Posts Tagged ‘general aviation’

General Aviation to the Rescue!

Friday, May 6th, 2016

Share the value of Law Enforcement flying

On Saturday April 23rd I had the distinct pleasure of being able to fly in the California Highway Patrol [CHP] Airbus H125A-Star helicopter with Officer/Pilot Joe Kingman and Flight Officer/Paramedic, Demian Abel.

A few weeks prior I watched a dramatic rescue of an illegal climber on Morro Rock in California. The video highlighted not only the sophistication of the multi-million dollar helicopter, but the skill and professionalism of the rescuers and pilot on board.

On social media, our community was abuzz with commentary about the rescue with well-deserved praise for the CHP officers involved. Yet, no one, save me, mentioned that this rescue flight was a prime example of General Aviation. I am always on the look out for ways to educate our community about the different types of flying that comprise General Aviation.  I immediately contacted Officer Kingman and asked if I could interview him and he graciously offered an interview and a flight in the helicopter.

CHP Arrival

Grandpa and his two grandsons.

It was a sunny, yet windy day on the Central Coast of California when the familiar blue and gold of the CHP arrived at Oceano Airport. This particular helicopter is nearly brand new having 252 hours on it. It is fully equipped with the latest in cameras, spotlights, rescue/medical equipment and avionics. Within a few minutes of arrival of N979HP, a grandfather arrived with two small boys. Joe and Demian were so gracious to show the boys the helicopter and talk with them about flying, though one of the boys admitted he wanted to be a fire fighter.

 

I was a bit concerned about the amount of wind and the effect it would have on the aircraft. I had never flown in a helicopter before. Joe explained that the rotor blades absorb the majority of the turbulence. We completed a pre-flight briefing and we departed the airport and headed up the coastline. As a pilot I thought I was used to hearing a fair amount of chatter on the radio while on flight following. Yet, the CHP helicopter concurrently monitors the frequencies of the Sheriff, Police, Fire Authorities, State Parks as well as their own. As the flight progressed I learned more about the truly collaborative work the CHP helicopter provides.  The view was stunningly beautiful and the ride was surprisingly smooth.

 

Officer Joe Kingman is a 27-year veteran of the California Highway Patrol, 19 of those years as a pilot. I asked him if there were any common misconceptions about what the CHP helicopters do. He answered, “ I don’t think that the public knows that our helicopters always have a medic on board.

Pilot Joe Kingman

Pilot Joe Kingman

Additionally while folks generally know about our pursuit and surveillance they don’t know that we provide medical evacuations for car accidents and support police and fire departments.”

“The tax payers own this aircraft,” said Officer Kingman. Their missions support not only the citizens of the communities but also a multitude of other public service agencies.

 

Flight Officer/Paramedic Demian Abel has been flying for 5 years but has been serving for 15 years since the academy. He took great pride in showing me the ship’s avionic systems. I was awestruck by the abilities of the cameras onboard to locate vehicles, people and even animals by their heat signatures. We flew near Bishop Peak, and I could clearly see the hikers on the trail below us. Demian said that they routinely fly near these popular trails after dark using the infrared camera to see if there is anyone stranded or injured.

Flight Officer Demian Abel

Flight Officer Demian Abel

 

As we hovered over the 101 freeway we talked about how in the event of a mudslide, or earthquake, helicopters are a lifeline. We agreed that our smaller General Aviation airports are a vital part of that lifeline as well.

When we look up and see the law enforcement helicopter above us, it might be easy to think that they are looking for someone speeding on the freeway. If it is spring or summer more likely, the men and women on board are working collaboratively with other agencies on search and rescue or med evac. Through the use of cutting edge technology this “eye in the sky” has a keen advantage in pursuit and surveillance. Our communities are safer and more secure because of the work they do. No matter the mission, law enforcement flying is General Aviation.

 

We need to continue to educate our communities about the vital role that General Aviation plays in not only recreational and business flying but in emergency response as well. A few years ago I made a “What is General Aviation?” video that is available to any airport or pilot group that would like to use it.

