Rob Mark

Networking 101: A Very Necessary Class

August 27th, 2015 by Rob Mark

Meeting and staying in touch with the people who can help us personally and professionally – networking – is much like discussing the weather; everyone talks about it, but hardly anyone does anything about it, or more succinctly, most people have no idea how to network successfully.

Aviation’s no different from any other profession though. The best opportunities go to the people who seek out people who are connected to the kinds of jobs they’d like to have. Then you just, well … connect with them and ask the right questions to help you land the job you want.

OK, so maybe it’s not all quite that simple, but as I mentioned in last month’s story about mentoring, industry newbies need to start somewhere and the best way to be successful is to met people who are further up your ladder. Like a kid peering through the window of a candy store clearly knows what they want when they see it, a future aviator, technician, airport manager, or any of another dozen other jobs, needs to begin by hanging out at the airport, or at least at the place where airport people hang out like conventions or organization meetings.

Biz CardsWhat stops people these days of electronic communications is that many young people have no clue how to break the ice with the people they don’t know. Here are a few tips. First realize that like you, everyone started out as a new kid somewhere along the line. Of course, while most professionals are willing to help someone searching for answers, not everyone will. That’s human nature. The point is not to take a rebuff personally. Approaching a pilot at an FBO or a maintenance technician in a shop and being told they don’t have time to talk might mean simply that. You’ve caught them on a bad day or just as they’re walking out the door. It happens. Move on to someone else.

But since I’m a pilot and a writer, let’s assume you want to focus on a pilot career and are wondering how to start the conversation. Assuming you’re at an airport and you notice a crewmember in uniform standing around, the key is to take a deep breath, walk up to them and say, “Excuse me. I really want to fly professionally and I wondered if I can ask you a couple of questions?” You just broke the ice. If they say yes, introduce yourself and ask away. But be respectful of the person’s time. Ten minutes is plenty unless the pilot offers more. And remember, it’s a conversation. That involves listening, not simply talking.

Ending the conversation can seem a bit tricky, but it doesn’t need to be if you’re prepared. Long before your approach your first pilot, or mechanic or air traffic controller, go spend $20 and print some business cards with your contact info and maybe a snappy marketing phrase like “airline pilot wannabe,” or “future aviation maintenance technician.” Then when you say thanks for this first conversation, offer a card and ask for theirs in return. A week or so later, send a nice e-mail that says, “Thanks again for the career advice in the FBO lobby at PDK. I’m always on the lookout for that next job, so if you hear of anyone looking for someone like me with 800 hours and 125 multi, I’d appreciate you letting me know. Thanks, Rob.”

These days, I’ve found an easy way to maintain my contact database is to carry it with me all the time, hence the value of a good smart phone since it’s always in my pocket. I use an app called “Sam Card,” to scan in people’s business cards as soon as I receive them too. The app allow me to add in comments such as, “This is the NetJets pilot I met in Aug., 2015 at PDK,” so I have some context when it’s time again to reach out.

Finally, I have always found that ending that first conversation well is critical to that long-term value. I’d try to end with a good question like, “If you had it to do all over again, would you still pick flying as a career?” If they say no, ask why. Another session ender could be, “What do you think is the best thing/worst mistake you made in your career?” Sometimes I Make people rally think and they offer some incredible advice. Then there are those who are pressed for time and might say something like, “I really need to think on that one. Why don’t you follow up with me next week and I’ll have a better answer.”

And so ends your first day of practical networking 101, a skill everyone needs but few pull off successfully in their career search. Good luck. Feel free to e-mail me at rob@jetwhine.com with your questions.

 

Amy Laboda

GA pilots evaluate ADS-B options

August 26th, 2015 by Amy Laboda

I’ve been on the hunt since AirVenture for evidence that ADS-B is really the future of air traffic separation and services. And, having flown from south Florida to Lake Superior, to Kalispell, Montana, and back, I’ve got news.

ADS-B is designed both to separate traffic and provide inflight weather information.

ADS-B is designed both to separate traffic and provide inflight weather information.

Aviators are adopting ADS-B. Not in droves, mind you, but being ADS-B equipped myself, I can see the other ADS-B aircraft on my display screen, and there are more of them than ever before. Along the entire trip there was only an hour in Wyoming, at low altitude, where I did not have ADS-B coverage.

No, we aviators are not keen on dropping money for avionics we aren’t certain we’ll be required to use. I mean, we resisted Mode C until the veils were dropped over Class B airspace and spun down to the ground (I actually know a couple of anarchists out there still flying Mode A transponders).

ADS-B is particularly problematic because the specs kept changing. They are, according to the FAA, set in stone now, though. For aircraft operating above 18,000 ft and/or outside the U.S. a Mode-S ADS-B transmitter (1090ES) is needed. If you stay in the U.S. and below Class A airspace you can stick with a UAT transceiver. Of course, we’ve seen stone change, too. And ADS-B is not without its weaknesses. That said, the most recent interaction I had with the FAA was on point–adapt, or you’ll be left out of controlled airspace above 10,000 ft and Class B and C airspace, they told me. On January 1, 2020. The date’s not moving. That’s the FAA’s story and all manner of individuals I spoke with are sticking to it.

The L-3 Lynx installed in a typical general aviation avionics stack.

The L-3 Lynx installed in a typical general aviation avionics stack.

These kinds of rock-solid statements by the FAA have begun to bring consternation to the people who run the avionics companies. Why? Because with less than five years left to meet the mandate, they know it will be a struggle to equip all of the aircraft in the U.S. that might need this technology with this technology.

