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. [email protected]

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.


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.

Amy Laboda

Notes from Paris: F-WILE Beguiles and Intrigues

June 29th, 2015 by Amy Laboda

There are a lot of interesting aircraft displayed during the Paris Air Show every two years, but only one LSA caught my eye in 2015: the Airbus E-Fan technology demonstrator, designated experimental F-WILE. You can see it fly at the link here. Take the time to listen to the entire 7.5 minute audio (it’s okay if you don’t speak French, the British announcer repeats the narration in English halfway through). And turn up the sound. Listen. Air

What do you hear? Almost nothing behind the narration, not because they have manipulated the soundtrack. The E-Fan is practically silent. Its two 43 hp ducted fan motors barely hum as they push its all-composite airframe through its high speed and low speed passes at Le Bourget just a couple weeks ago.

The two-seat technology demonstrator proves that electric flight can solve some of Europe’s pressing issues with flight training, and perhaps one day, with commercial flight. The aircraft noise is non-existent, as is its emissions. It is phenomenally efficient, and once equipped with swappable power-pack solutions, it will meet its mission: becoming a viable alternative to expensive-to-run, aging training aircraft.

Beyond the obvious innovations lies the beguiling inner workings of the E-Fan, specifically its cockpit instrumentation. The E-Fan Connected Cockpit brings together advances in glass cockpit instrument technology with new iconology that makes it easier for pilots to interpret the information displayed. The power management, for example, pre-calculates the effect of flight conditions such as altitude, airspeed and terrain profile. The status of available electrical energy is displayed on a removable computer tablet, along with the e-aircraft’s planned flight path, as well as for alternates in the event of in-flight re-routing.

The E-Fan instrument panel is yet one more innovation in the aircraft.

The E-Fan instrument panel is yet one more innovation in the aircraft.

That removable tablet is another key innovation. It serves as the navigation and training display, providing information that supplements the aircraft’s fixed left-hand Primary Flight Display. Pilots can pre-plan the flight away from the aircraft and simply insert the tablet into its place on the panel to upload and interface the flight plan. And after the flight? The computer tablet serves as a highly interactive training device in the classroom, enabling review of the flight in detail. Energy management, flight times and maintenance details can also be reviewed, allowing for easy digital logging of all relevant aircraft conditions. Conceivably, with wifi, the tablet can simply upload all data to the company server as soon as it regains connectivity, on the ramp or in the hangar. Nice.

GA benefits from the E-Fan in more ways than you can imagine. For one, the conglomerate Airbus, one of the three largest aircraft manufacturers in the world, is behind the research and development. The E-Fan did not appear on a napkin at a bar one night out of the slightly soggy brain of some nameless visionary engineer. It is a key component of the E-Thrust concept study, Airbus Group’s on-going hybrid and electrical propulsion system research, which has seen the hybrid concept study for a full-scale helicopter, the successful development of a Cri-Cri ultralight modified as the world’s first four-engine all-electric aerobatic aircraft, the demonstration flights of a hybrid electric motor glider, the flight testing of a short-range mini-unmanned aerial vehicle with an advanced fuel cell as well as the concept study of a hybrid-electric propulsion system for this rotorcraft. That is why the technology took only three years to go from vapor-ware announcement to flying demonstrator. And now that Airbus declared at the Paris Air Show that it will manufacture the aircraft for the training and LSA market, we can expect to see E-Fans ready for purchase before the decade is out.

Who can afford this kind of advanced LSA? Hey, when you are considering a fleet of them, more entities than you’d think. Also, I’d imagine the terms will be generous in the beginning, as Airbus uses these small two-seaters to refine its concepts for upscaling to its commercial aircraft fleet.

Rob Mark

When Aviation Claims a Friend

June 19th, 2015 by Rob Mark

MonnettI’ve struggled all month debating whether or not to write this story.

We opinion leaders are supposed to be writing stories to capture the imagination of potential pilots or past aviators who’ve been away from the cockpit too long. Our stories are meant to encourage people.

But this tale is not one of those. I’m hoping if I tell it well enough, that some new or returning pilot will remember an important element of flying before they ever face a similar situation.

It’s still way too early to figure out what happened to the Sonex Sport Acro that claimed the life of my friend Jeremy Monnett earlier this month off the departure end of runway 9 at Oshkosh’s Wittman Regional airport. He was out showing a new mechanic a bit about an airplane Jeremy knew pretty well which perplexed me a bit when I heard about the accident.