Oceano Airport Celebration: Salute to Veterans is May 13th and 14th. We are happy to announce the N979HP will be on display and open to the public. Thank you again to the California Highway Patrol and in particular Officers Joe Kingman and Demian Abel. I think I have the coolest selfie ever!

 

Coolest Selfie ever!

Joe Kingman,  Jolie Lucas,  Demian Abel

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hangnails and Hand Transplants

Tuesday, April 12th, 2016
Engine teardown

Here’s what happens to your engine when you send it in for major overhaul. Do you really want to do this?

You know me. I believe in running engines as long as they’re demonstrably healthy, even if that means going beyond the manufacturer’s recommended TBO. Nothing disturbs me more than when I hear about owners who get talked into (or talk themselves into) euthanizing engines that are running just fine.

Case in point: Here’s an email I received from a Bonanza owner seeking a second opinion on what to do about his Continental IO-520 engine:

“The engine is now at 1500 hours (TBO is 1700) and it seems to be running very well. But here’s the bad part: it’s using a quart of oil every 4 hours, and putting a LOT of oil on the belly of the aircraft, even with an air/oil separator installed.

“So what should I do? Should I get a field overhaul, or opt for a factory rebuilt engine? (The engine does NOT have a VAR crank.) Should I consider an STC upgrade to an IO-550? I’m leaning toward using Superior Millennium cylinders, do you agree?”

I took a deep breath and counted to ten. This owner just told me that he as a fine-running engine, yet he’s already concluded it needs to be overhauled or replaced. What was he thinking? It sure wasn’t clear to me that this engine had any major issues, much less anything requiring immediate euthanasia.

Where’s the beef?

So what if it’s using a quart in 4 hours? Is that so terrible?

No, it isn’t. Continental SID97-2B is the bible when it comes to determining the airworthinss of Continental cylinders, and here what it has to say about oil consumption:

Oil consumption can be expected to vary with each engine depending on the load, operating temperature, type of oil used and condition of the engine. A differential compression check and borescope inspection should be conducted if oil consumption exceeds one quart every three hours or if any sudden change in oil consumption is experienced and appropriate action taken.

This guidance indicates that the Bonanza’s oil consumption of a quart in four hours is perfectly acceptable. Even when Continental’s oil consumption threshold of a quart in three hours is exceeded, Continental simply calls for a borescope inspection to determine if there’s really a problem. If the cylinders look okay under the borescope, the engine can remain in service despite the high oil consumption.

SID97-2B also indicates that in February 1997, Continental actually reduced the tension on the oil control rings in its cylinder assemblies to increase oil consumption to achieve improved lubrication of the cylinder bore. A certain amount of oil consumption is essential for maximum cylinder life. When it comes to oil consumption, less is not necessarily always a good thing.

Bottom line is that it’s quite likely that there’s nothing at all wrong with the engine in this owner’s Bonanza. At worst, perhaps it has a couple of worn cylinders that might need to be replaced eventually. Even that’s not clear, since the owner didn’t mention low compression readings. Maybe all he needs is some new piston rings.

A worn jug is like a hangnail

Cracked cylinder head

Cylinder problems (like this head crack) call for cylinder work, not euthaizing the whole engine.

Even if a borescope inspection reveals that the engine has a worn-out jug or two, so what? Both Continental and Lycoming cleverly designed their engines so that the cylinders were bolt-on accessories that can be repaired or replaced without removing the engine from the airframe or splitting the case. If the engine actually does have badly worn cylinders, that’s a reason to repair or replace the jugs, not to tear down the whole engine.

Think about this for a moment. If some other bolt-on engine accessory went bad—say an alternator or vacuum pump or magneto or prop governor—would you let your mechanic remove the engine and have it major overhauled? Of course not.

If you had a hangnail, would you go to a surgeon for an amputation and hand transplant? No, I didn’t think so!

