flight envelope through “substantial <em>indoor</em> and outdoor ground testing.”</p><p>I emphasized <em>indoor</em> because rigid airships are not small flying machines. Pathfinder is 124.5 meters of carbon-fiber-polymer tubes connected by titanium hubs. You need some pretty good indoor space to fly something 136 feet long. Fortunately, LTA Research, founded by Google cofounder Sergey Brin, has options. And in acquiring them, he has saved significant parts of American lighter than air history and national historic landmarks that continue to make contributions to aviation, and would be nearly impossible to replace or recreate.</p><p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Last_Look_at_Hangar_One-scaled.jpg"><img class="alignright wp-image-10259" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Last_Look_at_Hangar_One-scaled.jpg" alt="" width="276" height="216" /></a>Moffett Field is south of San Francisco, established in 1931 as the Navy’s West Coast rigid airship facility. (Lakehurst, New Jersey, served America’s sunrise coast.) It is home to three airship hangars. The Navy built Hangar 1 in 1933 for the USS Macon, ARS-5. In 2011, Google’s founders saved Hangar 1 from demolition by underwriting its restoration. Three years later, Google subsidiary Planetary Ventures signed a 60-year lease with the General Services Administration to manage Hangar 1 and the surrounding airfield.</p><p>Across the main runways from Hangar 1 are the smaller Hangars 2 and 3, two of the world’s largest freestanding structures. They are two of the 17 wood blimp hangars the Navy built during World War II for its antisubmarine blimp fleet. Hangars 2 and 3 are two of the seven survivors (there are two more in Tustin, California, two at Lakehurst, New Jersey, and one at Tillamook, Oregon). Pathfinder 1 made its first flight inside Moffett’s Hangar 2 on May 12, 2023.</p><p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Goodyear_Airdock_exterior.jpg"><img class="alignright wp-image-10256" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Goodyear_Airdock_exterior.jpg" alt="" width="281" height="198" /></a>After Pathfinder 1 finishes if Moffett Field flights, it will move to Akron, Ohio, home of the 1175-by-325-foot <a href="https://clevelandhistorical.org/items/show/281">Akron Airdock</a>, which LTA bought in 2022. Once the world’s largest structure without internal supports (it covers 364,000-square-feet, roughly 7 football fields), the Goodyear Zeppelin Corporation built it in 1929. From it emerged the US Navy dirigibles Akron, ARS-4, in 1931, and the Macon, ARS-5, in 1934.</p><p>Pathfinder 1 is but a prototype, to be followed by larger iterations as the test program progresses. And, in time, it will offer aviation aficionados the unique opportunity to witness the past, present, and future of one (lighter than air) aspect of aviation. –Scott Spangler, editor</p>]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title>Earning Your Stripes in the Glamorous World of Corporate Flying</title> <link>https://www.jetwhine.com/2023/11/earning-your-stripes-in-the-glamorous-world-of-corporate-flying/</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert Mark]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 06 Nov 2023 11:00:43 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[Business Aviation]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Lifestyle]]></category> <category><![CDATA[The Buzz]]></category> <category><![CDATA[BizJet flying]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Business jet first officer]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Corporate flying]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Flying business jets]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Flying my first business jet]]></category> <category><![CDATA[NBAA]]></category> <category><![CDATA[NTSB]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Part 135 Charter flying]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Rob Mark]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.jetwhine.com/?p=10231</guid> <description><![CDATA[<div class="richtext"><p><img class="alignleft wp-image-10232" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/AOPA-Corp.jpg" alt="" width="279" height="205" /></p><p><em>I have many fond and a few not-so-fond memories of flying business jets in the corporate world. But then, everyone needs to begin somewhere. Rob Mark</em></p><p>A crusty old chief pilot once told me early in my jet flying career that, at times, I seemed a bit too eager to please, a little overly energetic to complete one task and move on to the next—as if fitting in at a flight department was somehow tied to completing as many tasks as possible in a single day. Not a person for wasting time, he said, “You still have a lot to learn.” But when the critique of my talents began with him calling me “an aviation pup,” it was tough to hold back a smile, so I didn’t try. The guy had a heart, after all.</p></div><div class="richtext"><h4>Balancing the Load</h4><p>One of the first things I learned on the Cessna Citation II, the first jet I flew, was how to load bags … lots and lots of bags. One afternoon six big fellows showed up for a hunting trip to Moultrie, Georgia. They knew the drill that I was still learning because they dropped everything near the rear cargo hatch underneath the left engine. I watched as duffle bags of all sizes and colors, guns, fishing poles, and Styrofoam coolers were piled incredibly high on top of each other. Forget figuring out the weight and balance for these hefty passengers, I thought, as the captain walked up to the pile. “Start loading so we can get out of here,” he said and headed to the cockpit to grab the clearance.</p><p>I surveyed the pile and thought, “How tough can this be? I’ve loaded station wagons before.”</p><p>A couple of duffle bags went in pretty easily, but then I grabbed one that must have weighed 100 pounds. Of course, this slowed me down some since it was a warm afternoon. I began sweating—a lot. One of the line guys took pity and walked over to help. The two of us barely got the big bag in. Maybe getting it out would be easier, I thought. I continued tossing the near-empty coolers—and then there were the guns. It was almost full in the back so I moved the guns up front to the nose compartment. That worked. I checked the latches both front and back, hopped in the cabin, and closed the door as the left seater quickly started the right and left engines.</p><p><strong>Oh Right, the Firearms</strong></p><p>“You checked that the guns were unloaded, didn’t you?” he asked. I just stared as he pulled the left throttle to cut off and shut down the engine. He looked at me like I was a complete idiot. “Get out there and check them.” Now, my life involvement with weapons was limited to a single day of M-16 training in the Air Force. I realized there had to be a way to keep from looking any more stupid to all these guys, so climbing out of the right seat, I asked who wanted to help me check the guns before takeoff. The biggest guy moved toward the door as I opened it. “You must be the new guy, eh?” How’d he know that?</p><h4>Food bomb</h4><p>On another trip, we carried a family that included three little kids to Orlando to visit Disney World. It was a smooth trip and the sky turned to night an hour after takeoff. The captain and I listened to the kids who sounded like they were having a good time, although every so often the captain would give another listen and then look at me, and shake his head.</p><p>“OK, what?” I said.</p><p>“Do you know who they are?” he asked (they were a prominent family from the North Shore of Chicago). I shook my head. “Just wait until we get to Orlando.”<img class="alignright wp-image-10235" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Food-Bomb-300x267.jpg" alt="" width="213" height="190" /></p><p>Because the landing weather at Orlando Executive included drizzle, I hurried to shift the baggage out of the rear cargo bay into an SUV waiting for our passengers. They were gone moments later, without a word. By the time I returned to the cabin, the aircraft was already connected to the ground power unit to make it easier to light up the cabin.</p><p>I only managed to get my head in before I stopped dead in my tracks. It looked like someone had set off a food bomb in the cabin. Everywhere I looked I saw empty chip bags and candy wrappers. Pop cans were strewn across the floor, with a few more tossed on the seats. There were even empty soda cans in the lav. If I hadn’t known that the entire flight had been smooth, I’d have thought we’d flown through enough turbulence to empty every snack drawer on the airplane. The drawers were indeed empty, but those little three kids and two adults had messed up our airplane worse than any turbulence I’d ever flown through.</p><p>Of course, there wasn’t much we could do except start at opposite ends of the airplane, tossing the trash into plastic garbage bags—or so I thought. The captain stopped at one point and looked at me. “Any idea how we get ground chocolate out of a leather seat?” I just shook my head. I knew the NTSB couldn’t help us that night.</p><h4>Lav service</h4><p>Sometimes the training on a business jet just plain stinks. Like many light jets, the Citation II had a chemical toilet. If you think of it like a slightly upgraded aerial outhouse, we’d be on about the same wavelength. To me, of course, any airplane with a bathroom was pretty cool—until we were getting ready to head for the hotel one night and the captain asked, “Did you service the lav?” I’d never been trained on that option, I replied. He smiled. That’s the night I learned our Citation was equipped with an internally serviced lav bucket, and not one that a line truck could hook up to from the outside.</p><p><img class=" wp-image-10234 alignleft" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Lav-service-300x249.jpg" alt="" width="225" height="187" />In English, that meant the pan that sits beneath the potty on the airplane must be removed by hand, a bit like sliding a broiler drawer out from beneath the oven at home. But the smell was worse—much worse. Just a few quick screws to loosen the box and out comes the pan. I quickly learned that the pan was nearly as wide as the cabin aisle itself. The trick, then, was not only knowing how to remove the stinkpot, turn around, and head down the aisle toward the front door. The real trick is to never, ever bump up against an armrest before you exit the cabin, because just so much as even the tiniest spill along the way meant both pilots might well be trying to clean the blue juice mess out of the carpet for hours.</p><p>The only question I wanted an answer to before I eventually upgraded to the Hawker 800 was how the lav was serviced. Another pilot explained, “The ground service trucks hook up to the back of the airplane for that. Why do you ask?” I knew he’d never, ever flown as a Citation II co-pilot.</p><p><em>Robert P. Mark flew Hawkers and Citations as a corporate pilot and is now CEO of <a href="http://www.commavia.com">CommAvia</a>, a media group serving aviation. He also publishes this blog, jetwhine.com. </em></p><p><em>And a big thanks to the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association and its<a href="https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/publications/turbine-pilot"> AOPA Pilot/ Turbine</a> for allowing us to reprint this story from their </em></p></div>]]></description> <div class="richtext"><p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignleft wp-image-10232" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/AOPA-Corp.jpg" alt="" width="279" height="205" srcset="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/AOPA-Corp.jpg 1594w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/AOPA-Corp-300x221.jpg 300w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/AOPA-Corp-1024x754.jpg 1024w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/AOPA-Corp-768x566.jpg 768w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/AOPA-Corp-1536x1131.jpg 1536w" sizes="(max-width: 279px) 100vw, 279px" /></p><p><em>I have many fond and a few not-so-fond memories of flying business jets in the corporate world. But then, everyone needs to begin somewhere. Rob Mark</em></p><p>A crusty old chief pilot once told me early in my jet flying career that, at times, I seemed a bit too eager to please, a little overly energetic to complete one task and move on to the next—as if fitting in at a flight department was somehow tied to completing as many tasks as possible in a single day. Not a person for wasting time, he said, “You still have a lot to learn.” But when the critique of my talents began with him calling me “an aviation pup,” it was tough to hold back a smile, so I didn’t try. The guy had a heart, after all.</p></div><div class="richtext"><h4>Balancing the Load</h4><p>One of the first things I learned on the Cessna Citation II, the first jet I flew, was how to load bags … lots and lots of bags. One afternoon six big fellows showed up for a hunting trip to Moultrie, Georgia. They knew the drill that I was still learning because they dropped everything near the rear cargo hatch underneath the left engine. I watched as duffle bags of all sizes and colors, guns, fishing poles, and Styrofoam coolers were piled incredibly high on top of each other. Forget figuring out the weight and balance for these hefty passengers, I thought, as the captain walked up to the pile. “Start loading so we can get out of here,” he said and headed to the cockpit to grab the clearance.</p><p>I surveyed the pile and thought, “How tough can this be? I’ve loaded station wagons before.”</p><p>A couple of duffle bags went in pretty easily, but then I grabbed one that must have weighed 100 pounds. Of course, this slowed me down some since it was a warm afternoon. I began sweating—a lot. One of the line guys took pity and walked over to help. The two of us barely got the big bag in. Maybe getting it out would be easier, I thought. I continued tossing the near-empty coolers—and then there were the guns. It was almost full in the back so I moved the guns up front to the nose compartment. That worked. I checked the latches both front and back, hopped in the cabin, and closed the door as the left seater quickly started the right and left engines.</p><p><strong>Oh Right, the Firearms</strong></p><p>“You checked that the guns were unloaded, didn’t you?” he asked. I just stared as he pulled the left throttle to cut off and shut down the engine. He looked at me like I was a complete idiot. “Get out there and check them.” Now, my life involvement with weapons was limited to a single day of M-16 training in the Air Force. I realized there had to be a way to keep from looking any more stupid to all these guys, so climbing out of the right seat, I asked who wanted to help me check the guns before takeoff. The biggest guy moved toward the door as I opened it. “You must be the new guy, eh?” How’d he know that?</p><h4>Food bomb</h4><p>On another trip, we carried a family that included three little kids to Orlando to visit Disney World. It was a smooth trip and the sky turned to night an hour after takeoff. The captain and I listened to the kids who sounded like they were having a good time, although every so often the captain would give another listen and then look at me, and shake his head.</p><p>“OK, what?” I said.</p><p>“Do you know who they are?” he asked (they were a prominent family from the North Shore of Chicago). I shook my head. “Just wait until we get to Orlando.”<img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignright wp-image-10235" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Food-Bomb-300x267.jpg" alt="" width="213" height="190" srcset="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Food-Bomb-300x267.jpg 300w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Food-Bomb.jpg 642w" sizes="(max-width: 213px) 100vw, 213px" /></p><p>Because the landing weather at Orlando Executive included drizzle, I hurried to shift the baggage out of the rear cargo bay into an SUV waiting for our passengers. They were gone moments later, without a word. By the time I returned to the cabin, the aircraft was already connected to the ground power unit to make it easier to light up the cabin.</p><p>I only managed to get my head in before I stopped dead in my tracks. It looked like someone had set off a food bomb in the cabin. Everywhere I looked I saw empty chip bags and candy wrappers. Pop cans were strewn across the floor, with a few more tossed on the seats. There were even empty soda cans in the lav. If I hadn’t known that the entire flight had been smooth, I’d have thought we’d flown through enough turbulence to empty every snack drawer on the airplane. The drawers were indeed empty, but those little three kids and two adults had messed up our airplane worse than any turbulence I’d ever flown through.</p><p>Of course, there wasn’t much we could do except start at opposite ends of the airplane, tossing the trash into plastic garbage bags—or so I thought. The captain stopped at one point and looked at me. “Any idea how we get ground chocolate out of a leather seat?” I just shook my head. I knew the NTSB couldn’t help us that night.</p><h4>Lav service</h4><p>Sometimes the training on a business jet just plain stinks. Like many light jets, the Citation II had a chemical toilet. If you think of it like a slightly upgraded aerial outhouse, we’d be on about the same wavelength. To me, of course, any airplane with a bathroom was pretty cool—until we were getting ready to head for the hotel one night and the captain asked, “Did you service the lav?” I’d never been trained on that option, I replied. He smiled. That’s the night I learned our Citation was equipped with an internally serviced lav bucket, and not one that a line truck could hook up to from the outside.</p><p><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class=" wp-image-10234 alignleft" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Lav-service-300x249.jpg" alt="" width="225" height="187" srcset="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Lav-service-300x249.jpg 300w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Lav-service.jpg 736w" sizes="(max-width: 225px) 100vw, 225px" />In English, that meant the pan that sits beneath the potty on the airplane must be removed by hand, a bit like sliding a broiler drawer out from beneath the oven at home. But the smell was worse—much worse. Just a few quick screws to loosen the box and out comes the pan. I quickly learned that the pan was nearly as wide as the cabin aisle itself. The trick, then, was not only knowing how to remove the stinkpot, turn around, and head down the aisle toward the front door. The real trick is to never, ever bump up against an armrest before you exit the cabin, because just so much as even the tiniest spill along the way meant both pilots might well be trying to clean the blue juice mess out of the carpet for hours.</p><p>The only question I wanted an answer to before I eventually upgraded to the Hawker 800 was how the lav was serviced. Another pilot explained, “The ground service trucks hook up to the back of the airplane for that. Why do you ask?” I knew he’d never, ever flown as a Citation II co-pilot.