There are only so many avionics shops. And when it comes to the higher end equipment, business jets and helicopters sporting integrated digital avionics, for instance, there are even fewer designated service centers that can handle the job. Really, though, that isn’t the crux of the problem.

At the core of the problem are older high-end integrated panels. A TSO authorization, issued in accordance with 14 CFR 21 subpart O, is not required to upgrade them. Yet, ADS-B Out systems and equipment installed or used in type-certificated aircraft must have a design approval issued under 14 CFR 21 (or must be installed by field approval, if appropriate). To upgrade these legacy avionics is proving to take far too long. That’s a lot of lost revenue and inefficiency for the companies, mostly small-to-medium businesses, that own them. And that is before the cost of equipping is considered in the mix.

Some OEMs are actually trying to persuade these aircraft owners to trade up to ADS-B and ADS-C equipped aircraft–new aircraft. Great idea on the surface, if it wasn’t for the economy. Companies are cautious after 2008. They are not easily coaxed into new acquisitions. They might be more easily convinced by their own finance departments to shed the flight department altogether instead of buying new equipment–something they did in droves in 2008-9.

Back in my light airplane world the news is not quite as bad, until you get to older light aircraft, that is. No one wants to put 10 percent or more of the value of the airplane back into the avionics, particularly for one key piece of equipment.

And experimentals? They had the advantage of being able to use less expensive, non-Compliant ADS-B boxes, until recently. The FAA is now telling us that as of January 2016 those early transceivers will no longer receive accurate traffic information. Yes, the FAA is going to make flying LESS safe for those users, at a time when there are still hardly any users on the new system. All without proving that the non-Compliant boxes are a hazard.

I think it is time to get the pens out and start complaining, to your congressman, to your local FSDO, to the FAA at 800 Independence Avenue. There are a lot of good things about the way ADS-B can change our National Airspace System, but recent declarations from the FAA have me feeling squeamish about the execution of the transition to this new system. What do you think?

Ron Rapp

Special Mission Aircraft

August 11th, 2015 by Ron Rapp

My last flight assignment consisted of four days in Hawaii. It was one of those trips which make me (almost) feel guilty for associating it with the word “work.” Of course, there are plenty of journeys which are the polar opposite: long overnight flights, challenging weather, and minimum rest. But when you’re relaxing on a warm tropical island, those thoughts are easily banished to the back of one’s mind. For the moment, at least, the life of a charter pilot is a charmed one indeed!

This external pod really caught my eye when we passed it on the ramp. It contains the Earth Observing Laboratory's W-band cloud radar.

This external pod really caught my eye when we passed it on the ramp. It contains the Earth Observing Laboratory’s W-band cloud radar.

As we taxied onto the ramp at Kona International Airport (PHKO) after a beautiful flight out from the mainland, one particular aircraft caught my eye. It wasn’t the brand new G650 perched majestically at the front of a line of business jets but rather the aircraft next to it, a colorfully painted Gulfstream V equipped with pointy, silver-tipped under-wing-mounted pods. If it wasn’t for the words “National Center for Atmospheric Research” painted above the cabin windows, one might have wondered if this wasn’t some sort of weapons system.

I suddenly remembered that Hurricane Guillermo was slowly churning toward Hawaii from the southeast. The storm was still nearly a thousand miles from the archipelago and hadn’t impacted our flight that day in the slightest. As they say, “out of sight, out of mind.” I assume the G-V was there to conduct research on the storm systems (there were several large ones) brewing in the Pacific Ocean. And if the crew was able to spend a bit of time laying out by the pool… well, that’s just a cross they’d have to bear.

That uniquely outfitted airplane got me thinking about “special mission” aircraft and how business jets serve millions of people who never get to ride in them and are probably not even aware of their existence. Even among the general aviation community, I’d imagine plenty of folks would be surprised how many of these highly modified airplanes are out there and what they do for us on a daily basis.

NOAA operates several special mission aircraft, including this highly modified Gulfstream IV-SP, which flies hurricane and winter storm missions.

NOAA operates several special mission aircraft, including this highly modified Gulfstream IV-SP, which flies hurricane and winter storm missions.

I first became aware of Special Mission aircraft when I was in initial Gulfstream IV training. There were five pilots in my class. Most of us were employed by typical charter or Part 91 operators, but the youngest member of our cadre worked for NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. He had been flying the agency’s DeHavilland DHC-6 Twin Otter for a couple of years and was offered a slot flying either the Lockheed P-3 Orion or the Gulfstream IV-SP. He really loved the idea of flying the big turboprop, but the only training available for the Orion was through the military. As I recall, it was a two year long process, whereas training on the G-IV was available through civilian providers and wouldn’t take nearly as much time.

NOAA’s Gulfstream is one of those Special Mission airplanes which benefit everyone. The jet has twice the altitude capability of the P-3 Orion, which allow it to drop instruments known as Omega dropwindsondes into the storm from higher up. The data collected has improved landfall prediction accuracy by more than 20 percent, saving lives and property in the bargain.

This Lockheed-modified G-III is used for ISR missions.

This Lockheed-modified G-III is used for ISR missions.

I’m most familiar with the Gulfstream special mission aircraft because that’s the type I fly. At my home base, I’ve come across a Lockheed-Martin DRAGON, a highly modified Gulfstream III which serves as an ISR (intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance) platform for military, homeland defense, disaster relief and humanitarian assistance needs. The Israeli air force’s airborne early warning aircraft is a modified G550. It’s so radically altered, in fact, that it’s almost unrecognizable as a Savannah product.