Why would an aircraft owner even consider major overhaul or engine replacement just because one or two cylinders might be worn out? To my way of thinking, it doesn’t matter whether an engine is at 100 hours since new or 100 hours past TBO—a sick cylinder calls for cylinder replacement, not engine replacement.

Euthanasia is a bit much

Here’s what I emailed back to the owner:

“I would NEVER consider overhauling an otherwise good-running engine just because it has high oil consumption. There’s nothing wrong with burning a quart in 4 hours, so long as your sparkplugs aren’t oil-fouled and your compressions are within acceptable limits. If things get bad enough and you find one or more cylinders with unacceptably low compression, you may want to consider replacing them. That’s why Continental makes its engines with bolt-on cylinders: so you can change them without having to overhaul the engine. The ONLY valid reason for overhauling an engine is a problem with the “bottom end” (crankcase, crankshaft, camshaft, gears, main bearings, etc.) that cannot be cured without splitting the case.

“Have you simply tried running the engine at a lower oil level on the dipstick? Big-bore Continental engines are famous for throwing out excess oil if the crankcase is overfilled. The TSIO-520s on my T310R have a 12-quart sump, but I typically run them at 8 quarts on the dipstick.

“Excessive oil on the belly is usually caused by excessive crankcase pressure. Sometimes this is due to worn cylinders that permit excessive blow-by past the rings (in which case your cylinders will show low compression readings and your oil will get dirty very quickly after each oil change). But it can also be due so something as simple as an oil filler cap that isn’t sealing properly (when did you last check the oil cap gasket?) or a leaky front crankcase seal (which is not difficult to change).

“It sounds to me as if you may be a long way from needing to major-overhaul this engine. If you do decide to overhaul it anyway, drop me another email and I’ll offer some suggestions. But I really think that any consideration of rebuild/overhaul at this point is way premature.”

Don’t obsess about the manufacturer’s published TBO. It’s just a suggestion, not a requirement or a life limit. (The engines on my Cessna T310R are made it well past 200% of TBO and were still running magnificently.) When your engine is ready for overhaul, it’ll let you know by starting to make metal or to leak oil or to crack their crankcases or spall their cam lobes or something else obvious to let you know that “it’s time.” That’s the time to overhaul them. Doing it earlier always strikes me as being a capital crime.

Learn like you are going to live forever

Friday, April 1st, 2016

Tell me and I forget.

Teach me and I remember.

Involve me and I learn.

—-Benjamin Franklin

maggie upside downIn mid-August of 2003 I attended an AOPA Air Safety Institute [ASI] pilot safety seminar in Portland entitled “Take Offs and Landings.” Little did I know that a few days later I would be putting both those skill sets in use when I had an engine failure at take off in Hood River, Oregon. My story was used in AOPA’s 2004 Nall Report and as well in AOPA’s seminar series called: ­­­­­­Real Pilot Stories. I credited my flight instructor, the ASI seminar, and my training for turning a potentially life threatening situation into an “off-airport” landing.

 

 

 

 

Recently I got the opportunity to talk with Mark Grady. Mark has presented safety seminars all over the country. A veteran with nearly 20 years of experience, Mark has seen it all. I hope that this interview is helpful for you, and will inspire you to attend one of the many AOPA or FAAST safety seminars offered.Mark&Allegro2-Crop1

How long have you been teaching Mark?

“I’ve been presenting aviation safety seminars for almost 20 years. I started doing seminars for the North Carolina Division of Aviation. I was then signed by the Aviation Speakers Bureau. Shortly thereafter, I became one of the AOPA Air Safety Institute presenters.”

Why do you feel called to teach aviation safety seminars?

“My father was a very safety-conscious man. I think I got a little of that from him. What really sealed the deal for me was during my ten years of being a traffic watch pilot and reporter in Raleigh. I did that from 1980 until 1987. Seeing the number of traffic accidents I covered, I thought often that drivers could learn a lot from pilot training and that pilots who may drive too aggressively have the potential to be unsafe aviators. It really is all about human factors. “

What do you do at your seminars to promote the active exchange of fears/ideas/education?