</p><p><em>Robert P. Mark flew Hawkers and Citations as a corporate pilot and is now CEO of <a href="http://www.commavia.com">CommAvia</a>, a media group serving aviation. He also publishes this blog, jetwhine.com. </em></p><p><em>And a big thanks to the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association and its<a href="https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/publications/turbine-pilot"> AOPA Pilot/ Turbine</a> for allowing us to reprint this story from their </em></p></div> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="richtext"><p><img class="alignleft wp-image-10232" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/AOPA-Corp.jpg" alt="" width="279" height="205" /></p><p><em>I have many fond and a few not-so-fond memories of flying business jets in the corporate world. But then, everyone needs to begin somewhere. Rob Mark</em></p><p>A crusty old chief pilot once told me early in my jet flying career that, at times, I seemed a bit too eager to please, a little overly energetic to complete one task and move on to the next—as if fitting in at a flight department was somehow tied to completing as many tasks as possible in a single day. Not a person for wasting time, he said, “You still have a lot to learn.” But when the critique of my talents began with him calling me “an aviation pup,” it was tough to hold back a smile, so I didn’t try. The guy had a heart, after all.</p></div><div class="richtext"><h4>Balancing the Load</h4><p>One of the first things I learned on the Cessna Citation II, the first jet I flew, was how to load bags … lots and lots of bags. One afternoon six big fellows showed up for a hunting trip to Moultrie, Georgia. They knew the drill that I was still learning because they dropped everything near the rear cargo hatch underneath the left engine. I watched as duffle bags of all sizes and colors, guns, fishing poles, and Styrofoam coolers were piled incredibly high on top of each other. Forget figuring out the weight and balance for these hefty passengers, I thought, as the captain walked up to the pile. “Start loading so we can get out of here,” he said and headed to the cockpit to grab the clearance.</p><p>I surveyed the pile and thought, “How tough can this be? I’ve loaded station wagons before.”</p><p>A couple of duffle bags went in pretty easily, but then I grabbed one that must have weighed 100 pounds. Of course, this slowed me down some since it was a warm afternoon. I began sweating—a lot. One of the line guys took pity and walked over to help. The two of us barely got the big bag in. Maybe getting it out would be easier, I thought. I continued tossing the near-empty coolers—and then there were the guns. It was almost full in the back so I moved the guns up front to the nose compartment. That worked. I checked the latches both front and back, hopped in the cabin, and closed the door as the left seater quickly started the right and left engines.</p><p><strong>Oh Right, the Firearms</strong></p><p>“You checked that the guns were unloaded, didn’t you?” he asked. I just stared as he pulled the left throttle to cut off and shut down the engine. He looked at me like I was a complete idiot. “Get out there and check them.” Now, my life involvement with weapons was limited to a single day of M-16 training in the Air Force. I realized there had to be a way to keep from looking any more stupid to all these guys, so climbing out of the right seat, I asked who wanted to help me check the guns before takeoff. The biggest guy moved toward the door as I opened it. “You must be the new guy, eh?” How’d he know that?</p><h4>Food bomb</h4><p>On another trip, we carried a family that included three little kids to Orlando to visit Disney World. It was a smooth trip and the sky turned to night an hour after takeoff. The captain and I listened to the kids who sounded like they were having a good time, although every so often the captain would give another listen and then look at me, and shake his head.</p><p>“OK, what?” I said.</p><p>“Do you know who they are?” he asked (they were a prominent family from the North Shore of Chicago). I shook my head. “Just wait until we get to Orlando.”<img class="alignright wp-image-10235" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Food-Bomb-300x267.jpg" alt="" width="213" height="190" /></p><p>Because the landing weather at Orlando Executive included drizzle, I hurried to shift the baggage out of the rear cargo bay into an SUV waiting for our passengers. They were gone moments later, without a word. By the time I returned to the cabin, the aircraft was already connected to the ground power unit to make it easier to light up the cabin.</p><p>I only managed to get my head in before I stopped dead in my tracks. It looked like someone had set off a food bomb in the cabin. Everywhere I looked I saw empty chip bags and candy wrappers. Pop cans were strewn across the floor, with a few more tossed on the seats. There were even empty soda cans in the lav. If I hadn’t known that the entire flight had been smooth, I’d have thought we’d flown through enough turbulence to empty every snack drawer on the airplane. The drawers were indeed empty, but those little three kids and two adults had messed up our airplane worse than any turbulence I’d ever flown through.</p><p>Of course, there wasn’t much we could do except start at opposite ends of the airplane, tossing the trash into plastic garbage bags—or so I thought. The captain stopped at one point and looked at me. “Any idea how we get ground chocolate out of a leather seat?” I just shook my head. I knew the NTSB couldn’t help us that night.</p><h4>Lav service</h4><p>Sometimes the training on a business jet just plain stinks. Like many light jets, the Citation II had a chemical toilet. If you think of it like a slightly upgraded aerial outhouse, we’d be on about the same wavelength. To me, of course, any airplane with a bathroom was pretty cool—until we were getting ready to head for the hotel one night and the captain asked, “Did you service the lav?” I’d never been trained on that option, I replied. He smiled. That’s the night I learned our Citation was equipped with an internally serviced lav bucket, and not one that a line truck could hook up to from the outside.</p><p><img class=" wp-image-10234 alignleft" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Lav-service-300x249.jpg" alt="" width="225" height="187" />In English, that meant the pan that sits beneath the potty on the airplane must be removed by hand, a bit like sliding a broiler drawer out from beneath the oven at home. But the smell was worse—much worse. Just a few quick screws to loosen the box and out comes the pan. I quickly learned that the pan was nearly as wide as the cabin aisle itself. The trick, then, was not only knowing how to remove the stinkpot, turn around, and head down the aisle toward the front door. The real trick is to never, ever bump up against an armrest before you exit the cabin, because just so much as even the tiniest spill along the way meant both pilots might well be trying to clean the blue juice mess out of the carpet for hours.</p><p>The only question I wanted an answer to before I eventually upgraded to the Hawker 800 was how the lav was serviced. Another pilot explained, “The ground service trucks hook up to the back of the airplane for that. Why do you ask?” I knew he’d never, ever flown as a Citation II co-pilot.</p><p><em>Robert P. Mark flew Hawkers and Citations as a corporate pilot and is now CEO of <a href="http://www.commavia.com">CommAvia</a>, a media group serving aviation. He also publishes this blog, jetwhine.com. </em></p><p><em>And a big thanks to the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association and its<a href="https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/publications/turbine-pilot"> AOPA Pilot/ Turbine</a> for allowing us to reprint this story from their </em></p></div>]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title>ASRS Callback Drone Challenge</title> <link>https://www.jetwhine.com/2023/10/asrs-callback-drone-challenge/</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Scott Spangler]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 30 Oct 2023 13:00:35 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[Aviation Education]]></category> <category><![CDATA[aviation safety]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Drones]]></category> <category><![CDATA[FAA]]></category> <category><![CDATA[The Buzz]]></category> <category><![CDATA[UAV]]></category> <category><![CDATA[aeronautical decision making]]></category> <category><![CDATA[ASRS Callback]]></category> <category><![CDATA[drone]]></category> <category><![CDATA[NASA]]></category> <category><![CDATA[night flying]]></category> <category><![CDATA[part 107]]></category> <category><![CDATA[sUAS]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.jetwhine.com/?p=10219</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/uass-dawn.png"><img class="alignright size-full wp-image-10225" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/uass-dawn.png" alt="" width="272" height="270" /></a>October kudos to the editors of <a href="https://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/publications/callback/cb_525.html">NASA’s Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) <em>Callback</em></a> for selecting atypical reports for their periodic “What Would You Have Done?” issue. In all the years I’ve been reading the selected scenarios to challenge and expand my aeronautical decision-making universe, this is the first time I’ve faced the unfamiliar regulatory and operational environment of a Part 107 unmanned aircraft system (UAS).</p><p>In “Part 107—Night Stealth,” the drone PIC “observed…while on a photography session, another small UAS operating with no anti-collision lights during dawn. I had two anti-collision strobes…activated and operating continuously. I immediately evaded the area to avoid a collision, since the other PIC was flying erratically. I departed about 150 feet north, and the other PIC followed and continued to fly erratically below me.”</p><p>At first reading, an initial reaction would be to bring my drone home while avoiding the erratic wandering of the lightless drone. But this was my Part 91 brain thinking. How would a rudimentary understanding of Part 107 affect my decision? To find out, I found the August 2016 edition of FAA-G-8082-22, the 88-page <em><a href="https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/remote_pilot_study_guide.pdf">Remote Pilot—Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems Study Guide</a></em> and settled in for a quick read of the chapters that would, most likely, provide the information I needed.</p><p>Chapter 1: Applicable Regulations, surprised me. “Be familiar with <a href="https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=e331c2fe611df1717386d29eee38b000&mc=true&node=pt14.2.107&rgn=div5">14 CFR part 107</a> and all parts referenced in part 107, as well as <a href="http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_107-2.pdf">AC 107-2</a>.” Given some time to think about it, getting links to the current links should not have surprised me. As they are in manned aircraft, the remote pilot in command is responsible for and is the final authority in the drone’s safe operation, and that the R-PIC complies with the requirements of Part 107, which I’m guessing that the rogue operator in the reported scenario was not doing.</p><p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/drien-dawn.webp"><img class="alignright wp-image-10222" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/drien-dawn.webp" alt="" width="278" height="185" /></a>Yup, according to §107.29, Operation at Night, the other operator was violating the regs. To fly at night, or during civil twilight, an appropriately trained and tested R-PIC can fly a drone with “lighted anti-collision lighting visible for at least 3 statute miles that has a flash rate sufficient to avoid a collision.” In addition, “The remote pilot in command may reduce the intensity of, but may not extinguish, the anti-collision lighting if he or she determines that, because of operating conditions, it would be in the interest of safety to do so.”</p><p>§107.37, Operation Near Aircraft; Right-of-Way Rules, is straightforward. Drones must yield to all other flying machines, and “may not pass over, under, or ahead of it unless well clear.”</p><p>I didn’t expect the regs to provide any guidance on what to do when someone else is going rogue. Maybe I’ll find what I’m looking for in AC 107-2A, dated February 1, 2021. Section 5.11.2, Safety Risk Assessment, pointed me at Appendix A for “additional guidance on how to conduct an overall safety risk assessment.”</p><p>Section 5.13, Remaining Clear of Other Aircraft. Now we’re getting somewhere. “The remote PIC must be aware of other aircraft, persons, and property in the vicinity of the operating area, and maneuver the small unmanned aircraft to avoid collision.” This supports my first-glance decision to return to home base. Even if the other guy is flying rogue, “The remote PIC must take action to ensure other aircraft will not need to maneuver to avoid colliding with the small unmanned aircraft.”</p><p>Section 5.18, In-Flight Emergency, and Section 5.19, Careless or Reckless Operation, only recommended not participating in these operations, not what to do when someone else is. I did learn, however, that drone pilots face a wider realm of careless of reckless: “Because sUAS have additional operating considerations that are not present in manned aircraft operations, there may be additional activity that would be careless or reckless if conducted using an sUAS. For example, failure to consider weather conditions near structures, trees, or rolling terrain when operating in a densely populated area could be determined as careless or reckless operation.”</p><p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/uas-pilot-scaled.webp"><img class="alignright wp-image-10224" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/uas-pilot-scaled.webp" alt="" width="276" height="184" /></a>Off to Appendix A, Risk Assessment Tools, which presents decision-making and crew resource management examples. Nope. The closest example was a drone filming an accident scene when an EMS helo arrives and appropriates the drone’s landing site. The short solution is to avoid the helo and find an alternate landing site. This also seems to support my initial ASRS decision. I wonder what the reporting R-PIC did?</p><p>The R-PIC did what I would have done, but he also took another step. The drone pilot “drove to find the PIC of the [other] UAS and asked if he was the operator.… He replied…he was. I then discussed with him if he was a Part 107 pilot. He replied he was.… [I] asked why he did not have anti-collision lights on and recommended he … use one during night or dawn operations. He stated he didn’t need to use anti-collision lights because he was flying under recreational/hobbyist flight rules. I informed him regardless he must have anti-collision lights on during dawn and night operations…to avoid an incident.” Given the locked and loaded American culture, I would not have done this. Scott Spangler, Editor</p>]]></description> <p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/uass-dawn.png"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignright size-full wp-image-10225" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/uass-dawn.png" alt="" width="272" height="270" srcset="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/uass-dawn.png 272w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/uass-dawn-150x150.png 150w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/uass-dawn-144x144.png 144w" sizes="(max-width: 272px) 100vw, 272px" /></a>October kudos to the editors of <a href="https://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/publications/callback/cb_525.html">NASA’s Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) <em>Callback</em></a> for selecting atypical reports for their periodic “What Would You Have Done?” issue. In all the years I’ve been reading the selected scenarios to challenge and expand my aeronautical decision-making universe, this is the first time I’ve faced the unfamiliar regulatory and operational environment of a Part 107 unmanned aircraft system (UAS).</p><p>In “Part 107—Night Stealth,” the drone PIC “observed…while on a photography session, another small UAS operating with no anti-collision lights during dawn. I had two anti-collision strobes…activated and operating continuously. I immediately evaded the area to avoid a collision, since the other PIC was flying erratically. I departed about 150 feet north, and the other PIC followed and continued to fly erratically below me.”</p><p>At first reading, an initial reaction would be to bring my drone home while avoiding the erratic wandering of the lightless drone. But this was my Part 91 brain thinking. How would a rudimentary understanding of Part 107 affect my decision? To find out, I found the August 2016 edition of FAA-G-8082-22, the 88-page <em><a href="https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/remote_pilot_study_guide.pdf">Remote Pilot—Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems Study Guide</a></em> and settled in for a quick read of the chapters that would, most likely, provide the information I needed.</p><p>Chapter 1: Applicable Regulations, surprised me. “Be familiar with <a href="https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=e331c2fe611df1717386d29eee38b000&mc=true&node=pt14.2.107&rgn=div5">14 CFR part 107</a> and all parts referenced in part 107, as well as <a href="http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_107-2.pdf">AC 107-2</a>.” Given some time to think about it, getting links to the current links should not have surprised me. As they are in manned aircraft, the remote pilot in command is responsible for and is the final authority in the drone’s safe operation, and that the R-PIC complies with the requirements of Part 107, which I’m guessing that the rogue operator in the reported scenario was not doing.</p><p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/drien-dawn.webp"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignright wp-image-10222" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/drien-dawn.webp" alt="" width="278" height="185" srcset="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/drien-dawn.webp 626w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/drien-dawn-300x200.webp 300w" sizes="(max-width: 278px) 100vw, 278px" /></a>Yup, according to §107.29, Operation at Night, the other operator was violating the regs. To fly at night, or during civil twilight, an appropriately trained and tested R-PIC can fly a drone with “lighted anti-collision lighting visible for at least 3 statute miles that has a flash rate sufficient to avoid a collision.” In addition, “The remote pilot in command may reduce the intensity of, but may not extinguish, the anti-collision lighting if he or she determines that, because of operating conditions, it would be in the interest of safety to do so.”