The U.S. government operates a large fleet of Gulfstreams to provide airlift for senior U.S. government officials, members of Congress and military leaders. The current fleet includes the G-IV (military designation C-20) and G-V/550 (C-37) models, which are operated by every branch of the military as well as the U.S. Coast Guard.

One of the most famous Special Mission business jets served our nation’s space program for more than three decades. NASA operated four Gulfstream II jets which were heavily modified to simulate the space shuttle’s descent profile. Officially known as the Shuttle Training Aircraft, the right half of the cockpit was standard bizjet; the left side replicated the orbiter’s flight deck.

The Shuttle Training Aircraft flight deck: half space shuttle, half Gulfstream.

The Shuttle Training Aircraft flight deck: half space shuttle, half Gulfstream.

Shuttle approaches were so steep — 20 degrees! — that the jets had to be operated with the main landing gear down and both Spey engines running in reverse at 92% N2. This YouTube clip shows the STA in action. Aside from a downline or spin in an aerobatic aircraft, I’ve rarely seen an altimeter unwind that quickly.

You’ll find Gulfstreams, Citations, Lears, Hawkers, and many other business jets used for signals intelligence, moving cargo, towing targets, medevac, oceanic patrol, search and rescue, and just about anything else you can think of.

Oh, and that airplane we saw on the ramp in Kona? A bit of internet research reveals that it’s called HIAPER (High-performance Instrumented Airborne Platform for Environmental Research) and is owned by the National Science Foundation. It took more than $81 million and nearly twenty years from conception to delivery. After Gulfstream finished building the airplane, it spent two years undergoing heavy modification and testing at Lockheed before entering service. That’s pretty typical, because adding sensors and pods often requires cutting holes in the pressure vessel, and that means the basic structure has to be re-engineered to ensure adequate safety. You’re taking an aircraft that was designed to do one thing and rebuilding it to accomplish a completely different mission.

The SOFIA airborne observatory.

The SOFIA airborne observatory.

I recently flew with a guy who was the test pilot for the SOFIA airborne observatory. It’s essentially a Boeing 747 retrofitted with a massive telescope in the tail. There’s a lot more to it than just clearing out the passenger seats and sticking some equipment into the fuselage. The cabin has to remain pressurized, but the telescope must be exposed to the open air. A new rear bulkhead had to be fabricated and installed for the pressure vessel, along with an 18-by-13 foot door for the telescope itself which was strong enough to open and close while flying at 41,000 feet and 500 knots. I don’t know much about the telescope, but the work that went into retrofitting the airframe is awfully impressive.

In a world of bespoke aircraft, the Special Mission variants take customization to a whole new level. Next time you see a business jet on the ramp with odd or exotic modifications, take a moment to appreciate the time, effort, money, and engineering that went into what is surely a one-of-a-kind machine.

Jolie Lucas

Oshkosh,like Disneyland, except you meet your family there, and philotimo: the love of honor.

August 9th, 2015 by Jolie Lucas
Friends, Fun, Family

Friends, Fun, Family

I have just returned home in the past weeks from my annual trek to EAA AirVenture in Oshkosh, WI. I flew across the country in my Mooney with my BFF, Cat. Cat is a private pilot, 8th grade science teacher, C152 owner and OSH newbie. As we sat in our Mooney Girls/Mooney Ambassadors booth we had the pleasure of talking with hundreds of people. Cat was overwhelmed by the amount of goodwill, aviation activities and good old-fashioned fun to be had at #OSH15. She said, “People describe Oshkosh as Disneyland for aviators.” I replied, “Yes but at Disneyland you don’t meet hundreds of family there.”

One family element that was keenly missing at #OSH15 was my dear friend John Kounis. For those who don’t know, John was the Co-Founder and Editor of Pilot Getaways magazine. John and his brother George are a fixture in the General Aviation scene, whether it is discovery of a backcountry strip, speaking engagements, or lobbying the senate in California on behalf of the Recreational Aviation Foundation. John died unexpectedly on July 13th at age 51. The Kounis Brothers as I called them had truly never met a stranger. Larger than life, tremendously intelligent and both exhibited a great love of life and people. They are first generation Greeks raised in Glendale, California.

John and George Kounis, Sacramento Capitol

John and George Kounis, Sacramento Capitol

Recently I flew to Whiteman Airport [KWHP] to spend some time with George and his Mother, Zoe as they recover from the loss of John. As I spent days in their lovely home, I became instantly aware of a founding Greek philosophy, a code for behavior that has no translation into English that seems adequate. Philotimos is seen in the Kounis household, but I also saw it at the smattering of airports I stopped at to and from Oshkosh as well as at the convention itself. I just didn’t know what it was until now.

Philotimos is a critical element in understanding the human co-creative foundation. Literally it means the “love of honor,” and carries a very special sense of honor, obligation, self-respect and teamwork. It was considered as an “extremely sensitive region of men’s souls that gives forth gallantry, nobility and moral pride; it is the sense of honor and dignity.”

According to article I read Philotimo is the principle source of trust that enabled the group to overcome their fear of betrayal, their fear that one person’s unscrupulous or selfish desire would supersede the greater good of the whole. Aristotle observed that that all human actions have one or more of these seven causes: Chance   Nature   Compulsion  Habit   Reason   Passion   Desire Of these seven, if Reason and “constructive” desire were to prevail over compulsion, passion, old habits, chance, and “destructive” desire, then any group must adhere to a code of honor, which would form the covenant of cooperation. [Ninon Chrysochoos Prozonic and Robert Porter Lynch, http://www.philotimo.net/index.html]

Zoe told me that in ancient Greek times that if a stranger came to your house, you first fed, bathed, and offered the stranger a place to rest. After the stranger had received your hospitality, you then asked the person the reason for their visit. She explained that in this way the person was first greeted, honored and respected regardless of the purpose of their visit. And while I cannot imagine offering the FAA agent ramp checking me Philotimos, I wonder if a covenant of cooperation would be appropriate.