“The large amount of content in the AOPA Air Safety Institute seminars prevents too much time being taken by the attendees during the actual two-hour seminar, but we certainly promote the continuing education of all pilots. That doesn’t have to just take place during flight reviews. In fact, I think the more we try to stay safety conscious during all we do, including driving, the more likely we are to be better pilots. In addition to the online seminars, AOPA ASI has really great online courses for pilots who take information, training and safety seriously.”AOPA-SAC-12Jan2016

Who is your typical attendee?

“That’s a good question. While most of the attendees have appeared to be over 40, I have been encouraged over the number of younger pilots who have been coming recently. As far as the experience level of the attendees, it’s far reaching. We’ve had people attend who are just becoming interested in learning to fly right on through ATP pilots and even pilots who flew warbirds in World War II.”

 Do you ever hear any stories from attendees about how they have put the seminars to use in the sky?

“Absolutely! It’s rare I’ve given a seminar where a pilot does not come up at the end and tell me a first-hand account of how something he had heard at a seminar helped him in an emergency situation or kept him from getting into one.”

If you had a piece of advice for a lower time pilot in regard to education or safety, what would it be?

“It would be to strive to be a pilot of excellence. In fact, I’m writing a book titled “Pilot of Excellence” now. There is no such thing as a perfect pilot, but we can strive to be excellent. That requires a big commitment to remain aware during all phases of flight. Just one example is when we are going through a checklist. If we are not focusing on each checklist item and why we are doing that item on the checklist, we are simply giving ourselves a false sense of security that everything is ok. There is no reason to be bored on a flight. There is always something to do, especially playing the what-if game.”

Is there anything you would tell your younger, pilot-self that you wished you knew?

“To not look at a flight review as a test, but an opportunity. We ALL have weak areas. None of us knows it all. So, if we want a great flight review, I recommend spending at least 15 minutes the day before we meet with the instructor to be honest and write down our weak areas. Then ask the instructor to help us work on those. Now, that’s a good way to become an excellent pilot! By being honest with ourselves about our weaknesses. “

“I had one guy at a seminar ask me, “How do I decide what my weak areas are?” I told him to use the same thought process he probably had going for his private pilot checkride. I think most of us went to that ride praying the examiner would not get too deep into a subject area we thought we were a little weak on”.

“When you think about it, I find it amazing we can take to the sky, with family and friends on board, and fly all over the U.S. with only 40 hours of flight training. That’s why the examiner always says, “This is your license to learn” when he gives you that first temporary airman certificate. It may seem like a long time, but I recent experienced something that really put it in perspective. I was getting my hair cut when I noticed the young lady had a North Carolina Board of Cosmetology license in her cubicle. I asked her, “Does that take a lot of work to earn that?” Her response really shocked me. She said, “Oh, yes! Twelve hundred hours of training.” Wow.”

 

I suppose if it takes 1200 hours to be licensed to cut your hair, as pilots , we should strive to get as many hours of quality education as possible. Whether you opt for an online training course, a safety seminar, or calling up your local CFI and getting some dual, make sure you are learning like you are going to live forever. It might just be that learning that ensures you do so for many years to come.

Image - Version 2

AOPA Air Safety Institute Events: http://www.aopa.org/Pilot-Resources/Air-Safety-Institute/Events

AOPA Webinars: http://www.aopa.org/Pilot-Resources/AOPA-Webinars

EAA Webinars: http://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/aviation-education-and-resources/aviation-videos-and-aviation-photos/eaa-webinars

 

Flying Through Life… pursue your impossibly big dreams

Sunday, March 6th, 2016
Meeting Zen Pilot

Meeting Zen Pilot, Robert DeLaurentis

On a windy day at Whiteman Airport in the LA basin I had the pleasure of spending some time with Robert DeLaurentis, the “Zen Pilot” and met the Spirit of San Diego [Piper Malibu Mirage] in person.   Often in the air more than on the ground, Robert  lives and breathes the adventure of flying while spreading the message of abundance, connection, and safety.