</p><p>§107.37, Operation Near Aircraft; Right-of-Way Rules, is straightforward. Drones must yield to all other flying machines, and “may not pass over, under, or ahead of it unless well clear.”</p><p>I didn’t expect the regs to provide any guidance on what to do when someone else is going rogue. Maybe I’ll find what I’m looking for in AC 107-2A, dated February 1, 2021. Section 5.11.2, Safety Risk Assessment, pointed me at Appendix A for “additional guidance on how to conduct an overall safety risk assessment.”</p><p>Section 5.13, Remaining Clear of Other Aircraft. Now we’re getting somewhere. “The remote PIC must be aware of other aircraft, persons, and property in the vicinity of the operating area, and maneuver the small unmanned aircraft to avoid collision.” This supports my first-glance decision to return to home base. Even if the other guy is flying rogue, “The remote PIC must take action to ensure other aircraft will not need to maneuver to avoid colliding with the small unmanned aircraft.”</p><p>Section 5.18, In-Flight Emergency, and Section 5.19, Careless or Reckless Operation, only recommended not participating in these operations, not what to do when someone else is. I did learn, however, that drone pilots face a wider realm of careless of reckless: “Because sUAS have additional operating considerations that are not present in manned aircraft operations, there may be additional activity that would be careless or reckless if conducted using an sUAS. For example, failure to consider weather conditions near structures, trees, or rolling terrain when operating in a densely populated area could be determined as careless or reckless operation.”</p><p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/uas-pilot-scaled.webp"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignright wp-image-10224" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/uas-pilot-scaled.webp" alt="" width="276" height="184" srcset="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/uas-pilot-scaled.webp 2560w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/uas-pilot-300x200.webp 300w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/uas-pilot-1024x683.webp 1024w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/uas-pilot-768x512.webp 768w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/uas-pilot-1536x1024.webp 1536w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/uas-pilot-2048x1365.webp 2048w" sizes="(max-width: 276px) 100vw, 276px" /></a>Off to Appendix A, Risk Assessment Tools, which presents decision-making and crew resource management examples. Nope. The closest example was a drone filming an accident scene when an EMS helo arrives and appropriates the drone’s landing site. The short solution is to avoid the helo and find an alternate landing site. This also seems to support my initial ASRS decision. I wonder what the reporting R-PIC did?</p><p>The R-PIC did what I would have done, but he also took another step. The drone pilot “drove to find the PIC of the [other] UAS and asked if he was the operator.… He replied…he was. I then discussed with him if he was a Part 107 pilot. He replied he was.… [I] asked why he did not have anti-collision lights on and recommended he … use one during night or dawn operations. He stated he didn’t need to use anti-collision lights because he was flying under recreational/hobbyist flight rules. I informed him regardless he must have anti-collision lights on during dawn and night operations…to avoid an incident.” Given the locked and loaded American culture, I would not have done this. Scott Spangler, Editor</p> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/uass-dawn.png"><img class="alignright size-full wp-image-10225" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/uass-dawn.png" alt="" width="272" height="270" /></a>October kudos to the editors of <a href="https://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/publications/callback/cb_525.html">NASA’s Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) <em>Callback</em></a> for selecting atypical reports for their periodic “What Would You Have Done?” issue. In all the years I’ve been reading the selected scenarios to challenge and expand my aeronautical decision-making universe, this is the first time I’ve faced the unfamiliar regulatory and operational environment of a Part 107 unmanned aircraft system (UAS).</p><p>In “Part 107—Night Stealth,” the drone PIC “observed…while on a photography session, another small UAS operating with no anti-collision lights during dawn. I had two anti-collision strobes…activated and operating continuously. I immediately evaded the area to avoid a collision, since the other PIC was flying erratically. I departed about 150 feet north, and the other PIC followed and continued to fly erratically below me.”</p><p>At first reading, an initial reaction would be to bring my drone home while avoiding the erratic wandering of the lightless drone. But this was my Part 91 brain thinking. How would a rudimentary understanding of Part 107 affect my decision? To find out, I found the August 2016 edition of FAA-G-8082-22, the 88-page <em><a href="https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/remote_pilot_study_guide.pdf">Remote Pilot—Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems Study Guide</a></em> and settled in for a quick read of the chapters that would, most likely, provide the information I needed.</p><p>Chapter 1: Applicable Regulations, surprised me. “Be familiar with <a href="https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=e331c2fe611df1717386d29eee38b000&mc=true&node=pt14.2.107&rgn=div5">14 CFR part 107</a> and all parts referenced in part 107, as well as <a href="http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_107-2.pdf">AC 107-2</a>.” Given some time to think about it, getting links to the current links should not have surprised me. As they are in manned aircraft, the remote pilot in command is responsible for and is the final authority in the drone’s safe operation, and that the R-PIC complies with the requirements of Part 107, which I’m guessing that the rogue operator in the reported scenario was not doing.</p><p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/drien-dawn.webp"><img class="alignright wp-image-10222" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/drien-dawn.webp" alt="" width="278" height="185" /></a>Yup, according to §107.29, Operation at Night, the other operator was violating the regs. To fly at night, or during civil twilight, an appropriately trained and tested R-PIC can fly a drone with “lighted anti-collision lighting visible for at least 3 statute miles that has a flash rate sufficient to avoid a collision.” In addition, “The remote pilot in command may reduce the intensity of, but may not extinguish, the anti-collision lighting if he or she determines that, because of operating conditions, it would be in the interest of safety to do so.”</p><p>§107.37, Operation Near Aircraft; Right-of-Way Rules, is straightforward. Drones must yield to all other flying machines, and “may not pass over, under, or ahead of it unless well clear.”</p><p>I didn’t expect the regs to provide any guidance on what to do when someone else is going rogue. Maybe I’ll find what I’m looking for in AC 107-2A, dated February 1, 2021. Section 5.11.2, Safety Risk Assessment, pointed me at Appendix A for “additional guidance on how to conduct an overall safety risk assessment.”</p><p>Section 5.13, Remaining Clear of Other Aircraft. Now we’re getting somewhere. “The remote PIC must be aware of other aircraft, persons, and property in the vicinity of the operating area, and maneuver the small unmanned aircraft to avoid collision.” This supports my first-glance decision to return to home base. Even if the other guy is flying rogue, “The remote PIC must take action to ensure other aircraft will not need to maneuver to avoid colliding with the small unmanned aircraft.”</p><p>Section 5.18, In-Flight Emergency, and Section 5.19, Careless or Reckless Operation, only recommended not participating in these operations, not what to do when someone else is. I did learn, however, that drone pilots face a wider realm of careless of reckless: “Because sUAS have additional operating considerations that are not present in manned aircraft operations, there may be additional activity that would be careless or reckless if conducted using an sUAS. For example, failure to consider weather conditions near structures, trees, or rolling terrain when operating in a densely populated area could be determined as careless or reckless operation.”</p><p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/uas-pilot-scaled.webp"><img class="alignright wp-image-10224" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/uas-pilot-scaled.webp" alt="" width="276" height="184" /></a>Off to Appendix A, Risk Assessment Tools, which presents decision-making and crew resource management examples. Nope. The closest example was a drone filming an accident scene when an EMS helo arrives and appropriates the drone’s landing site. The short solution is to avoid the helo and find an alternate landing site. This also seems to support my initial ASRS decision. I wonder what the reporting R-PIC did?</p><p>The R-PIC did what I would have done, but he also took another step. The drone pilot “drove to find the PIC of the [other] UAS and asked if he was the operator.… He replied…he was. I then discussed with him if he was a Part 107 pilot. He replied he was.… [I] asked why he did not have anti-collision lights on and recommended he … use one during night or dawn operations. He stated he didn’t need to use anti-collision lights because he was flying under recreational/hobbyist flight rules. I informed him regardless he must have anti-collision lights on during dawn and night operations…to avoid an incident.” Given the locked and loaded American culture, I would not have done this. Scott Spangler, Editor</p>]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title>FAA Introduces Voluntary Helo Bird Strike Safety Enhancements</title> <link>https://www.jetwhine.com/2023/10/faa-introduces-voluntary-helo-bird-strike-safety-enhancements/</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Scott Spangler]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 16 Oct 2023 13:00:58 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[aviation safety]]></category> <category><![CDATA[bird strike]]></category> <category><![CDATA[FAA]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Helicopter]]></category> <category><![CDATA[The Buzz]]></category> <category><![CDATA[wildlife strike]]></category> <category><![CDATA[bird strikes]]></category> <category><![CDATA[wild]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.jetwhine.com/?p=10209</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/usda-helo-bird-strike.jpg"><img class="alignright wp-image-10211" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/usda-helo-bird-strike.jpg" alt="" width="299" height="224" /></a>With autumn’s annual bird migrations underway, on October 3, the FAA issued a 4-page Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin 21-17 addressing <a href="https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/DRSDOCID126430514220231003133959.0001%3Futm_campaign%3DAIN%20Alerts%3FmodalOpened%3Dtrue?modalOpened=true">Rotorcraft Bird Strike Protection and Mitigation</a>. It also introduces the voluntary Rotorcraft Safety Promotion Concept (RSPC) that encourages the installation of safety enhancing designs, using specific safety equipment, and implementing operational procedures to mitigate the risks of helos having runs-ins with our feathered friends. Unlike fixed-wing aircraft that zip through densely populated avian territory, helos face increased bird strikes because they cruise in the lower reaches of the atmosphere, 3,500 feet and below, where 90% of snarge is created.</p><p>The <a href="https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/rotorcraft/rspc#birdstrike">RSPC webpage</a> links to a list of bird-strike compliant helos. There are nine of them: the Airbus H225, MBB-BK 117 C2, D2, and D3; the Leonardo AB139, AW139, AW169, and AW189; and the Sikorsky S-92A.</p><p>It is followed by the Illustration of <a href="https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/rotorcraft/rot_Birdstrike_RSPC.pdf">Voluntary Bird Strike Options</a> that take normal category Part 27 helos toward the bird strike requirements of Part 29 transport category rotorcraft. These enhancements include bird resistant polycarbonate windshields, bird deterring lights, audio, and high visibility main rotor blades, and flight manual limits that limit the indicated airspeed to 80 knots.</p><p>Other operational risk mitigation options include flight planning and in-flight decisions that avoid bird-rich environments, mindful that these areas and the avion populations wax and wane with the season. If encountering birds in flight, slowing down, if practical, should be the pilot’s first reaction. More than three-quarters of all helo bird strikes happen when flying faster than 80 knots.</p><p>Gaining altitude, if possible, is another operational mitigation option. The SAIB says the likelihood of a bird strike decreases 32% for every 1,000 feet gained from 500 feet above the ground. And helo pilots should know and remember that birds fly at higher altitudes at night than they do during daylight.</p><p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/crew-chief6-1.jpg"><img class=" wp-image-10210 alignleft" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/crew-chief6-1.jpg" alt="" width="203" height="169" /></a>Rotary wing aviators should also know and remember that their last line of bird strike defense is wearing a good helmet with the visor firmly in place. And if you fly in a birch world, you might consider the face guard many military helo crews use. Collecting snarge for a wildlife strike is never a good time, especially if you are scraping it from the facial folds of any member of the helo’s crew. –Scott Spangler, Editor</p>]]></description> <p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/usda-helo-bird-strike.jpg"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignright wp-image-10211" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/usda-helo-bird-strike.jpg" alt="" width="299" height="224" srcset="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/usda-helo-bird-strike.jpg 500w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/usda-helo-bird-strike-300x225.jpg 300w" sizes="(max-width: 299px) 100vw, 299px" /></a>With autumn’s annual bird migrations underway, on October 3, the FAA issued a 4-page Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin 21-17 addressing <a href="https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/DRSDOCID126430514220231003133959.0001%3Futm_campaign%3DAIN%20Alerts%3FmodalOpened%3Dtrue?modalOpened=true">Rotorcraft Bird Strike Protection and Mitigation</a>. It also introduces the voluntary Rotorcraft Safety Promotion Concept (RSPC) that encourages the installation of safety enhancing designs, using specific safety equipment, and implementing operational procedures to mitigate the risks of helos having runs-ins with our feathered friends. Unlike fixed-wing aircraft that zip through densely populated avian territory, helos face increased bird strikes because they cruise in the lower reaches of the atmosphere, 3,500 feet and below, where 90% of snarge is created.</p><p>The <a href="https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/rotorcraft/rspc#birdstrike">RSPC webpage</a> links to a list of bird-strike compliant helos. There are nine of them: the Airbus H225, MBB-BK 117 C2, D2, and D3; the Leonardo AB139, AW139, AW169, and AW189; and the Sikorsky S-92A.</p><p>It is followed by the Illustration of <a href="https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/rotorcraft/rot_Birdstrike_RSPC.pdf">Voluntary Bird Strike Options</a> that take normal category Part 27 helos toward the bird strike requirements of Part 29 transport category rotorcraft. These enhancements include bird resistant polycarbonate windshields, bird deterring lights, audio, and high visibility main rotor blades, and flight manual limits that limit the indicated airspeed to 80 knots.</p><p>Other operational risk mitigation options include flight planning and in-flight decisions that avoid bird-rich environments, mindful that these areas and the avion populations wax and wane with the season. If encountering birds in flight, slowing down, if practical, should be the pilot’s first reaction. More than three-quarters of all helo bird strikes happen when flying faster than 80 knots.</p><p>Gaining altitude, if possible, is another operational mitigation option. The SAIB says the likelihood of a bird strike decreases 32% for every 1,000 feet gained from 500 feet above the ground. And helo pilots should know and remember that birds fly at higher altitudes at night than they do during daylight.</p><p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/crew-chief6-1.jpg"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class=" wp-image-10210 alignleft" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/crew-chief6-1.jpg" alt="" width="203" height="169" srcset="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/crew-chief6-1.jpg 1183w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/crew-chief6-1-300x250.jpg 300w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/crew-chief6-1-1024x854.jpg 1024w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/crew-chief6-1-768x641.jpg 768w" sizes="(max-width: 203px) 100vw, 203px" /></a>Rotary wing aviators should also know and remember that their last line of bird strike defense is wearing a good helmet with the visor firmly in place. And if you fly in a birch world, you might consider the face guard many military helo crews use. Collecting snarge for a wildlife strike is never a good time, especially if you are scraping it from the facial folds of any member of the helo’s crew. –Scott Spangler, Editor</p> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/usda-helo-bird-strike.jpg"><img class="alignright wp-image-10211" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/usda-helo-bird-strike.jpg" alt="" width="299" height="224" /></a>With autumn’s annual bird migrations underway, on October 3, the FAA issued a 4-page Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin 21-17 addressing <a href="https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/DRSDOCID126430514220231003133959.0001%3Futm_campaign%3DAIN%20Alerts%3FmodalOpened%3Dtrue?modalOpened=true">Rotorcraft Bird Strike Protection and Mitigation</a>. It also introduces the voluntary Rotorcraft Safety Promotion Concept (RSPC) that encourages the installation of safety enhancing designs, using specific safety equipment, and implementing operational procedures to mitigate the risks of helos having runs-ins with our feathered friends. Unlike fixed-wing aircraft that zip through densely populated avian territory, helos face increased bird strikes because they cruise in the lower reaches of the atmosphere, 3,500 feet and below, where 90% of snarge is created.