At first I thought perhaps Jeremy had been flying some new Sonex creation that had possibly gotten away from him or that perhaps the weather had closed in around him or well, I don’t know to be honest. Neither of those turned out to be the case. The tower controller had his back turned when the crash occurred and so far there don’t seem to have been any witnesses. I do know he took off from the runway 9 intersection at runway 13 which probably gave him about 3,000 feet for takeoff. One source told me the propeller was found in tact which might mean the engine was not turning at the time of impact. More than that needs to wait for the NTSB report.

Early in June I was attending an aviation safety conference at EuroControl in Brussels when I first learned of my friend’s death. As I read the e-mail it was a bit surreal, as if I were really reading a story about someone else, a faceless name … one of those people we hear about who, gathered together each year, create the list of GA fatalities I write about.

This time though I knew the face and the man quite well in fact. Jeremy was just 40 actually, a kid to me, yet he’d already made a name for the company Sonex Aircraft that his mom and dad had founded long before they moved it to Oshkosh decades ago. I was still in Europe when the memorial took place for Jeremy at EAA’s Eagle Hangar, an event I’m told brought more than 2,000 mourners for this young man and the wife, two boys and other family members he left behind.

This accident reminded me of something an instructor once told me a long time ago just after I earned my private pilot certificate, something I never forgot and always passed along to pilots I ever checked out when I became an instructor, whether we were in a Cessna 150 or a Hawker 800. “Enjoy flying an airplane, for it is a privilege denied to many. But never forgot that you’re flying a machine and machines can fail. Never, ever assume the one you’re flying won’t decide that today’s the day it may try and catch you when you least expect it. Always, always be ready.”

It was wonderful knowing you Jeremy. I’ll be thinking of you at this year’s AirVenture buddy. It won’t be the same without you.

Your friend, Rob

Mike Busch

The Back Door is Locked

June 12th, 2015 by Mike Busch

Cessna 210In my AOPA Opinion Leaders Blog post of September 2014 (“Backdoor Rulemaking?”), I discussed the unprecedented action taken by the Cessna Aircraft Company intended to compel the owners of cantilever-wing Cessna 210s to perform repetitive eddy-current inspections of their wing spars. Finally, I can fill you in on the punch line.

By way of background: Normally, if an aircraft manufacturer believes that an unsafe condition exists that justifies imposing special inspections, component life limits, replacement or overhaul times, or similar burdens on aircraft owners, they go to the FAA and ask for an Airworthiness Directive (AD) to be issued. If the FAA is persuaded that the alleged unsafe condition actually constitutes a significant safety concern and that the burden on owners is reasonable given the safety risk, then the FAA issues a Notice of Proposed Rulemkaing (NPRM) announcing its intention to issue an AD and soliciting comments on the proposal from the affected public. The FAA is then required to consider and respond to all public comments submitted during the comment period before issuing its final rule that makes the AD effective. This same notice-and-comment protocol is required of all executive-branch regulatory agencies of the U.S. federal government by a law called the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

Indeed, that’s precisely what Cessna did in 2013: It asked the FAA’s Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO) to issue an AD mandating repetitive eddy-current inspections on all cantilever-wing Cessna 210s. But to Cessna’s chagrin, the Wichita ACO turned down Cessna’s request and declined to proceed with an AD, presumably because the ACO was not persuaded that such an AD was justified.

That should have been the end of the matter. But it wasn’t.

In February 2014, Cessna very quietly published a revision to the Cessna 210 service manual that added three new pages to the manual. Those three pages constituted a new section 2B to the manual, titled “Airworthiness Limitations,” that called for the repetitive eddy-current spar inspections. Somehow Cessna persuaded the Wichita ACO to approve this amendment—something the ACO really shouldn’t have done, as you shall see.

Cessna then publicly took the position that compliance with the repetitive eddy-current spar inspections was compulsory because those inspections were now part of an FAA-approved Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS). Indeed, FAR 91.403(c) compels aircraft owners to comply with mandatory replacement times, inspection intervals, and related procedures specified in an ALS. And FAR 43.16 compels maintenance personnel to perform any inspections or maintenance specified in an ALS precisely “by the book.”

David vs. Goliath?

SlingshotI first learned about this at the beginning of September 2014, when my colleague Paul New—owner of Tennessee Aircraft Services, Inc. (a well-known Cessna Piston Aircraft Service Center) and honored by the FAA in 2007 as National Aviation Maintenance Technician of the Year—discovered the new section 2B in the Cessna 210 service manual, and immediately realized its significance. Paul and I discussed the matter at length, and both felt strongly that Cessna’s actions could not be allowed to go unchallenged.