Philotimos

Philotimos

If applied, the implications of this ideal on our aviation community today could be profound. Those who break the bond of virtue by violating honor, respect, and love for one another can no longer be part of the group. Those who embody the rules of honor will cherish the greater good – all for one, one for all – thus being released from the bondage of fear of betrayal, released to explore the unknown together. Anyone who knows George and John Kounis experienced Philotimo in the flesh.

EAA Oshkosh is really a love affair. Over 500,000 made their way across the country to share the love for a week. Imagine if our moral code was to embody honor, love, obligation to others, self-respect and teamwork? How would we protect our airports, how would we welcome non-pilots to our events? Would selflessness impact the way that we inspire flight in the next generation?

I pride myself on being a lifetime learner. I, for one, am going to continue to embody Philotimos in our aviation community. Toward that end, anyone in CA, OR, AZ etc. that would like to join me this Saturday night, August 15th at Fly-In Movie Night at Oceano Airport [L52] will receive a warm greeting, advised the location of the restroom,  bag of popcorn and s’more kit before I ask you if you came for Rocky and Bullwinkle or Caddyshack!

 

 

 

 

John Petersen

The next revolution in general aviation

August 5th, 2015 by John Petersen

Just about exactly 103 years ago, Nikola Tesla said: “I am now planning aerial machines devoid of sustaining planes, ailerons, propellers, and other external attachments, which will be capable of immense speeds”. Tesla ran out of money and wasn’t able to produce his craft but it now appears that maybe, just maybe, that his airplane– certainly by other means – may be on the not too distant horizon.

And the first terrestrial application will probably be a general aviation aircraft – at least, that is what the inventor of a radical new engine is saying.

Now this is a long shot – but that’s what thinking about the future involves. And everyone doesn’t agree about it. That too is integral to thinking about potential breakthroughs. But if this one works – and NASA has duplicated the basic concept – then we could be seeing the early indicators of the emergence of a new world

This one is different (like I said) because the EmDrive doesn’t use any traditional fuel. It generates thrust by the reaction of electromagnetic fields in a shaped cavity. You’ve got to generate electricity, for sure, but after that there are no moving parts. The electricity is converted directly into thrust.

Under the headline NASA’s impossible warp EmDrive proves possible: accelerates beams faster than light in a void, ElectronicProducts.com said: “Last summer, NASA made international headlines after finally testing British scientist Roger Shawyer’s ludicrous EmDrive, otherwise known as “the impossible engine,” and determining that the engine produced a minute level of thrust without any propellant. This is major, because it goes against the very laws of physics as defined by Newton’s third law, that is, that every action has an opposite and equal reaction; hence the nickname “the impossible engine.”  “Nearly eight months later, Paul March, an engineer at NASA Eagleworks, reported in a thread on NASASpaceFlight.com (a website devoted to the engineering side of space exploration) that NASA has successfully tested the EmDrive in a vacuum and demonstrated that laser beams fired through the EmDrive’s resonance chamber exhibited fluctuations in velocity, with some beams appearing to surpass the speed of light.”

Now that should get you to the stars . . . or at least Mars. Shawyer thinks Mars is just a couple day flight with his engines.

NASA EmDrive test device

NASA EmDrive test device. Photo courtesy of SPR Ltd.

NASA EmDrive test device. Photo courtesy of SPR Ltd.

Shawyer says the first terrestrial applications will probably be for general aviation vehicles. The EmDrive website elaborates:

“The ultimate spin-off from space technology will occur when second generation lift engines are employed in terrestrial transport applications. Typically 3 tonnes of lift could be obtained from 1kW of microwave power. Liquid hydrogen would be used for cooling the lift engine and for powering the auxiliary engines. Thus the essential low cost, non-polluting components for large scale utilization are readily achievable. A future low energy transport infrastructure, no longer dependent on wings and wheels would now seem possible.”

Did you follow that? They say 6,000 pounds of lift could be generated by about the equivalent of 1.4 horsepower of generation power. That would change things.

Here’s an interesting interview with the inventor. Click on the picture below to watch it.

So you’ve got great new engines – now, what does the rest of the craft look like?

In the last couple of months a new breakthrough in the design of structures has been announced that has direct applications to future airframe construction. As in the case of the EmDrive, this invention is showing up in another sector – this time automobiles – but you don’t have to be a futurist to see that it could certainly be coming our way.

Here’s the picture that tells the story.

 

Divergent Microfactories presents the Blade in what the company says is the "world's first 3D printed super car" in this handout photo courtesy of Divergent Microfactories.

Divergent Microfactories presents the Blade in what the company says is the “world’s first 3D printed super car” in this handout photo courtesy of Divergent Microfactories.

 

This handsome beast comes from Divergent Microfactories and is interesting by itself (700 HP // 0-60 IN 2.2 SEC // 1,400 LBS).

But the way that they have designed and built this car points directly toward the GA market – starting particularly with experimental airframes. They’ve designed a chassis that is 1/10th the weight of that in a conventionally made car and costs about 10% of a steel one.

Here’s a shot from their website that shows the 3D printed aluminum “nodes” that, coupled with carbon fiber tubes makes a frame (in about 30 minutes), that is stronger than steel ones.