He is a noted speaker and author with a successful real estate business and over 1250 flight hours as a private pilot. Robert has his private, instrument and multi-engine ratings and holds a commercial pilot certificate and an advanced graduate degree in Spiritual Psychology.

His recently completed circumnavigation of the globe in his Piper Malibu was part spiritual journey, part fundraiser for programs at Lindbergh-Schweitzer Elementary School and Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association [AOPA] Spirit of San Diego scholarship fund. He attributes the ability to pursue this lifelong dream of flying around the world to his use of applied spirituality principles.

His first book, Flying Thru Life focuses on helping businesses and individuals go far beyond what they ever believed was possible financially and personally. Robert believes applying the principles outlined in Flying Thru Life allows the manifestation of time and money for people to pursue their sometimes impossibly big dreams.

Spirit of San Diego Students

Students get to meet the Spirit of San Diego

Robert puts forth that we should honor our desires from childhood and our passion. Allowing those desires to unfold helps to manifest them.  “If you ask Spirit to become a painter, you are given a canvas and paint. This is about manifesting. The first step is to ask” Robert says.  He suggests that we be open to what we receive and that it perhaps is a different path than we imagined.  We could be following a path that our parents want us to follow instead of what we are passionate about. “When I honored passion, purpose and Spirit, my life accelerated” he says.

 

When you are in the ground you can see maybe 100 yards or a ½ mile, but in the air you can see 50-100 miles. Are you smarter or do you just have a better perspective on life?

When you are in the ground you can see maybe 100 yards or a ½ mile, but in the air you can see 50-100 miles. Are you smarter or do you just have a better perspective on life?

The book outlines 19 strategies to avoid negative self-talk and to re-frame fear and doubt into passion and purpose in life.  He believes that when we are in alignment with our deepest dreams, desires and hopes, that we will  receive gifts of time, money, and peace of mind. The gift of time manifests into more hours to fly and train. Financial gifts might be the source of money for an airplane, equipment or new rating.

Fear is oftentimes what holds us back from living our authentic life in a peaceful way.  Robert also believes that what shows up in your plane is also reflected in your life, as the cockpit is a schoolroom. Fear manifests itself in so many ways. These fears hold us back in the life and in flying.  Technology makes flying safer and less expensive. Preparation is the key to reduce fear. Practice makes practice, competency comes with practice.

Flying Thru Life

Flying Thru Life

Flying through Life has some great examples for “Type A” personalities.  One example was when an expensive and critical piece of management software not working for his company. The initial discussion with the president of the software company was met with “You didn’t follow the instructions!”  Robert then paused and communicated with the president in a thoughtful way where he told her his fears and then asked for help. The president then became very helpful and together they co-created a solution.

 

Last weekend I flew into San Carlos Airport in the San Francisco Bay area. My arrival was easy enough even though there was a TFR over San Jose Airport for the democratic convention, and San Carlos lies under San Francisco’s airspace and is very near Oakland and San Jose. I told ATC that I was unfamiliar with San Carlos and they were very helpful. The tower guys were super nice when I landed. On the way home I thought I would just fly reverse my steps for arrival. As I was taxing out the tower asked me if I wanted the Bay Meadows departure or the Belmont Slough departure quickly giving me details of each. The Bay Meadows departure sounded closest to what I wanted so I said I would choose it. As I got to the run-up area, I felt a little insecure about the instructions. I didn’t have a copy of the noise abatement procedure in my stack of paperwork I had for the trip. So I did what a lot of pilots maybe don’t do, I asked for clarification and help. “San Carlos Ground, 6619U would like to get clarification on the departure as I am unfamiliar and want to get it right.” “N6619U, San Carlos Ground, we love it when pilots ask questions. Thank you. Fly runway heading to 1200 feet, we will call your left turn to the 101 freeway.” I was so proud of myself for not faking it and asking for needed help.