“If Cessna gets away with this,” I told Paul, “then any manufacturer will be able to effectively impose their own ADs whenever they want, bypassing the notice-and-comment protocol and the other safeguards built into the APA to protect the public from unreasonable government regulation.”

I helped Paul draft a letter to the Rulemaking Division (AGC-200) of the FAA’s Office of General Counsel, questioning the retroactive enforceability of Cessna’s newly minted ALS against Cessna 210s that were manufactured prior to the date the ALS was published (i.e., all of them, given that Cessna 210 production ceased in 1986). Our letter questioned whether Cessna could do what it was trying to do (i.e., make the eddy-current inspections compulsory) within the confines of the APA. We asked AGC-200 to issue a formal Letter of Interpretation (LOI) of the thorny regulatory issues that Cessna’s unprecedented actions raised.

And then we waited. And waited.

AGC-200 initially advised us that they had a four-month backlog of prior requests before they would be able to respond to our request. In fact, it took seven months. It turns out that our letter questioning the enforceability of Cessna’s ALS opened a messy can of worms. AGC-200 assigned two attorneys to draft the FAA’s response, and they wound up having to coordinate with AFS-300 (Flight Standards Maintenance Division), AIR-100 (Aircraft Certification Division), ACE-100 (Small Airplane Directorate), and of course ACE-115W (Wichita Aircraft Certification Office) who mistakenly approved Cessna’s ALS in the first place.

FAA Legal Does the Right Thing

FAA Headquarters

FAA Headquarters
800 Independence Ave.
Washington DC

Finally, on May 21, 2015, AGC-200 issued the Letter of Interpretation (LOI) that we requested. It was five pages long, and was everything we hoped it would be and more. It slammed shut the “rulemaking backdoor” that Cessna had been attempting to use to bypass the AD process, locked it once and for all, threw away the key, and squirted epoxy glue in the lock for good measure. You can read the entire LOI in all its lawyerly glory, but here’s the CliffsNotes version of the letter’s key bullet points:

  • Under FAR 21.31(c), an ALS is part of an aircraft’s type design.
  • The only version of an ALS that is mandatory is the version that was included in the particular aircraft’s type design at the time it was manufactured.
  • Absent an AD or other FAA rule that would make the new replacement times and inspection intervals retroactive, Cessna’s “after-added” ALS is not mandatory for persons who operate or maintain the Model 210 aircraft, the design and production of which predate the new ALS addition. The “requirements” set forth in the ALS would only be mandatory for aircraft manufactured after the ALS was issued. And of course, production of the Cessna 210 ceased in 1986.
  • If operational regulations were interpreted as imposing an obligation on operators and maintenance providers to comply with the latest revision of a manufacturer’s document, manufacturers could unilaterally impose regulatory burdens on operators of existing aircraft. This would be legally objectionable in that the FAA does not have legal authority to delegate its rulemaking authority to manufacturers. Furthermore, “substantive rules” can be adopted only in accordance with the rulemaking section of the APA (5 U.S.C. § 553) which does not grant rulemaking authority to manufacturers. To comply with these statutory obligations, the FAA would have to engage in its own rulemaking to mandate the manufacturer’s document, as it does when it issues ADs.

The bottom line is this: Manufacturers of certificated aircraft* are not permitted to impose regulatory burdens on aircraft owners by changing the rules in the middle of the game. Only the FAA may do that, and only through proper rulemaking action that complies with the APA (including its notice-and-comment provisions and other safeguards). If you ever encounter a situation where the manufacturer of your aircraft tries to do this, call their cards—the FAA lawyers will back you up.

*NOTE: The rules are completely different for S-LSAs.  The manufacturers of S-LSAs can do pretty much anything they like, and their word is the law. (A seriously flawed situation IMHO.)

The LOI concluded with the following surprising paragraph:

On February 19, 2015, the FAA’s Small Airplane Directorate sent a letter to Cessna that addressed some of the above issues, and pointed out the non-mandatory nature of the after-added ALS for the Model 210 aircraft. The FAA asked Cessna to republish the replacement times and inspections as recommendations that are encouraged, but optional, for those in-service aircraft, unless later mandated by an AD. To date [three months later –mb] Cessna has not provided a written response outlining its position on this matter.

Are we having fun yet?