</p><p>The <a href="https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/rotorcraft/rspc#birdstrike">RSPC webpage</a> links to a list of bird-strike compliant helos. There are nine of them: the Airbus H225, MBB-BK 117 C2, D2, and D3; the Leonardo AB139, AW139, AW169, and AW189; and the Sikorsky S-92A.</p><p>It is followed by the Illustration of <a href="https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/rotorcraft/rot_Birdstrike_RSPC.pdf">Voluntary Bird Strike Options</a> that take normal category Part 27 helos toward the bird strike requirements of Part 29 transport category rotorcraft. These enhancements include bird resistant polycarbonate windshields, bird deterring lights, audio, and high visibility main rotor blades, and flight manual limits that limit the indicated airspeed to 80 knots.</p><p>Other operational risk mitigation options include flight planning and in-flight decisions that avoid bird-rich environments, mindful that these areas and the avion populations wax and wane with the season. If encountering birds in flight, slowing down, if practical, should be the pilot’s first reaction. More than three-quarters of all helo bird strikes happen when flying faster than 80 knots.</p><p>Gaining altitude, if possible, is another operational mitigation option. The SAIB says the likelihood of a bird strike decreases 32% for every 1,000 feet gained from 500 feet above the ground. And helo pilots should know and remember that birds fly at higher altitudes at night than they do during daylight.</p><p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/crew-chief6-1.jpg"><img class=" wp-image-10210 alignleft" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/crew-chief6-1.jpg" alt="" width="203" height="169" /></a>Rotary wing aviators should also know and remember that their last line of bird strike defense is wearing a good helmet with the visor firmly in place. And if you fly in a birch world, you might consider the face guard many military helo crews use. Collecting snarge for a wildlife strike is never a good time, especially if you are scraping it from the facial folds of any member of the helo’s crew. –Scott Spangler, Editor</p>]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title>X-65 Controls with the (Active) Flow</title> <link>https://www.jetwhine.com/2023/10/x-65-controls-with-the-active-flow/</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Scott Spangler]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 02 Oct 2023 13:00:55 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[Aerospace]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Drones]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Military]]></category> <category><![CDATA[The Buzz]]></category> <category><![CDATA[active flow control]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Aerodynamics]]></category> <category><![CDATA[darpa]]></category> <category><![CDATA[x planes]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.jetwhine.com/?p=10199</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/crane-composite-619.png"><img class="alignright wp-image-10201" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/crane-composite-619.png" alt="" width="501" height="256" /></a>The brothers Wright solved the conundrum of three-axis control for powered aircraft with the pitch, yaw, and roll control through the combined forces of an elevator, rudder, and wing warping. Glenn Curtiss effectively won his roll control legal battle with the brothers when he replaced a warping roll with a French “little wing, “ aka the aileron. (And then came roll-control spoilers, like those on the P-61 Black Widow.) One wonders what the Wrights (and Curtiss as well) would think of a powered flying machine that achieved three-axis control without any of these moving control surfaces? For DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Aurora Flight Sciences, a subsidiary of Boeing, is building the X-65 to realize the possibilities of Active Flow Control, part of DARPA’s CRANE, Control of Revolutionary Aircraft with Novel Effectors.</p><p>The X-65’s geometric joined-wing structure certainly is revolutionary, and I would have loved to have listened to the meeting that renamed aerodynamic flight controls, the rudder, elevators, and ailerons “effectors.” At least it makes sense. Without moving flight controls, active flows of air will effect changes in the unmanned X plane’s pitch, roll, and yaw. But wait! There’s more! The 7,000-pound research aircraft includes modular wing configurations so it can integrate and test other advanced <a href="https://www.darpa.mil/program/control-of-revolutionary-aircraft-with-novel-effectors">CRANE technology</a>. As DARPA put it: “Crane seeks to optimize the benefits of active flow control by maturing technologies and design tools, and incorporating them early in the design process. Active flow control could improve aircraft performance by removing jointed surfaces, which currently drive design configurations that increase weight and mechanical complexity. Demonstrating AFC for stability and control in-flight would help open the design trade space for future military and commercial applications.”</p><p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/crane-wind-tunnel-model.webp"><img class="alignright wp-image-10202" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/crane-wind-tunnel-model.webp" alt="" width="508" height="254" /></a>Time will tell whether the X-65 begins its flight testing, scheduled for 2025, but the project has completed four weeks of wind tunnel testing in Phase 1. Surely those tunnel tests included controlling the aircraft’s attitude with inhaling and exhaling air from the myriad vents on the wings that give Active Flow Control its name. With only a rudimentary comprehension of fluid dynamics, it seems that ACF will create a pitch, roll, and yaw effector by changing the shape of the boundary layers flowing over the geometrically joined wings. (<a href="https://youtu.be/9gh1cPM-8LI">Here is BAE’s YouTube take on the subject.</a>) What I’m curious to learn is how effective this new active flow effector is compared to mechanical airflow deflectors, the traditional rudder, elevators, and ailerons (and spoilers, too!). The roll control legal patent battles between the Wrights and Curtiss aside, the aileron won because it was more immediately effective and it was easier to design and build, and it weighed less. In these regards, aviation’s practical demands remain unchanged. Scott Spangler, Editor</p>]]></description> <p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/crane-composite-619.png"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignright wp-image-10201" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/crane-composite-619.png" alt="" width="501" height="256" srcset="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/crane-composite-619.png 619w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/crane-composite-619-300x153.png 300w" sizes="(max-width: 501px) 100vw, 501px" /></a>The brothers Wright solved the conundrum of three-axis control for powered aircraft with the pitch, yaw, and roll control through the combined forces of an elevator, rudder, and wing warping. Glenn Curtiss effectively won his roll control legal battle with the brothers when he replaced a warping roll with a French “little wing, “ aka the aileron. (And then came roll-control spoilers, like those on the P-61 Black Widow.) One wonders what the Wrights (and Curtiss as well) would think of a powered flying machine that achieved three-axis control without any of these moving control surfaces? For DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Aurora Flight Sciences, a subsidiary of Boeing, is building the X-65 to realize the possibilities of Active Flow Control, part of DARPA’s CRANE, Control of Revolutionary Aircraft with Novel Effectors.</p><p>The X-65’s geometric joined-wing structure certainly is revolutionary, and I would have loved to have listened to the meeting that renamed aerodynamic flight controls, the rudder, elevators, and ailerons “effectors.” At least it makes sense. Without moving flight controls, active flows of air will effect changes in the unmanned X plane’s pitch, roll, and yaw. But wait! There’s more! The 7,000-pound research aircraft includes modular wing configurations so it can integrate and test other advanced <a href="https://www.darpa.mil/program/control-of-revolutionary-aircraft-with-novel-effectors">CRANE technology</a>. As DARPA put it: “Crane seeks to optimize the benefits of active flow control by maturing technologies and design tools, and incorporating them early in the design process. Active flow control could improve aircraft performance by removing jointed surfaces, which currently drive design configurations that increase weight and mechanical complexity. Demonstrating AFC for stability and control in-flight would help open the design trade space for future military and commercial applications.”</p><p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/crane-wind-tunnel-model.webp"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignright wp-image-10202" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/crane-wind-tunnel-model.webp" alt="" width="508" height="254" srcset="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/crane-wind-tunnel-model.webp 800w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/crane-wind-tunnel-model-300x150.webp 300w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/crane-wind-tunnel-model-768x384.webp 768w" sizes="(max-width: 508px) 100vw, 508px" /></a>Time will tell whether the X-65 begins its flight testing, scheduled for 2025, but the project has completed four weeks of wind tunnel testing in Phase 1. Surely those tunnel tests included controlling the aircraft’s attitude with inhaling and exhaling air from the myriad vents on the wings that give Active Flow Control its name. With only a rudimentary comprehension of fluid dynamics, it seems that ACF will create a pitch, roll, and yaw effector by changing the shape of the boundary layers flowing over the geometrically joined wings. (<a href="https://youtu.be/9gh1cPM-8LI">Here is BAE’s YouTube take on the subject.</a>) What I’m curious to learn is how effective this new active flow effector is compared to mechanical airflow deflectors, the traditional rudder, elevators, and ailerons (and spoilers, too!). The roll control legal patent battles between the Wrights and Curtiss aside, the aileron won because it was more immediately effective and it was easier to design and build, and it weighed less. In these regards, aviation’s practical demands remain unchanged. Scott Spangler, Editor</p> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/crane-composite-619.png"><img class="alignright wp-image-10201" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/crane-composite-619.png" alt="" width="501" height="256" /></a>The brothers Wright solved the conundrum of three-axis control for powered aircraft with the pitch, yaw, and roll control through the combined forces of an elevator, rudder, and wing warping. Glenn Curtiss effectively won his roll control legal battle with the brothers when he replaced a warping roll with a French “little wing, “ aka the aileron. (And then came roll-control spoilers, like those on the P-61 Black Widow.) One wonders what the Wrights (and Curtiss as well) would think of a powered flying machine that achieved three-axis control without any of these moving control surfaces? For DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Aurora Flight Sciences, a subsidiary of Boeing, is building the X-65 to realize the possibilities of Active Flow Control, part of DARPA’s CRANE, Control of Revolutionary Aircraft with Novel Effectors.</p><p>The X-65’s geometric joined-wing structure certainly is revolutionary, and I would have loved to have listened to the meeting that renamed aerodynamic flight controls, the rudder, elevators, and ailerons “effectors.” At least it makes sense. Without moving flight controls, active flows of air will effect changes in the unmanned X plane’s pitch, roll, and yaw. But wait! There’s more! The 7,000-pound research aircraft includes modular wing configurations so it can integrate and test other advanced <a href="https://www.darpa.mil/program/control-of-revolutionary-aircraft-with-novel-effectors">CRANE technology</a>. As DARPA put it: “Crane seeks to optimize the benefits of active flow control by maturing technologies and design tools, and incorporating them early in the design process. Active flow control could improve aircraft performance by removing jointed surfaces, which currently drive design configurations that increase weight and mechanical complexity. Demonstrating AFC for stability and control in-flight would help open the design trade space for future military and commercial applications.”</p><p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/crane-wind-tunnel-model.webp"><img class="alignright wp-image-10202" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/crane-wind-tunnel-model.webp" alt="" width="508" height="254" /></a>Time will tell whether the X-65 begins its flight testing, scheduled for 2025, but the project has completed four weeks of wind tunnel testing in Phase 1. Surely those tunnel tests included controlling the aircraft’s attitude with inhaling and exhaling air from the myriad vents on the wings that give Active Flow Control its name. With only a rudimentary comprehension of fluid dynamics, it seems that ACF will create a pitch, roll, and yaw effector by changing the shape of the boundary layers flowing over the geometrically joined wings. (<a href="https://youtu.be/9gh1cPM-8LI">Here is BAE’s YouTube take on the subject.</a>) What I’m curious to learn is how effective this new active flow effector is compared to mechanical airflow deflectors, the traditional rudder, elevators, and ailerons (and spoilers, too!). The roll control legal patent battles between the Wrights and Curtiss aside, the aileron won because it was more immediately effective and it was easier to design and build, and it weighed less. In these regards, aviation’s practical demands remain unchanged. Scott Spangler, Editor</p>]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title>Defining Aviation Learning Experiences</title> <link>https://www.jetwhine.com/2023/09/defining-aviation-learning-experiences/</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Scott Spangler]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 18 Sep 2023 13:00:51 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[aircraft accident]]></category> <category><![CDATA[aviation safety]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Flight Training]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Military]]></category> <category><![CDATA[The Buzz]]></category> <category><![CDATA[aeronautical decision making]]></category> <category><![CDATA[aviation learning experiences]]></category> <category><![CDATA[pilot personality]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.jetwhine.com/?p=10183</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/a7.webp"><img class="alignright wp-image-10185" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/a7.webp" alt="" width="270" height="185" /></a>To maintain my social skills, on Fridays I hike the Wiouwash Trail for 2.46 miles from the trailhead just east of Winneconne to the Bare Bones Brewery, which is trailside where the former interurban railbed enters Oshkosh, Wisconsin, on its northwest side. The Bone opens at noon, and I’m a member of its mug club. Exercise leading to (and from) good beer is guaranteed, and rare is the Friday that does not include a handful of people to talk with.</p><p>Conversations typically start with beer, and the craft breweries we’ve visited. This conversation is usually punctuated with our respective vocations and avocations. Talking with a couple somewhere in their 50s, the woman seemed especially interested after learning I was a pilot. She’d not met many, she said, and she peppered me with a curious collection of questions, such as who were the best pilots I’d ever flown with (a story for another day).</p><p>Flowering from the old saw that “There old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilot,” Most of them seemed to focus on things that define a pilot’s personality. Delving into this spectrum, which ranges from timid to foolhardy, I described myself as a pragmatic pilot who considered the relevant risks and played them out as possibilities influenced by the flight’s conditions. For more than 50 years now, mantra has been, “If in doubt, don’t.”</p><p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/alameda-movie.jpg"><img class="alignright wp-image-10186" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/alameda-movie.jpg" alt="" width="255" height="142" /></a>The couple asked if this guiding principle grew out of some inflight epiphany. In truth, this aviation moment that defined my flying life occurred in Alameda, California, during February 1973, three years before I started my flight training farther down the coast, in Long Beach, in 1976. Just before intermission during the film, <em>Fiddler on the Roof</em>, at the Alameda Theater, A <a href="https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/219862">Navy A-7 Corsair II</a> dove almost straight into an apartment building a little more than a half-mile down Central Ave.</p><p>A photographer stationed at NAS Alameda, I spent a couple of weeks documenting this undesirable aviation outcome as the mishap investigators dug into the hole sifting the mess searching for evidence, for some clue to the mishap’s cause. They found the A-7’s engine about 20 feet under the basement garage floor. As far as I know, they never did find any of the pilot’s remains, but the 10 civilians who resided in the apartment building introduced me to the unmistakable, unforgettable aroma of seared human flesh.</p><p>The flight of two A-7s had left NAS Lemore on a night out and back training flight, and the flight’s leader said suddenly, his wingman was no longer off his wing. The rumor among the people sifting through the site was the pilot was sucking on a cigarette in-between whiffs from his oxygen mask, not an approved procedure at 37,000 feet. Nothing in the mishap investigation confirmed this rumor, but what stuck in my 18-year-old mind is that a momentary lapse in judgement, no matter what it might be, can turn any airplane into a dirty collection of metal scraps, slivers, and shards spread across a hangar floor. Aside from the compacted lump of the A-7’s Pratt&Whitney TF30-P-6 turbofan, few of them were larger than an index card.</p><p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/engine.jpg"><img class="alignright wp-image-10187" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/engine.jpg" alt="" width="299" height="248" /></a>Photographic work on subsequent fatal mishaps, the final approach meeting of the four turboprop P-3 sub hunter and a Boeing 707 lookalike, the Convair 990, at NAS Moffet Field on the other side of San Francisco Bay, and a Marine Reserve CH-53 that shed a main rotor blade up north in the Napa, fixed this reality in memory.