Divergent Microfactories presents a frame member for the Blade in what the company says is the "world's first 3D printed super car" in this handout photo courtesy of Divergent Microfactories.

Divergent Microfactories presents a frame member for the Blade in what the company says is the “world’s first 3D printed super car” in this handout photo courtesy of Divergent Microfactories.

Take a look at this video. The whole chassis is in that bag!

Divergent Microfactories Blade DEBUTS #SOLIDCON 6/24/15 from Divergent Microfactories on Vimeo.

So, one way or another we’re on our way to a revolution . . . and it may be sooner than we think.

If you like this kind of stuff, you might find the talk that I’ll be giving on the future of aviation at NBAA this fall of interest. Come by and say hi if you’re there.

Amy Laboda

Talk of the town

July 27th, 2015 by Amy Laboda

EAA’s AirVenture air show is one of my favorites, because it provides the attendee a chance to intersect and study the broadest cross-section of the aviation industry that I know. What can one see? There are ultralights and sailplanes, balloonists and blimps, military and commercial jets, and helicopters to fixed wing general aviation aircraft.

My favorite sections of the show include the Innovator’s tent and the row upon row of home built aircraft. Want to study alternative fuels? Looking for a groundbreaking propulsion system for your next aircraft? How about investing in one of several flying car (or road-able aircraft) concepts? You can do that, too.

AOPA displayed three beautiful yellow aircraft at their “disruptively” yellow tent this year. The Piper Cub was #1 off the line and pristinely restored. The two Cessnas, a 152 and a 172, were also completely remanufactured and ready for new lives as economical flight training or cross-country machines for new pilots.

While I was at the AOPA tent I stopped to sign the petition to rescind the Third Class Aviation Medical certificate requirement for private pilots in the United States. This past week during the event the legislation was appended to the highways bill in the Senate, which many involved in aviation advocacy feel is a good development.

There was much conversation centered around the privatization of air traffic control in the United States, too. The consensus was that general aviation pilots should be contacting their political representatives at the national level right now to let them know that a fee based privatized ATC is not the way to fix the national airspace system’s problems. Well, certainly not if they are going to keep fuel taxes as they are now, and dissolve the aviation trust fund we have all been paying into for airport improvements around the country. Dissolve is their word, by the way, not mine. I fear that money will be absorbed into the general fund and simply disappear, never to be used for what it was originally intended.

Overall AirVenture 2015 will go down in the record books for its fine weather, full exhibit halls and packed flightlines. It will be remembered as the summer of relatively low avgas and jet A pricing, which seems to be moving people to fly a little more, or a little farther. That is certainly the case for me, personally. It was a treat to see so many of my aviation friends in one place. Here’s hoping we can all return safely same time next year.

Mike Busch

Is Your Aircraft Okay to Fly?

July 23rd, 2015 by Mike Busch

Who decides whether or not your aircraft is airworthy?

Airworthy steampEarlier this year, I wrote an article titled “Fix It Now…Or Fix It Later” that was published in a major general aviation magazine. The article discussed how to deal with aircraft mechanical problems that arise during trips away from home base. It offered specific advice about how pilots and aircraft owners can decide whether a particular aircraft issue needs to be addressed before further flight or whether it can safely wait until the aircraft gets back home. I considered the advice I offered in this article to be non-controversial and commonsense.

I was surprised when I received an angry 700-word email from a very experienced A&P/IA—I’ll call him “Damian” (not his real name)—condemning my article and accusing me of professional malfeasance in advising owners to act irresponsibly and violate various FARs. Damian’s critique started out like this:

After reading Mike Busch’s commentary “Fix It Now … Or Fix It Later,” I must take exception to most, if not all, the points made in his column. I believe his statements are misleading as to the operation of certified aircraft, to the point of being irresponsible for an A&P to suggest or imply that it’s up to the owner/operator whether or not to fly an aircraft with a known discrepancy. The FARs are quite clear on this matter, and there have been numerous certificate action levied on pilots who have operated aircraft with known discrepancies.

Damian went on to state that the FARs require that any aircraft discrepancy, no matter how minor, must be corrected and the aircraft approved for return to service “by persons authorized under FAR 43.7 (typically the holder of a mechanic certificate).” He went on to explain that the owner/operator may only approve for return to service those preventive maintenance items listed in FAR Part 43 Appendix A. He went on:

It should be noted that the FAA does not take into consideration the inconvenience or cost related to addressing a known discrepancy. Nor is it up to the owner/operator to determine the significance of a discrepancy as the FARs do not confer this discretion privilege to the owner/operator.

Damian’s attack on my article continued at great length, making it quite clear that his believe is that pilots and aircraft owners are mere “appliance operators” in the eyes of the FAA, and that only certificated mechanics are empowered to evaluate the airworthiness of an aircraft and determine whether or not it is legal and safe to fly. He ended his diatribe by saying:

I hope that others in the aviation community such as FAA Airworthiness Safety Inspectorss and aviation legal professionals weigh in on this commentary. I believe all will agree that this commentary is misleading and uninformed to the point of being irresponsible even to publish. At the very least, pilots that follows the advice of Busch’s commentary should enroll in the AOPA Pilot Protection Services plan because they’re likely to need it!

Whew! Strong stuff! If Damian is right, then the FAA had better lock me up and throw away the key. Fortunately for me, I believe he isn’t and (at least so far) they haven’t.

Where Damian Has It Wrong

Damian and I do agree on at least one thing: FAR 91.7 does indeed say quite unequivocally that it is a violation to fly an unairworthy aircraft, and that if the aircraft becomes unairworthy in flight, the PIC is obligated to discontinue the flight. I would never suggest for a moment that any pilot fly a known-unairworthy aircraft, at least without a ferry permit. That’s a no-brainer.