Ron Rapp

Man vs. Machine: The Challenge of Staying Sharp in the 21st Century

June 10th, 2015 by Ron Rapp

So there I was, sitting in the cockpit of a 2015 Super Decathlon the other day, twisting my sunburned noggin into a pretzel trying to decide whether the ship was a throwback to the 1940s or a glimpse of general aviation’s high-tech future. You’d think that would be an easy call. The Decathlon is a derivative of the Aeronca Champ, after all.

But tube-and-fabric airframe aside, the Garmin GTN750 touchscreen, Aspen Evolution 1000, ADS-B data link, and other gadgetry made me realize that the greatest advances in avionics and aircraft automation are not found in airliners. They’re found in general aviation aircraft, many of them with the same reciprocating engines (and, on occasion, steel tube fuselages) they had seventy years ago.

We now live in a world where you can ask your iPhone to whip up a flight plan and wirelessly transmit it to the avionics in your airplane so you don’t have to input a thing. For the IFR pilot, did ATC give you a re-route? No problem — and no buttons to press (except perhaps the Staples “easy” button). Just touch the screen of your Garmin navigator and drag the course line to wherever you want it to go. Flying: “so easy a caveman can do it”.

Or is it?

I’m not anti-technology. Far from it. I’m a computer nerd and can’t get enough of the stuff. Nor am I suggesting that a high-tech cockpit even makes life easier. Especially when equipment fails or doesn’t respond as expected, the work load can ratchet up very quickly. But the truth is that once you’ve got the boxes figured out, automation can and does rob us of basic flying skill unless we take a proactive stance to prevent the erosion of those skills.

How could it not? Automated aircraft make us flight managers, not pilots who physically control the aircraft. There’s nothing wrong with that, but it’s something pilots far and wide need to acknowledge and be aware of.

The insidiously perishable nature of flying skill is ironic, because as most manufacturers will tell you, from a statistical viewpoint aviation is considerably safer due to the march of technology. What remains unsaid, however, is that much like beefing up a weak point on an aerobatic aircraft, we’re just shifting the hazard to another area. The wing might be able to withstand 16 Gs, but that doesn’t mean the engine mount can. If you strengthen the engine mount, then the empennage or longerons become the weakest link. Each component has its own failure point and mode.
Likewise for automation. Sure, it relieves fatigue from hand flying. It brings amazing weather, terrain, and traffic information into the cockpit. Situational awareness is a snap. Fuel burn can now be accurately estimated to within a few pounds on a multi-hour flight.

But it also means we’re more disconnected from the airplane since we aren’t physically flying it. Up and down drafts are masked because the autopilot handles them for us — until it trims all the way to the critical angle of attack. I’ve seen that happen multiple times without the pilot even being aware of it. Our hand flying skills and instrument scan decay due to lack of use.

This sort of thing is especially unnerving to me because I’m aware of it and yet have also fallen victim to it myself on occasion.

I think of automation the same way I think of air traffic control. It’s a safety asset, but one I must constantly monitor because it has failed before and it will fail again some day. I’ve been vectored into traffic, sent across a localizer toward a mountain (ie. forgotten about), and given instructions meant for another aircraft. I’ve even had a controller attempt to cancel my active IFR flight plan in mid-flight without my assent.

Automation is no different. The challenge is to keep our skills sharp and expect the unexpected. If hand-flying skill was well established in the beginning of a pilot’s flying career, that’s not an insurmountable challenge. The modern aviator, though, sees this automation from a very early point, and for some of them, the basic flying skills are not well established. The automation serves to mask the inadequacies. As long as everything keeps running properly, no harm/no foul.

When it doesn’t? Well, that’s where the rock meets the not-so-proverbial hard place, as we’re starting to discover.

It occurs to me that flying “raw data” after a long period away from hand-flying can be as challenging as the transition to a new airplane. I see many similarities in initial pilot performance, especially if the aviator has been confined to a single aircraft type for a long period.

In that regard, I believe one of the best ways to keep yourself sharp is to fly varying types of aircraft. If, for example, you fly an aerobatic plane or a glider in addition to that shiny jet, odds are you’ll enhance and retain skills you probably aren’t even aware of. Perhaps that aptitude is simply the mental agility to move from one cockpit to another. Maybe it’s an improved competence with pitch/power relationships or comfort with unusual attitudes.

However poorly I may have explained it, I’ve simply noticed that those who fly multiple types of aircraft seem to be able to adapt to changes faster than those who don’t. I doubt this has as much to do with physical ability as it does mental acuity.