</p><p>Asking for an example of how this guided my flying life, I recalled my invitation to introduce the “new” Cessna 172 to <em>Flight Training’s</em> readers when Cessna resumed production of its single-engine airplanes. It was an event attended by usual GA media outlets, and for some reason, I was selected first to fly. Searching for differences between the legacy Skyhawk and the new one, I started by following the handbook’s preflight inspection checklist. I stopped when I found good sized nick in a prop blade, and said I would not fly the airplane until the problem was properly addressed.</p><p>Seeing two quizzical looks above their beers, I explained that the nick might lead to the loss of part of the prop blade, and that the unbalanced blade might torque the engine off the airframe, which would destroy not only the center of gravity but also the airplane’s aerodynamics, and what was left would fall out of the sky. I like flying a lot, I said, but not enough to die for, especially when it would have been my fault for taking off with a known problem. “Ultimately, we all are responsible for the consequences of our decisions. –Scott Spangler, Editor</p>]]></description> <p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/a7.webp"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignright wp-image-10185" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/a7.webp" alt="" width="270" height="185" srcset="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/a7.webp 1024w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/a7-300x205.webp 300w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/a7-768x526.webp 768w" sizes="(max-width: 270px) 100vw, 270px" /></a>To maintain my social skills, on Fridays I hike the Wiouwash Trail for 2.46 miles from the trailhead just east of Winneconne to the Bare Bones Brewery, which is trailside where the former interurban railbed enters Oshkosh, Wisconsin, on its northwest side. The Bone opens at noon, and I’m a member of its mug club. Exercise leading to (and from) good beer is guaranteed, and rare is the Friday that does not include a handful of people to talk with.</p><p>Conversations typically start with beer, and the craft breweries we’ve visited. This conversation is usually punctuated with our respective vocations and avocations. Talking with a couple somewhere in their 50s, the woman seemed especially interested after learning I was a pilot. She’d not met many, she said, and she peppered me with a curious collection of questions, such as who were the best pilots I’d ever flown with (a story for another day).</p><p>Flowering from the old saw that “There old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilot,” Most of them seemed to focus on things that define a pilot’s personality. Delving into this spectrum, which ranges from timid to foolhardy, I described myself as a pragmatic pilot who considered the relevant risks and played them out as possibilities influenced by the flight’s conditions. For more than 50 years now, mantra has been, “If in doubt, don’t.”</p><p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/alameda-movie.jpg"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignright wp-image-10186" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/alameda-movie.jpg" alt="" width="255" height="142" srcset="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/alameda-movie.jpg 1273w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/alameda-movie-300x167.jpg 300w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/alameda-movie-1024x571.jpg 1024w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/alameda-movie-768x428.jpg 768w" sizes="(max-width: 255px) 100vw, 255px" /></a>The couple asked if this guiding principle grew out of some inflight epiphany. In truth, this aviation moment that defined my flying life occurred in Alameda, California, during February 1973, three years before I started my flight training farther down the coast, in Long Beach, in 1976. Just before intermission during the film, <em>Fiddler on the Roof</em>, at the Alameda Theater, A <a href="https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/219862">Navy A-7 Corsair II</a> dove almost straight into an apartment building a little more than a half-mile down Central Ave.</p><p>A photographer stationed at NAS Alameda, I spent a couple of weeks documenting this undesirable aviation outcome as the mishap investigators dug into the hole sifting the mess searching for evidence, for some clue to the mishap’s cause. They found the A-7’s engine about 20 feet under the basement garage floor. As far as I know, they never did find any of the pilot’s remains, but the 10 civilians who resided in the apartment building introduced me to the unmistakable, unforgettable aroma of seared human flesh.</p><p>The flight of two A-7s had left NAS Lemore on a night out and back training flight, and the flight’s leader said suddenly, his wingman was no longer off his wing. The rumor among the people sifting through the site was the pilot was sucking on a cigarette in-between whiffs from his oxygen mask, not an approved procedure at 37,000 feet. Nothing in the mishap investigation confirmed this rumor, but what stuck in my 18-year-old mind is that a momentary lapse in judgement, no matter what it might be, can turn any airplane into a dirty collection of metal scraps, slivers, and shards spread across a hangar floor. Aside from the compacted lump of the A-7’s Pratt&Whitney TF30-P-6 turbofan, few of them were larger than an index card.</p><p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/engine.jpg"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignright wp-image-10187" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/engine.jpg" alt="" width="299" height="248" srcset="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/engine.jpg 844w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/engine-300x249.jpg 300w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/engine-768x638.jpg 768w" sizes="(max-width: 299px) 100vw, 299px" /></a>Photographic work on subsequent fatal mishaps, the final approach meeting of the four turboprop P-3 sub hunter and a Boeing 707 lookalike, the Convair 990, at NAS Moffet Field on the other side of San Francisco Bay, and a Marine Reserve CH-53 that shed a main rotor blade up north in the Napa, fixed this reality in memory.</p><p>Asking for an example of how this guided my flying life, I recalled my invitation to introduce the “new” Cessna 172 to <em>Flight Training’s</em> readers when Cessna resumed production of its single-engine airplanes. It was an event attended by usual GA media outlets, and for some reason, I was selected first to fly. Searching for differences between the legacy Skyhawk and the new one, I started by following the handbook’s preflight inspection checklist. I stopped when I found good sized nick in a prop blade, and said I would not fly the airplane until the problem was properly addressed.</p><p>Seeing two quizzical looks above their beers, I explained that the nick might lead to the loss of part of the prop blade, and that the unbalanced blade might torque the engine off the airframe, which would destroy not only the center of gravity but also the airplane’s aerodynamics, and what was left would fall out of the sky. I like flying a lot, I said, but not enough to die for, especially when it would have been my fault for taking off with a known problem. “Ultimately, we all are responsible for the consequences of our decisions. –Scott Spangler, Editor</p> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/a7.webp"><img class="alignright wp-image-10185" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/a7.webp" alt="" width="270" height="185" /></a>To maintain my social skills, on Fridays I hike the Wiouwash Trail for 2.46 miles from the trailhead just east of Winneconne to the Bare Bones Brewery, which is trailside where the former interurban railbed enters Oshkosh, Wisconsin, on its northwest side. The Bone opens at noon, and I’m a member of its mug club. Exercise leading to (and from) good beer is guaranteed, and rare is the Friday that does not include a handful of people to talk with.</p><p>Conversations typically start with beer, and the craft breweries we’ve visited. This conversation is usually punctuated with our respective vocations and avocations. Talking with a couple somewhere in their 50s, the woman seemed especially interested after learning I was a pilot. She’d not met many, she said, and she peppered me with a curious collection of questions, such as who were the best pilots I’d ever flown with (a story for another day).</p><p>Flowering from the old saw that “There old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilot,” Most of them seemed to focus on things that define a pilot’s personality. Delving into this spectrum, which ranges from timid to foolhardy, I described myself as a pragmatic pilot who considered the relevant risks and played them out as possibilities influenced by the flight’s conditions. For more than 50 years now, mantra has been, “If in doubt, don’t.”</p><p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/alameda-movie.jpg"><img class="alignright wp-image-10186" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/alameda-movie.jpg" alt="" width="255" height="142" /></a>The couple asked if this guiding principle grew out of some inflight epiphany. In truth, this aviation moment that defined my flying life occurred in Alameda, California, during February 1973, three years before I started my flight training farther down the coast, in Long Beach, in 1976. Just before intermission during the film, <em>Fiddler on the Roof</em>, at the Alameda Theater, A <a href="https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/219862">Navy A-7 Corsair II</a> dove almost straight into an apartment building a little more than a half-mile down Central Ave.</p><p>A photographer stationed at NAS Alameda, I spent a couple of weeks documenting this undesirable aviation outcome as the mishap investigators dug into the hole sifting the mess searching for evidence, for some clue to the mishap’s cause. They found the A-7’s engine about 20 feet under the basement garage floor. As far as I know, they never did find any of the pilot’s remains, but the 10 civilians who resided in the apartment building introduced me to the unmistakable, unforgettable aroma of seared human flesh.</p><p>The flight of two A-7s had left NAS Lemore on a night out and back training flight, and the flight’s leader said suddenly, his wingman was no longer off his wing. The rumor among the people sifting through the site was the pilot was sucking on a cigarette in-between whiffs from his oxygen mask, not an approved procedure at 37,000 feet. Nothing in the mishap investigation confirmed this rumor, but what stuck in my 18-year-old mind is that a momentary lapse in judgement, no matter what it might be, can turn any airplane into a dirty collection of metal scraps, slivers, and shards spread across a hangar floor. Aside from the compacted lump of the A-7’s Pratt&Whitney TF30-P-6 turbofan, few of them were larger than an index card.</p><p><a href="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/engine.jpg"><img class="alignright wp-image-10187" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/engine.jpg" alt="" width="299" height="248" /></a>Photographic work on subsequent fatal mishaps, the final approach meeting of the four turboprop P-3 sub hunter and a Boeing 707 lookalike, the Convair 990, at NAS Moffet Field on the other side of San Francisco Bay, and a Marine Reserve CH-53 that shed a main rotor blade up north in the Napa, fixed this reality in memory.</p><p>Asking for an example of how this guided my flying life, I recalled my invitation to introduce the “new” Cessna 172 to <em>Flight Training’s</em> readers when Cessna resumed production of its single-engine airplanes. It was an event attended by usual GA media outlets, and for some reason, I was selected first to fly. Searching for differences between the legacy Skyhawk and the new one, I started by following the handbook’s preflight inspection checklist. I stopped when I found good sized nick in a prop blade, and said I would not fly the airplane until the problem was properly addressed.</p><p>Seeing two quizzical looks above their beers, I explained that the nick might lead to the loss of part of the prop blade, and that the unbalanced blade might torque the engine off the airframe, which would destroy not only the center of gravity but also the airplane’s aerodynamics, and what was left would fall out of the sky. I like flying a lot, I said, but not enough to die for, especially when it would have been my fault for taking off with a known problem. “Ultimately, we all are responsible for the consequences of our decisions. –Scott Spangler, Editor</p>]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title>How the FAA Let Remote Tower Technology Slip Right Through Its Fingers</title> <link>https://www.jetwhine.com/2023/09/how-the-faa-let-remote-tower-technology-slip-right-through-its-fingers/</link> <comments>https://www.jetwhine.com/2023/09/how-the-faa-let-remote-tower-technology-slip-right-through-its-fingers/#comments</comments> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert Mark]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Tue, 12 Sep 2023 11:00:26 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[Air Traffic Control]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Airports]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Aviation Education]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Aviation Marketing]]></category> <category><![CDATA[FAA]]></category> <category><![CDATA[The Buzz]]></category> <category><![CDATA[ATC]]></category> <category><![CDATA[FAA's Airport Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) Replacement Program]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Leesburg Airport]]></category> <category><![CDATA[NATS]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Remote ATC Tower]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Saab]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Searidge Technology]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.jetwhine.com/?p=10163</guid> <description><![CDATA[<p>In June 2023, the FAA published a <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document/FAA-2023-1368-0002">167-page document</a> outlining the agency’s desire to replace dozens of 40-year-old airport control towers with new environmentally friendly brick-and-mortar structures. These towers are, of course, where hundreds of air traffic controllers ply their trade … ensuring the aircraft within their local airspace are safely separated from each other during landing and takeoff.</p><p>The FAA’s report was part of President Biden’s Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act enacted on November 15, 2021. That bill set aside a whopping $25 billion spread across five years to cover the cost of replacing those aging towers. The agency said it considered a number of alternatives about how to spend that $5 billion each year, rather than on brick and mortar buildings.</p><p>One alternative addressed only briefly before rejecting it was a relatively new concept called a Remote Tower, originally created by Saab in Europe in partnership with the Virginia-based VSATSLab Inc. The European technology giant has been successfully running Remote Towers in place of the traditional buildings in Europe for almost 10 years. One of Saab’s more well-known Remote Tower sites is at London City Airport. London also plans to create a virtual backup ATC facility at London Heathrow, the busiest airport in Europe.</p><p>A remote tower and its associated technology replace the traditional 60-70 foot glass domed control tower building you might see at your local airport, but it doesn’t eliminate any human air traffic controllers or their roles in keeping aircraft separated.</p><div id="attachment_10165" style="width: 292px" class="wp-caption alignleft"><img aria-describedby="caption-attachment-10165" class="wp-image-10165" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/RT-at-Loveland-scaled.jpeg" alt="" width="282" height="376" /><p id="caption-attachment-10165" class="wp-caption-text">Max Trescott photo</p></div><p><strong>Inside a Remote Tower Operation</strong></p><p>In place of a normal control tower building, the airport erects a small steel tower or even an 8-inch diameter pole perhaps 20-40 feet high, similar to a radio or cell phone tower. Dozens of high-definition cameras are attached to the new Remote Tower’s structure, each aimed at an arrival or departure path, as well as various ramps around the airport.</p><p>Using HD cameras, controllers can zoom in on any given point within the camera’s range, say an aircraft on final approach. The only way to accomplish that in a control tower today is if the controller picks up a pair of binoculars. The HD cameras also offer infrared capabilities to allow for better-than-human visuals, especially during bad weather or at night.</p><p>The next step in constructing a remote tower is locating the control room where the video feeds will terminate. Instead of the round glass room perched atop a standard control tower, imagine a semi-circular room located at ground level. Inside that room, the walls are lined with 14, 55-inch high-definition video screens hung next to each other with the wider portion of the screen running top to bottom.</p><p>After connecting the video feeds, the compression technology manages to consolidate 360 degrees of viewing area into a 220-degree spread across the video screens. That creates essentially the same view of the entire airport that a controller would normally see out the windows of the tower cab without the need to move their head more than 220 degrees. Another Remote Tower benefit is that each aircraft within visual range can be tagged with that aircraft’s tail number, just as it might if the controller were looking at a radar screen.<!--more--></p><h4>Why Erect a Remote Tower?</h4><p>Cost, for one.</p><p>A Remote Tower system can be constructed for a fraction of the dollars required to erect a traditional tower. No bricks, no mortar, no glass, and hence much less labor to make it all operational. That makes them a perfect fit for airports that need to replace their current aging towers or for low-to-medium traffic airports that might currently have no ATC operations at all. Do the math and it’s pretty easy to see that the dollars saved from that $5 billion allotment each year to create a Remote Tower would be significant.</p><p>Another benefit is that a Remote Tower can be constructed and become operational in much less time than it takes to build a traditional control tower. This makes a Remote Tower system easily applicable to small airports that might benefit from ATC services but not have enough traffic to warrant controllers living locally to staff the facility. Thanks to the technology involved, a Remote Tower’s video feeds can be piped into a control room located any distance from the airport. The room could be across the runway, across the road, or across town. That’s why a remote tower could fit well at those low-traffic volume airports.