The much more difficult question is: Exactly how does the PIC decide whether or not an aircraft is airworthy or unairworthy, and therefore whether he is or isn’t allowed to fly it? On this question, Damian and I part company. In fact, his view and mine seem to be diametrically opposite.

Damian’s view is that almost any aircraft discrepancy requires the involvement of an A&P mechanic to evaluate and clear the discrepancy and approve the aircraft for return to service. I see absolutely nothing in the FARs to support such a position, particularly when it comes to non-commercial aircraft operated under Part 91.

To begin with, the basic airworthiness rule (FAR 91.7) is crystal clear about who is responsible for determining whether or not the aircraft may be flown. It says:

The pilot in command of a civil aircraft is responsible for determining whether that aircraft is in condition for safe flight.

The regulation places the burden squarely on the shoulders of the PIC. I don’t see anything there about A&Ps or repair stations having to be involved, do you?

Looking a bit deeper into the FARs, I can find only three circumstances under which a mechanic is required to get involved in making any sort of airworthiness determination on a Part 91 aircraft used for non-commercial purposes:

  1. Exactly once a year, FAR 91.409 requires that an annual inspection be performed by an A&P/IA or a Repair Station. But the other 364 days of the year, it’s the PIC who determines whether the aircraft is airworthy.
  2. When an Airworthiness Directive or Airworthiness Limitation becomes due, FAR 91.403 requires that a mechanic must certify that the AD or AL has been complied with (with rare exceptions where the PIC may do so).
  3. When an owner actually hires a mechanic to perform maintenance on an aircraft, in which case the mechanic is required to document his work and sign it off to testify that the work was performed properly. Note, however, that the mechanic’s signature in the logbook entry does NOT signify that the aircraft is airworthy, only that THE WORK PERFORMED by the mechanic was done in an airworthy fashion.

This third point is one that is frequently misunderstood by mechanics and owners alike. When I teach this stuff at IA renewal seminars, the hypothetical example I often use to illustrate this important point involves an owner who takes his aircraft to a mechanic for repair. The mechanic immediately observes that the aircraft has two obvious discrepancies: the right main landing gear tire is flat, and the left wing is missing. The owner asks the mechanic to fix the flat tire. The mechanic does so, makes a logbook entry describing the work he did on the right main landing gear, and signs it. His signature denotes only that the work he did (fixing the flat tire) was done properly. When the owner picks up the aircraft, the mechanic tells the owner, “I couldn’t help but notice that your left wing is missing. If you’ll permit me to offer you a word of friendly advice, I would not attempt to fly the aircraft until that issue is resolved.” But the missing left wing does not prevent the mechanic from signing the logbook entry. In fact, the mechanic is required by regulation to sign the logbook entry, regardless of whether the aircraft is airworthy or not. The mechanic’s signature addresses only the work performed by the mechanic, and nothing else.

The PIC’s Burden

If you’re on a trip and some aircraft discrepancy occurs – assuming the aircraft isn’t in the midst of its annual inspection and there’s no AD involved – it is up to you as PIC to determine whether or not that discrepancy makes the aircraft unairworthy or not. If you decide that it does, then you can’t fly the airplane until the airworthiness issue is rectified (and that might require hiring an A&P). On the other hand, if you decide that the discrepancy doesn’t rise to the level of making the aircraft unairworthy, then you’re free to fly home and deal with the issue later.

Under the FARs, it’s totally the PIC’s call. There’s no regulatory obligation for the PIC to consult a mechanic when making such airworthiness determinations. Having said that, however, it would certainly be a wise thing to do if you feel uncomfortable about making the decision yourself. It’s your call.

The FARs provide considerable help to the PIC in making such airworthiness determinations. FAR 91.213(d) describes a specific algorithm for deciding whether or not it’s okay to fly an airplane with various items of inoperative equipment. FAR 91.207 says that it’s okay to fly an aircraft with an inoperative ELT to a place where it can be repaired or replaced, no ferry permit required. FAR 91.209 says that position lights needn’t be working if you’re flying during daylight hours. And so on.

If your experience is anything like mine, what most of us call “squawks” are common occurrences, but the majority of them don’t rise to the level of being airworthiness items that cause us (in our capacity as PIC) to conclude that a fix is required before further flight. Even if you do encounter a genuine airworthiness problem – say a flat tire or dead battery or bad mag drop – that still doesn’t mean that you necessarily need to get a mechanic involved. The FARs provide (in Part 43 Appendix A) a list of roughly three dozen items that a pilot-rated owner or operator is permitted to perform and sign off on his own recognizance (without getting an A&P involved).

If you have a flat tire, for example, you (as a pilot-rated owner) are permitted to repair or replace it yourself. If you have a dead battery, you can charge it, service it, or even replace it. If you have a bad mag drop, the most common cause is a defective or fouled spark plug, and you’re permitted to remove, clean, gap, and replace spark plugs yourself. You are also allowed to make repairs and patches to fairings, cowlings, fabric (on fabric-covered aircraft), upholstery and interior furnishings. You can replace side windows, seat belts, hoses, fuel lines, landing and position lamps, filters, seats, safety wire, cotter pins, and more. You can even remove and install tray-mounted avionics from your panel.

Now, you might well prefer to hire an A&P to do some of these things rather than do them yourself, especially when on the road, far from your hangar and toolbox. I know I certainly would, and I’m an A&P myself. But Damian’s contention that you are compelled by the FARs to place your aircraft in the hands of an A&P any time any sort of discrepancy arises is simply not supported by the regulations.