What’s next for Robert? In addition to being a featured speaker for AOPA at Sun n Fun and their regional fly-ins, Robert is releasing his second book, Zen Pilot in the Summer of 2016.  Robert muses on he latest book which details his trip around the world, “I think to some people it might sound strange, but I believe that flying can be the most spiritual thing that you do. Passion and purpose in alignment with Spirit. For me the spiritual component is enormous. The plane takes you from point A to point B, that is a destination, but flying through life is a journey. When people  asked what I learned about flying around the world, I talk about the dream state. When I was flying there was a point in which I didn’t know if I was flying or dreaming [over North Africa]. It is the place I feel most connected. Planes are magical places.”  A true ambassador of general aviation, Robert’s enthusiasm and goodwill is contagious.  I believe what he wants most is for us all to know that if we can dream it, we also possess the ability to make those dreams come true.

 

To watch the video for Flying Thru Life click here

To purchase the book  click here

earth meets heaven

 

Manual Flying Skills: Keep ‘Em Sharp

Monday, February 29th, 2016

I’ve taught aerobatic and upset recovery courses to many aviators over the years, and almost without exception am told at the conclusion of training that it represented the best investment of time and money they’d ever spent on improving their skills and confidence as a pilot.

In recent years, the corporate, charter, and airline pilots have begun seeking out this kind of skill set as well. It’s a good thing, because as the Department of Transportation recently reported, some of today’s pilots may not have The Right Stuff.

Where the cockpit is concerned, modern light GA aircraft have a lot in common with the latest crop of business jets and airliners. Under normal circumstances these advanced cockpits add to safety. But when things go awry? Well, as our airplanes become more advanced, they also become more complicated, and that can lead to situations which are not covered by handbooks, manuals, and type-specific training.

We’ve all seen the result of unexpected system failures which were not handled properly by the crew. In recent years, Air France 447 suffered from pitot icing which overcame the tube’s heating element and caused air data errors. During the resulting confusion, the crew entered a stall at 38,000 feet which did not end until the Airbus impacted the ocean. Last December, Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501’s crew responded to a malfunction of the aircraft’s rudder limiter by pulling a Flight Augmentation Computer circuit breaker, which had the unintended consequence of disabling the autopilot. The pilots stalled the aircraft and it ultimately crashed into the Java Sea.

Just to show you that this isn’t something that only happens to “other people,” let me give you two examples of my own. I was flying a Gulfstream IV one afternoon when a wide variety of seemingly unrelated components began to fail. Over the course of 45 minutes or so, we lost air data computers, autothrottles, both autopilots, mach trim compensation, yaw dampening, pitch trim, the flight guidance panel, one altitude encoder, cockpit displays, a display controller, symbol generator, TCAS, an inertial reference unit, and many other elements.

Some of these items dropped offline completely. Others froze or began to malfunction. Some were annunciated on the Crew Alerting System, others were not. Now I knew these components were not on the same bus, nor did they have much in common except that they were electrically powered. Yet the electrical system appeared to be operating normally. We were in visual conditions and not far from landing, which added to the pressure. There’s no checklist for this situation, nor was it ever discussed or simulated during training. Do we land? The aircraft’s braking system is electrical. Should we hold?

Without getting into too much detail, this flight ended uneventfully, but by the time we did touch down, I was basically flying the world’s largest Piper Cub: nothing but a stick, throttle, a couple of analog gauges, and a window to look outside. And that was all I needed. As I recall, the failure was traced to a series of malfunctioning relays under the cockpit floor. Our success was a result of focusing on the basic task of flying the airplane. It’s easy to say, but much harder to do when you’re busy and unsure of what’s really going on with your (normally) trusty aircraft. Failures of this kind cause a rapid loss of confidence in the overall airplane. You’re constantly wondering what will fail next.

The second example was related by a friend of mine. After departure, she lost the #1 comm radio. Not a big deal — the jet has two of them. A little while later, that radio also failed. Over the next few minutes, the flight data recorder failed, followed by the slats, flaps, an AHRS, and other associated componentry. The crew was in instrument weather and flew according to lost communication rules, finally making a high speed, no flap/no slat landing at their destination. Their troubles were caused by a cracked potable water tank, which flooded an electrical equipment bay under the rear floor of the aircraft. Gravity being what it is, one might wonder why important circuit boards are located underneath a water tank… but that’s an issue for another day.