</p><p>Of course, there’s a but coming.</p><p>Remote Towers are not yet certified by the FAA in the US.</p><p>Saab engineers were in fact, close to receiving that needed approval earlier this year until the FAA in June pulled the plug on the test site located at Leesburg Executive Airport (KJYO) just outside Washington D.C. A Saab partnership spokesman explained the choice of JYO as a test site. “We zeroed in on Leesburg because of its complex airspace and the amount of traffic, recognizing as a risk-reward issue here. Every time we briefed somebody about the system, they would say, Oh, yeah, but you’re only doing 15,000 to 20,000 operations and it’s in Sweden. So, we picked the busiest airport we could find in the Northeast US. That became our benchmark.”</p><p>When the FAA explained the end of the Remote Tower at Leesburg, they pointed the finger at Saab for failing to prove the efficacy of their Remote Tower system. After diving into the available public documents about the Leesburg Remote Tower, they seem to tell a different story.</p><p>As Sherlock Holmes, the world’s greatest consulting detective would say, the game’s afoot.</p><p><strong>What Happened at Leesburg</strong></p><p>Back in 2015, Saab approached the town of Leesburg in search of a US test site for their then-new Remote Tower technology. If Saab’s test was successful at the non-controlled JYO, that airport would soon begin receiving actual air traffic control services in place of pilots making calls in the blind while attempting to avoid other aircraft.</p><p>At the time, Saab again already had several remote towers in operation at airports in the UK and Sweden. London City Airport a busy single runway airport, is now operated completely using the Remote Tower concept. LCY has a rich mix of business aviation and airline traffic in excess of 80,000 takeoffs and landings annually.</p><p>As a precursor to installing that full Remote Tower system at Leesburg, the FAA in 2016 wheeled in a portable control tower staffed by contract controllers who began offering ATC services in the newly named Leesburg Maneuvering Area that sits beneath Washington’s Special Use Airspace. Most of the construction costs for the remote tower were covered by Saab. Once the Remote Tower system became operational at Leesburg, the ATC control room was actually operated from an unused airport conference room.<img class="alignright size-full wp-image-10164" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Saab-Remote-ATC-tower.jpeg" alt="" width="500" height="280" /></p><p>Following FAA guidelines outlined in an Advisory Circular, Leesburg’s Remote Tower ran through a range of increasingly complex tests between 2016, 17, and on into 2018. Early on in the evaluation process, the FAA told Saab in a memo, “that all safety performance targets have been met through all periods of operational use of the Saab, Inc., The Saab RT system is approved for provisional ATC services at JYO.” The FAA did however restrict the Remote Tower operations to single-runway airports like JYO with a runway length of no more than 5500 feet.</p><p>Local Leesburg users enthusiastically greeted the airport’s new Remote Tower ATC operation. Before system testing began, annual traffic counts at JYO hovered around 53,000. By the time the Remote Tower system’s plug was pulled in June of this year, air traffic had climbed to 79,000 takeoffs and landings, a 45 percent increase. JYO is home to two FBOs, five flight training operations, five flying clubs, and two additional aviation businesses. Leesburg Airport’s manager Scott Coffman said many new aircraft have chosen JYO as their base, including several jets.</p><p>In September 2021, the FAA decided it was time to move the Remote Tower certification up the agency’s food chain. It was about this time that the Saab partnership learned the next group of people at FAA who would be helping to certify the Remote Tower system were engineers in the agency’s Tech Ops division. These people are the ones who normally certify new aircraft and new aviation technology. Saab said as it turned out, “Many of them [Tech Ops engineers], admitted they hadn’t dealt with air traffic systems before.”</p><p>Prior to the day when Saab and the FAA began to butt heads at Leesburg, Saab engineers had been working to meet the criteria the FAA had earlier provided them. Then on February 18<sup>th</sup>, 2022, the FAA published a new advisory circular titled “</p><p>“REMOTE TOWER (RT) SYSTEMS FOR NON-FEDERAL APPLICATIONS,” in which the agency altered the requirements Saab would need to meet in order to have its system certified.</p><p>Essentially, the FAA moved the goalposts on the engineers at Saab. A Saab spokesman said the remote tower at Leesburg, “wasn’t designed with some of these [new] technical requirements and design verification requirements. If we were starting a brand new development, sure we could comply with what they’re asking for. But to reverse engineer our former design processes … got to be more and more burdensome.” Saab said the company believed reverse engineering the current design might have consumed an additional two to three years and many millions of additional dollars.</p><p>In a letter to the FAA from Saab dated Feb 7, 2023, Michael Gerry, VP of surveillance systems said, “Saab, Inc. has been working on [the] Remote Tower with the FAA, Leesburg Airport, and the State of Virginia for eight years. Over the last two years, we have been engaged with the FAA Technical Operations Team to achieve System Design Approval (SDA) for the Saab Remote Tower system. We concluded detailed reviews of three key planning documents that were first submitted in early 2022: Systems Engineering Management Plan, System Safety Plan, and Software Approval Plan. We appreciate the FAA support and the effort of your team to help us learn the approval process for non-Federal systems. Given our better understanding of the newly defined SDA process as captured in the February 2022 Advisory Circular, Saab will no longer pursue approval of the system currently baselined and operating at Leesburg. Instead, we will focus our efforts on assessing the impact of the SDA requirements on our future system offering, which will form the basis for a possible technical refresh of the Leesburg system baseline. We expect this assessment to take several months, after which time we understand that we will need to resubmit our SDA application to the FAA, along with the appropriate intake documents, to reflect our updated system baseline.”</p><p>Despite the years of error-free ATC operations using the Remote Tower system at Leesburg, the FAA also demanded Saab build another version of the Remote Tower at the FAA’s Technical Center in Atlantic City. How this new site at a completely unrelated airport would assist the FAA in certifying the Remote Tower was never explained.</p><p>In an attempt to salvage the operating Remote Tower at Leesburg, Saab petitioned the FAA, “to consider any and all means to extend the operational viability decision for the current system, including potentially providing a limited SDA, which would allow the current ATC services at Leesburg to continue.” The agency politely declined.</p><p>Adding salt to the wound, On February 21, 2023, the FAA made a presentation to the Leesburg Airport commission, explaining the specific mistakes Saab made during its efforts to gain system design approval for the Remote Tower. The agency said, “Early FAA efforts on Remote Towers determined the approval and operation of these systems should be handled under the contract tower program due to their potential safety impacts, like hazardous and misleading information being provided to controllers and the legal liabilities the airport sponsor and the FAA could be in for if there were any accidents of incidents.” Again, in the five years of testing, no ATC errors were ever reported. The February meeting also detailed the next steps required to archive the Remote Tower project files, in addition to disposal instructions for what it considered unnecessary Saab documentation.</p><p>In early March of this year, the FAA sent a confusing, almost contradictory letter to Leesburg mayor Kelly Burk explaining that, “We at the FAA understand and appreciate your frustration with the decision to cease remote tower services at JYO, but for safety reasons, there was no other choice to be made. JYO has a solid safety track record operating as a non-towered airport, and we expect that to continue.” How the agency expected to maintain the airport’s safety record after ATC services were withdrawn was also not explained at the time.</p><div id="attachment_10174" style="width: 439px" class="wp-caption alignleft"><img aria-describedby="caption-attachment-10174" class="wp-image-10174" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/London-City-Airport.jpg" alt="" width="429" height="184" /><p id="caption-attachment-10174" class="wp-caption-text"><em>A British Airways Embraer departing from London City highlights that airport’s remote tower.</em></p></div><p>So why pressure Saab to pull the plug on a system that was working well at Leesburg by creating unrealistic demands for the company? No one is completely certain of the FAA’s motivation, but that 167-page guide to building brick-and-mortar buildings may have been involved. About 18 months ago, the FAA also held a webinar explaining the agency’s process to begin replacing those old towers with the more environmentally friendly ones. They also introduced the architects the agency planned to use for the work. I asked the FAA employee in charge of the session if the agency would be considering Remote Towers as a tactical alternative. My question was met with a resounding no. The woman told me Remote Tower technology was not mature enough, a rather odd assessment despite the operational record at Leesburg. Surprisingly, the FAA’s FY23 business plan mentions the Remote Tower idea in a few places such as noting an internal target to update an operational safety assessment in April of this year, just a few months after the agency had made the decision to shut down the Leesburg experiment. The plan also strangely calls for the agency to update Saab’s Remote Tower Compliance Matrix by the end of September, again something unlikely to occur now that the JYO project was halted.</p><p> </p><p><strong>The Aftermath</strong></p><p>In February of this year, the Town of Leesburg issued an update on the Remote Tower’s status. The document confirmed that the FAA was canceling the RT program at JYO despite providing ATC services to airport users 10 hours a day since June 2018. The RT shut down completely in the middle of June 2023. That’s when most local users learned of Saab’s reluctance to continue dumping cash into the Remote Tower project when they didn’t believe the FAA would ever certify the system. They also learned Leesburg was at significant risk of losing all ATC services. A Saab spokesman said, “I do think they [the FAA] came at this from a safety standpoint. But they look at it in a very rigid, very limited way. You’ve got a group here that’s not used to certifying this kind of system. And they said, here’s what we require. And until you do that, it doesn’t make it through. We don’t care, because our goal is to make sure everything is 100% or 110% safe.”</p><p>An important update to the Remote Tower project appeared in a recent edition of the <a href="https://reason.org/aviation-policy-news/">Reason Foundation’s Aviation News Policy newsletter</a>, written by the foundation’s director of Transportation Policy, Bob Poole. He said, “The Town of Leesburg, VA, has reached an agreement with FAA for continued air traffic control tower operations at the busy general aviation airport. Leesburg will rent the current mobile tower through June 2024, and FAA has agreed to pay the salaries of air traffic controllers operating from that facility for the next five years, while the town begins planning for a brick-and-mortar tower to replace the mobile facility.” The airport manager at Leesburg told me he hopes the FAA will have the new brick-and-mortar building in operation no later than 2030.</p><p>Saab hasn’t given up on Remote Towers entirely, however. The company has managed to install several at airports served by the airlines where the facilities serve as an airline’s ramp control towers. The Saab spokesman said leaving the Leesburg remote tower behind, “wasn’t something we took lightly. We feel obligated to help the airport. We want to see the product work, we want to be successful. We put in a lot of blood, sweat, and tears to even get to where we were at Leesburg. We hope this isn’t the end. Certainly, this is a product that is very important to us, around the world outside of the US and inside the US. It’s a market that is still of interest to us.”</p><p>Just because the FAA said no to the remote tower idea for now doesn’t mean other countries haven’t embraced the benefits of the technology. Bob Poole also noted that on the other side of the Atlantic, London’s Heathrow Airport plans to build that new Virtual Contingency Backup ATC Facility, replacing the remote operation <a href="https://www.nats.aero/">NATS</a> first created in 2009. NATS is the UK air navigation service provider (ANSP). That original contingency operation, designed to handle about 70% of LHR traffic, was the U.K.’s first remote air traffic control tower and is located off-airport.</p><p>Heathrow says their new remote tower backup facility for Europe’s busiest airport will be operational by 2025. Initially, it will use newer technology to provide the same 70% capacity, but a planned second phase would bring it to 100%. It will be interesting to see if, by 2025, Leesburg and the FAA have even broken any ground for their brick-and-mortar facility.</p><p>One last note. There was another remote tower test happening in Loveland, Colorado at the Northern Colorado Regional Airport (FNL) using Searidge Technology. Searidge is wholly owned by NATS. A statement from Searidge said the company is not expected to consider the FAA’s requirement to move its test site to Atlantic City.</p><p>Here in the US, Raytheon Corporation is said to be teaming up with an Austrian company for a future RT project, so remote tower operations somewhere may yet rise like the Phoenix from the ashes. Reportedly, Raytheon is willing to construct a remote tower test site in Atlantic City, although no timeline for that project has been announced.</p><p><strong>A Final Thought</strong></p><p>One thing has been gnawing at me since that FAA webinar 18 months ago and after reading through the 167-page guide to building new control towers the agency published a few months back. Building a control tower, or dozens of them actually, especially when the agency has $5 billion each year to spend, represents a whole lot of materials and jobs, unlike a Remote Tower. I have no proof of course, but I’ve seriously wondered if there might not be some subtle connection somewhere between the agency’s plan for constructing all those new control tower buildings and the seeming demise of the Remote Tower concept.</p><p>In the end, this story does highlight, yet again, what FAA controllers have known for years, that the agency is far behind the rest of the world when it comes to employing new technology for ATC.</p><p>Rob Mark, Publisher</p>]]></description> <p>In June 2023, the FAA published a <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document/FAA-2023-1368-0002">167-page document</a> outlining the agency’s desire to replace dozens of 40-year-old airport control towers with new environmentally friendly brick-and-mortar structures. These towers are, of course, where hundreds of air traffic controllers ply their trade … ensuring the aircraft within their local airspace are safely separated from each other during landing and takeoff.</p><p>The FAA’s report was part of President Biden’s Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act enacted on November 15, 2021. That bill set aside a whopping $25 billion spread across five years to cover the cost of replacing those aging towers. The agency said it considered a number of alternatives about how to spend that $5 billion each year, rather than on brick and mortar buildings.</p><p>One alternative addressed only briefly before rejecting it was a relatively new concept called a Remote Tower, originally created by Saab in Europe in partnership with the Virginia-based VSATSLab Inc. The European technology giant has been successfully running Remote Towers in place of the traditional buildings in Europe for almost 10 years. One of Saab’s more well-known Remote Tower sites is at London City Airport. London also plans to create a virtual backup ATC facility at London Heathrow, the busiest airport in Europe.</p><p>A remote tower and its associated technology replace the traditional 60-70 foot glass domed control tower building you might see at your local airport, but it doesn’t eliminate any human air traffic controllers or their roles in keeping aircraft separated.</p><div id="attachment_10165" style="width: 292px" class="wp-caption alignleft"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-10165" class="wp-image-10165" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/RT-at-Loveland-scaled.jpeg" alt="" width="282" height="376" srcset="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/RT-at-Loveland-scaled.jpeg 1920w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/RT-at-Loveland-225x300.jpeg 225w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/RT-at-Loveland-768x1024.jpeg 768w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/RT-at-Loveland-1152x1536.jpeg 1152w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/RT-at-Loveland-1536x2048.jpeg 1536w" sizes="(max-width: 282px) 100vw, 282px" /><p id="caption-attachment-10165" class="wp-caption-text">Max Trescott photo</p></div><p><strong>Inside a Remote Tower Operation</strong></p><p>In place of a normal control tower building, the airport erects a small steel tower or even an 8-inch diameter pole perhaps 20-40 feet high, similar to a radio or cell phone tower. Dozens of high-definition cameras are attached to the new Remote Tower’s structure, each aimed at an arrival or departure path, as well as various ramps around the airport.</p><p>Using HD cameras, controllers can zoom in on any given point within the camera’s range, say an aircraft on final approach. The only way to accomplish that in a control tower today is if the controller picks up a pair of binoculars. The HD cameras also offer infrared capabilities to allow for better-than-human visuals, especially during bad weather or at night.</p><p>The next step in constructing a remote tower is locating the control room where the video feeds will terminate. Instead of the round glass room perched atop a standard control tower, imagine a semi-circular room located at ground level. Inside that room, the walls are lined with 14, 55-inch high-definition video screens hung next to each other with the wider portion of the screen running top to bottom.