The rudimentary flight skills must be developed in primary training because there is little room made for them during advanced ratings, and automation can easily mask the lack of those abilities until they are the only thing standing between a pilot and a Very Bad Day. As such, the case is made for conducting primary flight training in a non-automated aircraft, or at the very least, with the automation fully disabled.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I’d take it one step further and suggest that every pilot should learn to fly in the most stone-simple tailwheel airplane available. They’re economical. They put the focus on primary flight skills most likely to atrophy later. They simply will not abide poor airmanship. And most of all, they’re fun to fly. Isn’t that why we got into aviation in the first place?

Unfortunately, the trend is headed in the opposite direction — even Cubs come with glass panels these days! But as far as I know, they’re still making them with an “off” switch, so the hope for a better training experience will continue to spring eternal.

Jolie Lucas

It’s a small, small, small, small, GA world

June 10th, 2015 by Jolie Lucas
Mighty Oregon

Mighty Oregon

Like it or not, we are all connected in our small GA world. Think of a big bowl of spaghetti, all the noodles are intertwined and touching one another. Whether it is a grassroots group promoting General Aviation to kids, a cool FBO or business, or the pilot who makes a bad decision on a go-no-go, we are linked.

I have always heard that we are only as good as the worst player on the team. Twitter, Facebook, 24-hour news streaming makes nearly everything we do in GA public. That said, we need to make sure that in our small small world that we practice kindness, accuracy and really good decision-making.

Think about how many questions we get from the non-flying public when someone runs out of fuel, flies into a restricted airspace, or puts five people in a four-place airplane. Sometimes it is hard to know what to say. I don’t know where I saw this, but I am reminded of the saying, “How would this look on the NTSB report?” We all know bad drivers, but when there is a car accident rarely is a microphone shoved in our face to be an “expert” on driving a car. Yet, as pilots, when there is an incident or accident, we might suddenly find ourselves in the spotlight. What would your flying be like if you imagined that whatever you were doing in the plane, how ever you were flying, was going to be publicized as an example of General Aviation? Perhaps if we thought this way, there would be a bit less hot-dogging and “Hey watch this!” moments.

Skydive Taft

Skydive Taft

On to the good news and a few of my observations of folks getting it right. I have always been able to feel whether businesses are warm or cool. By that, the warm businesses are welcoming, laid-back and easy. The cool business might be stunningly perfect, but lacks the connection to the customer. Below are a few examples of warm businesses and great examples of being an ambassador for their airport and aviation.

Skydive Taft, Taft California  Recently I found myself in Taft, CA with a few hours to kill. I thought that heading to the local municipal airport might be a good use of time. My friend, Dan Lopez is a pilot for Skydive Taft. Upon arrival in the parking lot of the airport, it was immediately noted to be a super chill, fun place to hang out.

Every single one of the employees I met, from dive instructors, to the van driver, to the owner of the business was so very friendly. With a bunkhouse for the employees, workers talking about their next dive, and oodles of patrons milling about, the environment felt more like summer camp than anything. I think that a business such as Skydive Taft is so wonderful for the airport and the community. When we have healthy businesses at airports it is a win-win situation for the business and the airport.

Classic Wings Aero

Classic Wings Aero

Classic Wings Aero Services, Scott Gifford, owner, Hood River, Oregon.  On Thursday I flew into the airport where I learned to fly. Landing after about 4.5 hours of flight I remembered that my tow bar was not in the airplane. [I did however have a full tube of toothpaste and a full water bottle]. I looked for a transient spot that I could pull forward into, but there was none. I whipped around and got as close as I could knowing that my son and I would be pushing the airplane into her space. Before I knew there was a friendly gentleman coming up to the window. He asked if he could help and I told him about my sans-tow bar situation. Without a word he started pushing the airplane with both of us in it, to the parking spot. We made conversation and he helped us tie down the plane. When I asked him what kind of plane he flew, he just gestured and with a broad stroke of his hand said that he was the owner of the FBO. It was after 7 p.m. on a Thursday and the owner of the FBO was there to help us. Scott opened up the building for us. Classic Wings is a full service FBO with fuel and flight instruction nestled in the Columbia River Gorge.