Contrary to what Damian and many of his A&P colleagues may believe, the FAR’s place the responsibility for determining the airworthiness of the aircraft squarely on the PIC, except for once a year when an IA is required to make an airworthiness determination after performing an annual inspection

My colleague Mac McClellan pointed out to me that this closely resembles how the FAA determines whether a pilot is “airworthy.” One day every year or two or five, we pilots are required by regulation to go get an examination from an Aviation Medical Examiner who pronounces us medically fit to fly, or not. The remaining 364 or 729 or 1,824 days in between, the FAA expects us to self-certify that we’re medically fit. “Can you imagine,” Mac asked me rhetorically, “if we had to go to see an AME every time we got a sore throat or runny nose?”

Rob Mark

Can a Mentor Really Help?

July 21st, 2015 by Rob Mark

EAA1Where better to think about mentors – people willing to share their industry expertise with newbies – than as I unpack my car at AirVenture 2015. This place is crawling with mentors.

One of the secrets to success, of course, is connecting capable mentors with the people who need a little mentoring … maybe even quite a bit of mentoring. Since this is my 50th year as an EAA show attendee, allow me to share a few tips.

First, I think almost everyone can benefit from the help of a good mentor. There is simply no reason an aspiring mechanic, pilot, air traffic controller, or anyone else with a keen interest in aviation, should fall into the same dark holes the rest of us have over the decades. Allow us to help you steer clear.

A good mentor listens and makes suggestions to help a student overcome most any hurdle, whether they’re struggling with a particularly troublesome knowledge course, a too-often empty checkbook or the search for a cure to a bad case of the, “I’ll never get this …” We’ve all been stuck at one time or another by “Now what do I do,” too.

The only difference between long-time career people and you is that somehow we’ve already figured out the way around some of the obstacles that been dropped in front of us … and so can you, if you ask for help.

Assuming you’re receptive to the idea, finding a good mentor is often where associations like AOPA, EAA and Women in Aviation can help. If you’re on the road to becoming a professional pilot, for instance, check out ProPilot World for advice from men and women who’ve already been successful climbing various rungs of the career ladder.

mentorIt’s important to realize that a student shares some of the responsibility for a successful relationship, because it’s a bit like dating. It’s apparent pretty quickly when everything clicks and almost as quickly apparent when the chemistry’s not right.

Look for a mentor who’s patient and curious about your life, your story and your goals. Connect with someone who’s more interested in telling war stories than offering help with resources to pass an FAA knowledge test, for example, and you probably have the wrong person. Pose a question that brings only a shrug of shoulders rather than help finding the answer and trust me, it’s just not a good fit. Say thanks to the person and move on to someone else.

I think the key to success in any career is knowing when to ask for help and then being relentless until you find it. I know I’ve only scratched the surface here, so if you find yourself stuck along the way, e-mail me and I’ll help. rob@jetwhine.com

Rob Mark is a Chicago-based business-aviation pilot, flight instructor and journalist. He publishes the award-winning industry blog, Jetwhine.com and spent 10 years of his life as an air traffic controller for the FAA. He claims to have been lucky enough to know a couple of great mentors in his life and believes he could have had more if he’d only asked.

Jolie Lucas

It’s Hard to Be, What You Can’t See: the Art of Being an Example

July 7th, 2015 by Jolie Lucas

My best friend Cat and I were talking about the state of aviation and G.A. airports the other day. We decided we both were card-carrying members of the Rose-Colored Glasses Society. Wearing rose-colored glasses has its drawbacks. Many times when you think someone will do the right thing, and they don’t. You might believe that a peaceful compromise is apparent, yet the other party digs their heels in further. After our conversation we concluded that we would rather be tremendously optimistic, than the alternative, and thus the Rose-Colored Glasses Society was born.

Optimism It's the best way to see life.

Optimism It’s the best way to see life.

Growing up as the daughter of a school superintendent, I was taught that there were things I could and could not do because I was a Lucas. My father told me that I needed to be an example for the other children. I have to say that this was quite a bit of pressure on a kid, but I never wanted to disappoint my Dad, so I tried very hard to be an example.

Other kids went out partying during high school; I didn’t have my first [and last] sip of beer until our senior party. Others might have ditched school, cheated on exams and tried to take short cuts around hard work. And while I don’t recall a lot of missed classes, and had only the occasional help with trigonometry, what I remember was a lot of hard work and fun. It might not come as a shock, that in my senior year I ran for ASB office, and won the Secretary of Publicity. It was during those early times of organizing a student body, dealing with the administration, and trying to manage school and service that I learned a lot about myself.

Flash forward about a hundred years and as a founder of two grass-roots general aviation service groups I can attest to the fact that being an example for G.A. is sometimes difficult and some times I fail. There are times when managing volunteers feels a little like herding cats. Other times when a reporter is shoving a mic in your face and wanting a comment about an airplane incident that makes news. Or occasions where maybe fog or rain have put the kibosh on an aviation event.