</p><p>After connecting the video feeds, the compression technology manages to consolidate 360 degrees of viewing area into a 220-degree spread across the video screens. That creates essentially the same view of the entire airport that a controller would normally see out the windows of the tower cab without the need to move their head more than 220 degrees. Another Remote Tower benefit is that each aircraft within visual range can be tagged with that aircraft’s tail number, just as it might if the controller were looking at a radar screen.<!--more--></p><h4>Why Erect a Remote Tower?</h4><p>Cost, for one.</p><p>A Remote Tower system can be constructed for a fraction of the dollars required to erect a traditional tower. No bricks, no mortar, no glass, and hence much less labor to make it all operational. That makes them a perfect fit for airports that need to replace their current aging towers or for low-to-medium traffic airports that might currently have no ATC operations at all. Do the math and it’s pretty easy to see that the dollars saved from that $5 billion allotment each year to create a Remote Tower would be significant.</p><p>Another benefit is that a Remote Tower can be constructed and become operational in much less time than it takes to build a traditional control tower. This makes a Remote Tower system easily applicable to small airports that might benefit from ATC services but not have enough traffic to warrant controllers living locally to staff the facility. Thanks to the technology involved, a Remote Tower’s video feeds can be piped into a control room located any distance from the airport. The room could be across the runway, across the road, or across town. That’s why a remote tower could fit well at those low-traffic volume airports.</p><p>Of course, there’s a but coming.</p><p>Remote Towers are not yet certified by the FAA in the US.</p><p>Saab engineers were in fact, close to receiving that needed approval earlier this year until the FAA in June pulled the plug on the test site located at Leesburg Executive Airport (KJYO) just outside Washington D.C. A Saab partnership spokesman explained the choice of JYO as a test site. “We zeroed in on Leesburg because of its complex airspace and the amount of traffic, recognizing as a risk-reward issue here. Every time we briefed somebody about the system, they would say, Oh, yeah, but you’re only doing 15,000 to 20,000 operations and it’s in Sweden. So, we picked the busiest airport we could find in the Northeast US. That became our benchmark.”</p><p>When the FAA explained the end of the Remote Tower at Leesburg, they pointed the finger at Saab for failing to prove the efficacy of their Remote Tower system. After diving into the available public documents about the Leesburg Remote Tower, they seem to tell a different story.</p><p>As Sherlock Holmes, the world’s greatest consulting detective would say, the game’s afoot.</p><p><strong>What Happened at Leesburg</strong></p><p>Back in 2015, Saab approached the town of Leesburg in search of a US test site for their then-new Remote Tower technology. If Saab’s test was successful at the non-controlled JYO, that airport would soon begin receiving actual air traffic control services in place of pilots making calls in the blind while attempting to avoid other aircraft.</p><p>At the time, Saab again already had several remote towers in operation at airports in the UK and Sweden. London City Airport a busy single runway airport, is now operated completely using the Remote Tower concept. LCY has a rich mix of business aviation and airline traffic in excess of 80,000 takeoffs and landings annually.</p><p>As a precursor to installing that full Remote Tower system at Leesburg, the FAA in 2016 wheeled in a portable control tower staffed by contract controllers who began offering ATC services in the newly named Leesburg Maneuvering Area that sits beneath Washington’s Special Use Airspace. Most of the construction costs for the remote tower were covered by Saab. Once the Remote Tower system became operational at Leesburg, the ATC control room was actually operated from an unused airport conference room.<img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignright size-full wp-image-10164" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Saab-Remote-ATC-tower.jpeg" alt="" width="500" height="280" srcset="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Saab-Remote-ATC-tower.jpeg 500w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Saab-Remote-ATC-tower-300x168.jpeg 300w" sizes="(max-width: 500px) 100vw, 500px" /></p><p>Following FAA guidelines outlined in an Advisory Circular, Leesburg’s Remote Tower ran through a range of increasingly complex tests between 2016, 17, and on into 2018. Early on in the evaluation process, the FAA told Saab in a memo, “that all safety performance targets have been met through all periods of operational use of the Saab, Inc., The Saab RT system is approved for provisional ATC services at JYO.” The FAA did however restrict the Remote Tower operations to single-runway airports like JYO with a runway length of no more than 5500 feet.</p><p>Local Leesburg users enthusiastically greeted the airport’s new Remote Tower ATC operation. Before system testing began, annual traffic counts at JYO hovered around 53,000. By the time the Remote Tower system’s plug was pulled in June of this year, air traffic had climbed to 79,000 takeoffs and landings, a 45 percent increase. JYO is home to two FBOs, five flight training operations, five flying clubs, and two additional aviation businesses. Leesburg Airport’s manager Scott Coffman said many new aircraft have chosen JYO as their base, including several jets.</p><p>In September 2021, the FAA decided it was time to move the Remote Tower certification up the agency’s food chain. It was about this time that the Saab partnership learned the next group of people at FAA who would be helping to certify the Remote Tower system were engineers in the agency’s Tech Ops division. These people are the ones who normally certify new aircraft and new aviation technology. Saab said as it turned out, “Many of them [Tech Ops engineers], admitted they hadn’t dealt with air traffic systems before.”</p><p>Prior to the day when Saab and the FAA began to butt heads at Leesburg, Saab engineers had been working to meet the criteria the FAA had earlier provided them. Then on February 18<sup>th</sup>, 2022, the FAA published a new advisory circular titled “</p><p>“REMOTE TOWER (RT) SYSTEMS FOR NON-FEDERAL APPLICATIONS,” in which the agency altered the requirements Saab would need to meet in order to have its system certified.</p><p>Essentially, the FAA moved the goalposts on the engineers at Saab. A Saab spokesman said the remote tower at Leesburg, “wasn’t designed with some of these [new] technical requirements and design verification requirements. If we were starting a brand new development, sure we could comply with what they’re asking for. But to reverse engineer our former design processes … got to be more and more burdensome.” Saab said the company believed reverse engineering the current design might have consumed an additional two to three years and many millions of additional dollars.</p><p>In a letter to the FAA from Saab dated Feb 7, 2023, Michael Gerry, VP of surveillance systems said, “Saab, Inc. has been working on [the] Remote Tower with the FAA, Leesburg Airport, and the State of Virginia for eight years. Over the last two years, we have been engaged with the FAA Technical Operations Team to achieve System Design Approval (SDA) for the Saab Remote Tower system. We concluded detailed reviews of three key planning documents that were first submitted in early 2022: Systems Engineering Management Plan, System Safety Plan, and Software Approval Plan. We appreciate the FAA support and the effort of your team to help us learn the approval process for non-Federal systems. Given our better understanding of the newly defined SDA process as captured in the February 2022 Advisory Circular, Saab will no longer pursue approval of the system currently baselined and operating at Leesburg. Instead, we will focus our efforts on assessing the impact of the SDA requirements on our future system offering, which will form the basis for a possible technical refresh of the Leesburg system baseline. We expect this assessment to take several months, after which time we understand that we will need to resubmit our SDA application to the FAA, along with the appropriate intake documents, to reflect our updated system baseline.”</p><p>Despite the years of error-free ATC operations using the Remote Tower system at Leesburg, the FAA also demanded Saab build another version of the Remote Tower at the FAA’s Technical Center in Atlantic City. How this new site at a completely unrelated airport would assist the FAA in certifying the Remote Tower was never explained.</p><p>In an attempt to salvage the operating Remote Tower at Leesburg, Saab petitioned the FAA, “to consider any and all means to extend the operational viability decision for the current system, including potentially providing a limited SDA, which would allow the current ATC services at Leesburg to continue.” The agency politely declined.</p><p>Adding salt to the wound, On February 21, 2023, the FAA made a presentation to the Leesburg Airport commission, explaining the specific mistakes Saab made during its efforts to gain system design approval for the Remote Tower. The agency said, “Early FAA efforts on Remote Towers determined the approval and operation of these systems should be handled under the contract tower program due to their potential safety impacts, like hazardous and misleading information being provided to controllers and the legal liabilities the airport sponsor and the FAA could be in for if there were any accidents of incidents.” Again, in the five years of testing, no ATC errors were ever reported. The February meeting also detailed the next steps required to archive the Remote Tower project files, in addition to disposal instructions for what it considered unnecessary Saab documentation.</p><p>In early March of this year, the FAA sent a confusing, almost contradictory letter to Leesburg mayor Kelly Burk explaining that, “We at the FAA understand and appreciate your frustration with the decision to cease remote tower services at JYO, but for safety reasons, there was no other choice to be made. JYO has a solid safety track record operating as a non-towered airport, and we expect that to continue.” How the agency expected to maintain the airport’s safety record after ATC services were withdrawn was also not explained at the time.</p><div id="attachment_10174" style="width: 439px" class="wp-caption alignleft"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-10174" class="wp-image-10174" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/London-City-Airport.jpg" alt="" width="429" height="184" srcset="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/London-City-Airport.jpg 1082w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/London-City-Airport-300x129.jpg 300w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/London-City-Airport-1024x439.jpg 1024w, https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/London-City-Airport-768x329.jpg 768w" sizes="(max-width: 429px) 100vw, 429px" /><p id="caption-attachment-10174" class="wp-caption-text"><em>A British Airways Embraer departing from London City highlights that airport’s remote tower.</em></p></div><p>So why pressure Saab to pull the plug on a system that was working well at Leesburg by creating unrealistic demands for the company? No one is completely certain of the FAA’s motivation, but that 167-page guide to building brick-and-mortar buildings may have been involved. About 18 months ago, the FAA also held a webinar explaining the agency’s process to begin replacing those old towers with the more environmentally friendly ones. They also introduced the architects the agency planned to use for the work. I asked the FAA employee in charge of the session if the agency would be considering Remote Towers as a tactical alternative. My question was met with a resounding no. The woman told me Remote Tower technology was not mature enough, a rather odd assessment despite the operational record at Leesburg. Surprisingly, the FAA’s FY23 business plan mentions the Remote Tower idea in a few places such as noting an internal target to update an operational safety assessment in April of this year, just a few months after the agency had made the decision to shut down the Leesburg experiment. The plan also strangely calls for the agency to update Saab’s Remote Tower Compliance Matrix by the end of September, again something unlikely to occur now that the JYO project was halted.</p><p> </p><p><strong>The Aftermath</strong></p><p>In February of this year, the Town of Leesburg issued an update on the Remote Tower’s status. The document confirmed that the FAA was canceling the RT program at JYO despite providing ATC services to airport users 10 hours a day since June 2018. The RT shut down completely in the middle of June 2023. That’s when most local users learned of Saab’s reluctance to continue dumping cash into the Remote Tower project when they didn’t believe the FAA would ever certify the system. They also learned Leesburg was at significant risk of losing all ATC services. A Saab spokesman said, “I do think they [the FAA] came at this from a safety standpoint. But they look at it in a very rigid, very limited way. You’ve got a group here that’s not used to certifying this kind of system. And they said, here’s what we require. And until you do that, it doesn’t make it through. We don’t care, because our goal is to make sure everything is 100% or 110% safe.”</p><p>An important update to the Remote Tower project appeared in a recent edition of the <a href="https://reason.org/aviation-policy-news/">Reason Foundation’s Aviation News Policy newsletter</a>, written by the foundation’s director of Transportation Policy, Bob Poole. He said, “The Town of Leesburg, VA, has reached an agreement with FAA for continued air traffic control tower operations at the busy general aviation airport. Leesburg will rent the current mobile tower through June 2024, and FAA has agreed to pay the salaries of air traffic controllers operating from that facility for the next five years, while the town begins planning for a brick-and-mortar tower to replace the mobile facility.” The airport manager at Leesburg told me he hopes the FAA will have the new brick-and-mortar building in operation no later than 2030.</p><p>Saab hasn’t given up on Remote Towers entirely, however. The company has managed to install several at airports served by the airlines where the facilities serve as an airline’s ramp control towers. The Saab spokesman said leaving the Leesburg remote tower behind, “wasn’t something we took lightly. We feel obligated to help the airport. We want to see the product work, we want to be successful. We put in a lot of blood, sweat, and tears to even get to where we were at Leesburg. We hope this isn’t the end. Certainly, this is a product that is very important to us, around the world outside of the US and inside the US. It’s a market that is still of interest to us.”</p><p>Just because the FAA said no to the remote tower idea for now doesn’t mean other countries haven’t embraced the benefits of the technology. Bob Poole also noted that on the other side of the Atlantic, London’s Heathrow Airport plans to build that new Virtual Contingency Backup ATC Facility, replacing the remote operation <a href="https://www.nats.aero/">NATS</a> first created in 2009. NATS is the UK air navigation service provider (ANSP). That original contingency operation, designed to handle about 70% of LHR traffic, was the U.K.’s first remote air traffic control tower and is located off-airport.</p><p>Heathrow says their new remote tower backup facility for Europe’s busiest airport will be operational by 2025. Initially, it will use newer technology to provide the same 70% capacity, but a planned second phase would bring it to 100%. It will be interesting to see if, by 2025, Leesburg and the FAA have even broken any ground for their brick-and-mortar facility.</p><p>One last note. There was another remote tower test happening in Loveland, Colorado at the Northern Colorado Regional Airport (FNL) using Searidge Technology. Searidge is wholly owned by NATS. A statement from Searidge said the company is not expected to consider the FAA’s requirement to move its test site to Atlantic City.</p><p>Here in the US, Raytheon Corporation is said to be teaming up with an Austrian company for a future RT project, so remote tower operations somewhere may yet rise like the Phoenix from the ashes. Reportedly, Raytheon is willing to construct a remote tower test site in Atlantic City, although no timeline for that project has been announced.</p><p><strong>A Final Thought</strong></p><p>One thing has been gnawing at me since that FAA webinar 18 months ago and after reading through the 167-page guide to building new control towers the agency published a few months back. Building a control tower, or dozens of them actually, especially when the agency has $5 billion each year to spend, represents a whole lot of materials and jobs, unlike a Remote Tower. I have no proof of course, but I’ve seriously wondered if there might not be some subtle connection somewhere between the agency’s plan for constructing all those new control tower buildings and the seeming demise of the Remote Tower concept.</p><p>In the end, this story does highlight, yet again, what FAA controllers have known for years, that the agency is far behind the rest of the world when it comes to employing new technology for ATC.</p><p>Rob Mark, Publisher</p> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In June 2023, the FAA published a <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document/FAA-2023-1368-0002">167-page document</a> outlining the agency’s desire to replace dozens of 40-year-old airport control towers with new environmentally friendly brick-and-mortar structures. These towers are, of course, where hundreds of air traffic controllers ply their trade … ensuring the aircraft within their local airspace are safely separated from each other during landing and takeoff.</p><p>The FAA’s report was part of President Biden’s Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act enacted on November 15, 2021. That bill set aside a whopping $25 billion spread across five years to cover the cost of replacing those aging towers. The agency said it considered a number of alternatives about how to spend that $5 billion each year, rather than on brick and mortar buildings.</p><p>One alternative addressed only briefly before rejecting it was a relatively new concept called a Remote Tower, originally created by Saab in Europe in partnership with the Virginia-based VSATSLab Inc. The European technology giant has been successfully running Remote Towers in place of the traditional buildings in Europe for almost 10 years. One of Saab’s more well-known Remote Tower sites is at London City Airport. London also plans to create a virtual backup ATC facility at London Heathrow, the busiest airport in Europe.