Exile Aviation

Exile Aviation

Alamogordo-White Sands, New Mexico [KALM]

Alamogordo-White Sands, New Mexico [KALM]










Exile Aviation located at Alamogordo-White Sands, New Mexico [KALM].  Twin brothers Chase and Travis Rabon started in Exile Aviation in 2009. To me they look to be in their 20s, full of energy and enthusiasm. Exile has offered fuel for the past three years. Chase is the mechanic and Travis is a CFI. This FBO has to be one of the most friendly I have been to. In an area known for blowing sand and winds, the folks at Exile really look out for their visitors by arranging hangars to protect our airplanes. These two go the extra mile in offering courtesy cars and fuel as well as arranging hangars, maintenance, meeting rooms or flight instruction.

Century Aviation Services, Klamath Falls, Oregon.  This past Sunday I was happily flying at 9500 feet enroute to Santa Maria, CA from Hood River, Oregon when my son exclaimed, “I need you to land now!” My poor 15 year old was nauseous and uncomfortable. I notified the tower that I had a passenger that was ill they told me I could have any runway I would like. After a quick descent in to Klamath Falls I was directed to Century Aviation FBO.

Century Aviation Services

Century Aviation Services

Immediately a friendly lineman who asked if we needed help met me. I let him know that we needed a cool place to wait out an upset tummy. The FBO staff was so nice. We were able to rest and my son recuperate. I spoke with one of the line staff named Jacob Miller. Twenty year-old Jacob was saving up money to get his private ticket. He told me that he was one of the original winners of the scholarship sponsored by Barry Schiff a few years ago. As we talked about his future he said that he wanted to join the Army and learn to fly helicopters. I said that perhaps things were calming down in the Middle East. He said, “Even if it isn’t, I would like to go and help my country.” Wow.

Old Glory

Old Glory

I suppose the long and short of it is that we all are Ambassadors for aviation. Our legacy can be positive, neutral or negative. I was raised to work hard and focus my attention on what I believe in. Perhaps we can all take a look in the mirror and see what our reflection is. Let’s be good stewards of our airplanes, airports and each other.




Amy Laboda

FAA Reauthorization from a Global Perspective

June 2nd, 2015 by Amy Laboda

This year’s Regional Airline Association (RAA) Conference in Cleveland, Ohio, was a fascinating place to be if you are at all interested in how the various interested parties in the U.S. and abroad are thinking about the up and coming FAA Reauthorization. (And if you aren’t interested you should be. GA pilots have a stake in how the FAA’s limited resources are parceled out.)

FAA mission shift, delays caused by ATC inefficiencies and TSA inefficiencies, noise, environmental concerns: they talked about it all. RAA interim President Faye Malarkey Black sat stage center surrounded on both sides by association leaders that included European Regional Airlines Association Director General Simon McNamara; Airlines 4 America President Nick Calio; Airports Council International North Americas President and CEO Kevin Burke, and Cargo Airline Association President Steve Alterman. Each brought a different angle on the issue, all of it fascinating to me, a user of regional airlines, and a general aviation pilot who wants to keep using my fair share of the system that my taxes pay for.

Leading the concerns was the fear that there will be no pilots to fly regional airliners in the U.S. if an effective career pathway is not both clearly established and marketed to high school students on a national level.

Cargo Airline Association President Steve Alterman is deeply worried. “Our carriers guarantee overnight service in cargo. We depend on our regional cargo partners to get the packages to those outlying communities, and from them to our gateway hubs for transit to destination. If we don’t have the pilots we can’t guarantee service to those small communities. That changes our whole business model. We’ve got to be more creative. I think it is in all of our interests to form a partnership between the academic community, military, regionals and mainline carriers to work together to create a track for pilot training.”

On the subject of air service frequency, Airports Council International North Americas President and CEO Kevin Burke said, “We’ve seen loss of air service at smaller fields. We don’t want to hand over the business to buses and trains. These small air fields are gold for their communities.” He probably wasn’t thinking about the opportunities for Part 135 charter aircraft services that open up when the airlines pull out of a small community airport. But then, Part 135 operators don’t offer the volume of people buying tickets that airports are becoming dependent on for revenue.

Airlines 4 America President Nick Calio thinks big change is necessary. “ATC is key,” he implored. “In every other regulatory government body, they don’t have ATC and FAA under one roof. We think we should have a nonprofit commercial entity for ATC that is funded not by taxes but some other format, and has an independent body that manages it and has industry representation and a pure safety focus to its objective,” he said.

ERA Director General Simon McNamara chuckled and said, “In Europe we’ve got 28 regulatory bodies, different languages, different cultures and one safety body that sits on top of air traffic control. Yet the FAA delivers a service with a 34% less per unit cost than Europe. We’re quite jealous of how simple you have it, so consider yourself lucky.”

When he put it like that, I certainly did!