Yet all I really need to do is look around me and I see others who seem to always have a smile on their face and a twinkle in their eye. One that comes to mind is Ed Mandibles from the West-Coast Cub Fly-In [July 10-12] held annually in Lompoc, California [KLPC]. This year marks the 31st Anniversary of what started out as the brainchild of Monty Findley and Bruce Fall, two Lompoc Piper Cub owners who originally wanted a fly-in dedicated to their beloved Piper Cubs closer than the annual event that took place at the Cub factory in Lock Haven, Pennsylvania. The West Coast Cub Fly-In has gained in prominence and has become one of the best-attended Piper Cub fly-ins in the nation. The fly-in in Lock Haven took a break for a few years, which makes the West Coast Cub Fly-In the longest running Cub, fly-in in the nation (and probably the world!). Lompoc is kind of a sleepy airport until the 60-70 volunteers swing in to motion. This fly-in is open to all makes and models of airplanes and draws in the community in a big way. During the three days there are all the staples of an airport event, from airplane judging to burger fry and Saturday night’s tri-tip dinner awards and costume contest. This year’s theme is Pirates. As you can imagine, if Ed and his crew were to be pessimistic the event wouldn’t have lasted 30 years. Things happen, insurance rates go up, vendors and venues might change. The key is to remain flexible and childlike in the anticipation of aviation fun and family.

Pirate Cubby at the West-Coast Cub Fly-In

Pirate Cubby at the West-Coast Cub Fly-In

In the next few weeks I will be headed to Oshkosh Wisconsin, and will enjoy AirVenture 2015. I tried to explain the event to a non-aviation friend [yes, I have them]. It is easy to rattle off the airplanes on display, the air-shows, concerts, educational activities, and vendors. It is harder to explain the culture of OSH. I suppose it is a week where we all become card-carrying members of the Rose-Colored Glasses Society. I look forward to seeing old friends, making new ones, drooling over the latest GPS, headset, or airplane.

In summary, I am still trying to make my Dad proud, by being a visible example of exuberant optimism, and by doing my part to help airports remain airports, to inspire the love of flight, and keeping my rose-colored glasses firmly in place while wearing a Mooney pirate costume this Saturday night.

 

 

Ron Rapp

NOTAMs: A Lousy System

July 6th, 2015 by Ron Rapp

One of the dirty little secrets about general aviation is that you can spend as much time preparing for a flight as you do actually flying. It’s not something we’re keen to talk about when discussing the amazing efficiency of traveling by GA, but sooner or later every pilot discovers that flying isn’t always faster than driving. Sometimes it’s a lot slower.

What got me thinking about this was a series of short-range trips I’ve made recently in the Gulfstream: Los Angeles to Phoenix, San Jose, Las Vegas, Fresno, and so on. You’d think it logical that a shorter flight would mean a more effortless work day – but it ain’t necessarily so. The tasks required for a short flight are exactly the same as those needed for a longer one. Filing a flight plan, generating weight & balance data, checking weather, and pre-flighting the aircraft aren’t appreciably faster for a 500 mile leg than a 5,000 mile one.

In fact, once we takeoff, the “hard” work is mostly done and the more congenial, relaxing portions of the trip begin. This is often true for small very airplanes. One might even say “especially” for small aircraft. A flight in the Pitts, for example, averages about 30 minutes, but I can’t imagine completing pre-flight tasks and getting off the ground in less time, especially when there’s a passenger involved. Just getting someone properly briefed and fitted into their seat and parachute can take a considerable amount of time.

The point is, preflight activities are vital to safety in the skies and we can’t shortcut them. Or can we?

The law — 14 CFR 91.103, specifically — requires pilots to obtain “all available information” about a flight before departure. That’s a pretty broad mandate, especially in the Information Age. But it makes sense, because while aviation may be a relatively safe activity, it’s not terribly forgiving of carelessness.

For a typical flight, “all available information” includes NOTAMs, something I’ve found to be a major time suck. While the Feds have made minor changes to the NOTAM setup in recent years, from my perspective it’s still a truly lousy system. It pains me to say that, because the FAA gets some things very, very right. This isn’t one of them.

As Sen. James Inhofe found out a few years ago, the price of missing a NOTAM can be steep. Bringing these notices into the 21st century would greatly improve flight safety and do so at a relatively low cost. If nothing else, it would encourage more pilots to actually read them! It’s difficult to fault pilots for glossing over data when it looks like this:

!JFK 06/204 JFK RWY 13R/31L SE 3263FT CLSD. RWY 13R TORA 10672FT TODA 10672FT ASDA 10672FT LDA 8629FT. RWY 31L TORA 10924FT TODA 10924FT ASDA 10924FT LDA 11248FT. 1506251331-1509211600

Should flight information look like something off a 1950’s teletype or a badly formatted excerpt of assembly language? I’m tempted to say “if we can put a man on the moon…” – you know how the rest of that goes. But perhaps it would be better to simply ask that, in the midst of spending untold billions on NextGen, a few paltry dollars be allocated to overhauling our ghastly NOTAM system.

I know that building a better mousetrap is possible because I’ve been using one for more than a decade. Dan Checkoway, a longtime friend and fellow pilot, saw the same deficiencies in preflight information delivery. But he did something about it, developing a site called Weathermeister. Among other things, it translates NOTAMs into plain English, adjusts the valid times to a more readable format, and best of all, color codes critical items like runway and airport closures so they stand out.

notams

The difference is dramatic. Not only can I scan NOTAMs far more quickly, but I’m also less likely to overlook something important. On several occasions I’ve been the one to unearth important NOTAMs that a fellow crewmember missed. Does that make me superior aviator? No… just a guy with a better sledgehammer.

Dan once told me that despite the fact that Weathermeister provides full weather briefings, 90% of the site’s coding is dedicated to translating the arcane NOTAM texts into readable English. He once tried to sell the FAA on using his format, but for whatever reason (bureaucratic inertia, perhaps?), nothing has changed in the intervening years.

Nevertheless, hope springs eternal. I keep wishing something or someone would prod the FAA to improve the way NOTAMs are disseminated. Not only would flying be safer, but if time really is money, we’d be a whole lot richer, too.