</p><p>A remote tower and its associated technology replace the traditional 60-70 foot glass domed control tower building you might see at your local airport, but it doesn’t eliminate any human air traffic controllers or their roles in keeping aircraft separated.</p><div id="attachment_10165" style="width: 292px" class="wp-caption alignleft"><img aria-describedby="caption-attachment-10165" class="wp-image-10165" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/RT-at-Loveland-scaled.jpeg" alt="" width="282" height="376" /><p id="caption-attachment-10165" class="wp-caption-text">Max Trescott photo</p></div><p><strong>Inside a Remote Tower Operation</strong></p><p>In place of a normal control tower building, the airport erects a small steel tower or even an 8-inch diameter pole perhaps 20-40 feet high, similar to a radio or cell phone tower. Dozens of high-definition cameras are attached to the new Remote Tower’s structure, each aimed at an arrival or departure path, as well as various ramps around the airport.</p><p>Using HD cameras, controllers can zoom in on any given point within the camera’s range, say an aircraft on final approach. The only way to accomplish that in a control tower today is if the controller picks up a pair of binoculars. The HD cameras also offer infrared capabilities to allow for better-than-human visuals, especially during bad weather or at night.</p><p>The next step in constructing a remote tower is locating the control room where the video feeds will terminate. Instead of the round glass room perched atop a standard control tower, imagine a semi-circular room located at ground level. Inside that room, the walls are lined with 14, 55-inch high-definition video screens hung next to each other with the wider portion of the screen running top to bottom.</p><p>After connecting the video feeds, the compression technology manages to consolidate 360 degrees of viewing area into a 220-degree spread across the video screens. That creates essentially the same view of the entire airport that a controller would normally see out the windows of the tower cab without the need to move their head more than 220 degrees. Another Remote Tower benefit is that each aircraft within visual range can be tagged with that aircraft’s tail number, just as it might if the controller were looking at a radar screen.<!--more--></p><h4>Why Erect a Remote Tower?</h4><p>Cost, for one.</p><p>A Remote Tower system can be constructed for a fraction of the dollars required to erect a traditional tower. No bricks, no mortar, no glass, and hence much less labor to make it all operational. That makes them a perfect fit for airports that need to replace their current aging towers or for low-to-medium traffic airports that might currently have no ATC operations at all. Do the math and it’s pretty easy to see that the dollars saved from that $5 billion allotment each year to create a Remote Tower would be significant.</p><p>Another benefit is that a Remote Tower can be constructed and become operational in much less time than it takes to build a traditional control tower. This makes a Remote Tower system easily applicable to small airports that might benefit from ATC services but not have enough traffic to warrant controllers living locally to staff the facility. Thanks to the technology involved, a Remote Tower’s video feeds can be piped into a control room located any distance from the airport. The room could be across the runway, across the road, or across town. That’s why a remote tower could fit well at those low-traffic volume airports.</p><p>Of course, there’s a but coming.</p><p>Remote Towers are not yet certified by the FAA in the US.</p><p>Saab engineers were in fact, close to receiving that needed approval earlier this year until the FAA in June pulled the plug on the test site located at Leesburg Executive Airport (KJYO) just outside Washington D.C. A Saab partnership spokesman explained the choice of JYO as a test site. “We zeroed in on Leesburg because of its complex airspace and the amount of traffic, recognizing as a risk-reward issue here. Every time we briefed somebody about the system, they would say, Oh, yeah, but you’re only doing 15,000 to 20,000 operations and it’s in Sweden. So, we picked the busiest airport we could find in the Northeast US. That became our benchmark.”</p><p>When the FAA explained the end of the Remote Tower at Leesburg, they pointed the finger at Saab for failing to prove the efficacy of their Remote Tower system. After diving into the available public documents about the Leesburg Remote Tower, they seem to tell a different story.</p><p>As Sherlock Holmes, the world’s greatest consulting detective would say, the game’s afoot.</p><p><strong>What Happened at Leesburg</strong></p><p>Back in 2015, Saab approached the town of Leesburg in search of a US test site for their then-new Remote Tower technology. If Saab’s test was successful at the non-controlled JYO, that airport would soon begin receiving actual air traffic control services in place of pilots making calls in the blind while attempting to avoid other aircraft.</p><p>At the time, Saab again already had several remote towers in operation at airports in the UK and Sweden. London City Airport a busy single runway airport, is now operated completely using the Remote Tower concept. LCY has a rich mix of business aviation and airline traffic in excess of 80,000 takeoffs and landings annually.</p><p>As a precursor to installing that full Remote Tower system at Leesburg, the FAA in 2016 wheeled in a portable control tower staffed by contract controllers who began offering ATC services in the newly named Leesburg Maneuvering Area that sits beneath Washington’s Special Use Airspace. Most of the construction costs for the remote tower were covered by Saab. Once the Remote Tower system became operational at Leesburg, the ATC control room was actually operated from an unused airport conference room.<img class="alignright size-full wp-image-10164" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Saab-Remote-ATC-tower.jpeg" alt="" width="500" height="280" /></p><p>Following FAA guidelines outlined in an Advisory Circular, Leesburg’s Remote Tower ran through a range of increasingly complex tests between 2016, 17, and on into 2018. Early on in the evaluation process, the FAA told Saab in a memo, “that all safety performance targets have been met through all periods of operational use of the Saab, Inc., The Saab RT system is approved for provisional ATC services at JYO.” The FAA did however restrict the Remote Tower operations to single-runway airports like JYO with a runway length of no more than 5500 feet.</p><p>Local Leesburg users enthusiastically greeted the airport’s new Remote Tower ATC operation. Before system testing began, annual traffic counts at JYO hovered around 53,000. By the time the Remote Tower system’s plug was pulled in June of this year, air traffic had climbed to 79,000 takeoffs and landings, a 45 percent increase. JYO is home to two FBOs, five flight training operations, five flying clubs, and two additional aviation businesses. Leesburg Airport’s manager Scott Coffman said many new aircraft have chosen JYO as their base, including several jets.</p><p>In September 2021, the FAA decided it was time to move the Remote Tower certification up the agency’s food chain. It was about this time that the Saab partnership learned the next group of people at FAA who would be helping to certify the Remote Tower system were engineers in the agency’s Tech Ops division. These people are the ones who normally certify new aircraft and new aviation technology. Saab said as it turned out, “Many of them [Tech Ops engineers], admitted they hadn’t dealt with air traffic systems before.”</p><p>Prior to the day when Saab and the FAA began to butt heads at Leesburg, Saab engineers had been working to meet the criteria the FAA had earlier provided them. Then on February 18<sup>th</sup>, 2022, the FAA published a new advisory circular titled “</p><p>“REMOTE TOWER (RT) SYSTEMS FOR NON-FEDERAL APPLICATIONS,” in which the agency altered the requirements Saab would need to meet in order to have its system certified.</p><p>Essentially, the FAA moved the goalposts on the engineers at Saab. A Saab spokesman said the remote tower at Leesburg, “wasn’t designed with some of these [new] technical requirements and design verification requirements. If we were starting a brand new development, sure we could comply with what they’re asking for. But to reverse engineer our former design processes … got to be more and more burdensome.” Saab said the company believed reverse engineering the current design might have consumed an additional two to three years and many millions of additional dollars.</p><p>In a letter to the FAA from Saab dated Feb 7, 2023, Michael Gerry, VP of surveillance systems said, “Saab, Inc. has been working on [the] Remote Tower with the FAA, Leesburg Airport, and the State of Virginia for eight years. Over the last two years, we have been engaged with the FAA Technical Operations Team to achieve System Design Approval (SDA) for the Saab Remote Tower system. We concluded detailed reviews of three key planning documents that were first submitted in early 2022: Systems Engineering Management Plan, System Safety Plan, and Software Approval Plan. We appreciate the FAA support and the effort of your team to help us learn the approval process for non-Federal systems. Given our better understanding of the newly defined SDA process as captured in the February 2022 Advisory Circular, Saab will no longer pursue approval of the system currently baselined and operating at Leesburg. Instead, we will focus our efforts on assessing the impact of the SDA requirements on our future system offering, which will form the basis for a possible technical refresh of the Leesburg system baseline. We expect this assessment to take several months, after which time we understand that we will need to resubmit our SDA application to the FAA, along with the appropriate intake documents, to reflect our updated system baseline.”</p><p>Despite the years of error-free ATC operations using the Remote Tower system at Leesburg, the FAA also demanded Saab build another version of the Remote Tower at the FAA’s Technical Center in Atlantic City. How this new site at a completely unrelated airport would assist the FAA in certifying the Remote Tower was never explained.</p><p>In an attempt to salvage the operating Remote Tower at Leesburg, Saab petitioned the FAA, “to consider any and all means to extend the operational viability decision for the current system, including potentially providing a limited SDA, which would allow the current ATC services at Leesburg to continue.” The agency politely declined.</p><p>Adding salt to the wound, On February 21, 2023, the FAA made a presentation to the Leesburg Airport commission, explaining the specific mistakes Saab made during its efforts to gain system design approval for the Remote Tower. The agency said, “Early FAA efforts on Remote Towers determined the approval and operation of these systems should be handled under the contract tower program due to their potential safety impacts, like hazardous and misleading information being provided to controllers and the legal liabilities the airport sponsor and the FAA could be in for if there were any accidents of incidents.” Again, in the five years of testing, no ATC errors were ever reported. The February meeting also detailed the next steps required to archive the Remote Tower project files, in addition to disposal instructions for what it considered unnecessary Saab documentation.</p><p>In early March of this year, the FAA sent a confusing, almost contradictory letter to Leesburg mayor Kelly Burk explaining that, “We at the FAA understand and appreciate your frustration with the decision to cease remote tower services at JYO, but for safety reasons, there was no other choice to be made. JYO has a solid safety track record operating as a non-towered airport, and we expect that to continue.” How the agency expected to maintain the airport’s safety record after ATC services were withdrawn was also not explained at the time.</p><div id="attachment_10174" style="width: 439px" class="wp-caption alignleft"><img aria-describedby="caption-attachment-10174" class="wp-image-10174" src="https://www.jetwhine.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/London-City-Airport.jpg" alt="" width="429" height="184" /><p id="caption-attachment-10174" class="wp-caption-text"><em>A British Airways Embraer departing from London City highlights that airport’s remote tower.</em></p></div><p>So why pressure Saab to pull the plug on a system that was working well at Leesburg by creating unrealistic demands for the company? No one is completely certain of the FAA’s motivation, but that 167-page guide to building brick-and-mortar buildings may have been involved. About 18 months ago, the FAA also held a webinar explaining the agency’s process to begin replacing those old towers with the more environmentally friendly ones. They also introduced the architects the agency planned to use for the work. I asked the FAA employee in charge of the session if the agency would be considering Remote Towers as a tactical alternative. My question was met with a resounding no. The woman told me Remote Tower technology was not mature enough, a rather odd assessment despite the operational record at Leesburg. Surprisingly, the FAA’s FY23 business plan mentions the Remote Tower idea in a few places such as noting an internal target to update an operational safety assessment in April of this year, just a few months after the agency had made the decision to shut down the Leesburg experiment. The plan also strangely calls for the agency to update Saab’s Remote Tower Compliance Matrix by the end of September, again something unlikely to occur now that the JYO project was halted.</p><p> </p><p><strong>The Aftermath</strong></p><p>In February of this year, the Town of Leesburg issued an update on the Remote Tower’s status. The document confirmed that the FAA was canceling the RT program at JYO despite providing ATC services to airport users 10 hours a day since June 2018. The RT shut down completely in the middle of June 2023. That’s when most local users learned of Saab’s reluctance to continue dumping cash into the Remote Tower project when they didn’t believe the FAA would ever certify the system. They also learned Leesburg was at significant risk of losing all ATC services. A Saab spokesman said, “I do think they [the FAA] came at this from a safety standpoint. But they look at it in a very rigid, very limited way. You’ve got a group here that’s not used to certifying this kind of system. And they said, here’s what we require. And until you do that, it doesn’t make it through. We don’t care, because our goal is to make sure everything is 100% or 110% safe.”</p><p>An important update to the Remote Tower project appeared in a recent edition of the <a href="https://reason.org/aviation-policy-news/">Reason Foundation’s Aviation News Policy newsletter</a>, written by the foundation’s director of Transportation Policy, Bob Poole. He said, “The Town of Leesburg, VA, has reached an agreement with FAA for continued air traffic control tower operations at the busy general aviation airport. Leesburg will rent the current mobile tower through June 2024, and FAA has agreed to pay the salaries of air traffic controllers operating from that facility for the next five years, while the town begins planning for a brick-and-mortar tower to replace the mobile facility.” The airport manager at Leesburg told me he hopes the FAA will have the new brick-and-mortar building in operation no later than 2030.</p><p>Saab hasn’t given up on Remote Towers entirely, however. The company has managed to install several at airports served by the airlines where the facilities serve as an airline’s ramp control towers. The Saab spokesman said leaving the Leesburg remote tower behind, “wasn’t something we took lightly. We feel obligated to help the airport. We want to see the product work, we want to be successful. We put in a lot of blood, sweat, and tears to even get to where we were at Leesburg. We hope this isn’t the end. Certainly, this is a product that is very important to us, around the world outside of the US and inside the US. It’s a market that is still of interest to us.”</p><p>Just because the FAA said no to the remote tower idea for now doesn’t mean other countries haven’t embraced the benefits of the technology. Bob Poole also noted that on the other side of the Atlantic, London’s Heathrow Airport plans to build that new Virtual Contingency Backup ATC Facility, replacing the remote operation <a href="https://www.nats.aero/">NATS</a> first created in 2009. NATS is the UK air navigation service provider (ANSP). That original contingency operation, designed to handle about 70% of LHR traffic, was the U.K.’s first remote air traffic control tower and is located off-airport.</p><p>Heathrow says their new remote tower backup facility for Europe’s busiest airport will be operational by 2025. Initially, it will use newer technology to provide the same 70% capacity, but a planned second phase would bring it to 100%. It will be interesting to see if, by 2025, Leesburg and the FAA have even broken any ground for their brick-and-mortar facility.</p><p>One last note. There was another remote tower test happening in Loveland, Colorado at the Northern Colorado Regional Airport (FNL) using Searidge Technology. Searidge is wholly owned by NATS. A statement from Searidge said the company is not expected to consider the FAA’s requirement to move its test site to Atlantic City.</p><p>Here in the US, Raytheon Corporation is said to be teaming up with an Austrian company for a future RT project, so remote tower operations somewhere may yet rise like the Phoenix from the ashes. Reportedly, Raytheon is willing to construct a remote tower test site in Atlantic City, although no timeline for that project has been announced.</p><p><strong>A Final Thought</strong></p><p>One thing has been gnawing at me since that FAA webinar 18 months ago and after reading through the 167-page guide to building new control towers the agency published a few months back. Building a control tower, or dozens of them actually, especially when the agency has $5 billion each year to spend, represents a whole lot of materials and jobs, unlike a Remote Tower. I have no proof of course, but I’ve seriously wondered if there might not be some subtle connection somewhere between the agency’s plan for constructing all those new control tower buildings and the seeming demise of the Remote Tower concept.</p><p>In the end, this story does highlight, yet again, what FAA controllers have known for years, that the agency is far behind the rest of the world when it comes to employing new technology for ATC.</p><p>Rob Mark, Publisher</p>]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>https://www.jetwhine.com/2023/09/how-the-faa-let-remote-tower-technology-slip-right-through-its-fingers/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>2</slash:comments> </item> </channel></rss> 