So what does this have to do with upset recovery training? Plenty. The odds of coming out of these scenarios in one piece is directly related to the pilot’s ability to retain control of a malfunctioning aircraft, and that’s when the workload falls heavily on his or her manual flying skills. Truth be told, today’s highly automated airplanes don’t help prepare us for situations of this kind. They do the opposite, physically flying the airplane for us most of the time.

Dassault's Falcon 7X

Dassault’s Falcon 7X

You never know when sharp manual flying skills will pay off. In May of 2011, a Falcon 7X on approach into Kuala Lumpur experienced a rapid nose-up runaway trim condition which could not be stopped. The Falcon 7X was the first fly-by-wire business jet and had been in service for only four years, so this incident caught the attention of many people. It was serious enough that the entire 7X fleet was subsequently grounded. The final accident report was not issued until February of 2016, almost five years later, which should provide an indication of how complex the accident chain was on this event.

Oh, and the crew? They did it right, using a manual flying technique which, while it’s not taught in any type rating course I’m aware of, is taught by myself and others with an aerobatic background. In this case, the pilot learned it while flying Dassault’s other line of airplanes for the military:

While descending through 13000 feet, towards Kuala Lumpur, the elevator pitch trim began to move from neutral to the full nose-up position in 15 seconds time. This resulted in a sudden pitch up of the aircraft to 40° and the aircraft entering a climb. Initially both the captain (Pilot Monitoring) and the copilot (Pilot Flying) were both using the side stick in an attempt to regain control. The copilot then used the priority button to override the captain’s side stick inputs and asked him to stop. The copilot, a former military pilot with experience on Mirage IV and Mirage 2000 jets, then put the aircraft in a right hand bank to a maximum of 98 degrees.

Sudden, uncommanded full nose-up trim is about as bad as it gets when you’re talking about loss-of-control scenarios, yet the pilot was astute enough to remember that he could offset the unwanted lift by banking the jet. Have you been trained on this technique? The pilot had to deal with a beyond-knife-edge flight attitude, load factors as high as 4.6 G, and altitude which ballooned from 13,000 feet to 22,500 feet. What a ride that must have been!

I wasn’t able to locate an English version of the final BEA report, but the French original notes that “the Pilot Flying had performed this maneuver many times during his military career.” After 2 minutes and 35 seconds, the trim motor overheated and was finally cut off, allowing the crew to regain pitch control.

The investigation determined that a small soldering defect on one pin of a computer chip in the Horizontal Stabilizer Electronic Control Unit (HSECU) caused the nose-up instruction to be sent to the Tail Horizontal Stabilizer trim module. Think about the sheer volume of pins, solders, computer chips, and wiring in a modern airplane and you’ll start to realize that these aren’t far-fetched stories borne out of a science fiction novel.

As I said at the top, our aircraft are becoming more complex, and there’s no reason to expect that trend to change. This increases the likelihood of failures and scenarios for which we have not trained. If you’ll pardon the pun, when the chips are down, it’s usually the person behind the controls who determines whether the situation ends with a classic there-I-was hangar story or a fatal accident report.

Time and time again, we see that manual flying skills are as critical to safe flight as any powerplant or airfoil. Let’s keep ’em sharp.

Five Secrets of Cost-Effective Maintenance

Wednesday, February 17th, 2016

Under the FARs, performing maintenance is the job of an A&P mechanic or FAA-approved repair station, but managing maintenance is the aircraft owner’s job. In essence, the FAA looks at each aircraft owner as the Director of Maintenance of a one-aircraft aviation department. Unfortunately, few owners know how do do this important job, and most do it very poorly. Many owners leave it to their A&Ps to manage their maintenance, and then many times wind up unhappy with the outcome.

The essence of good maintenance management can be boiled down to five simple rules. Follow these five principles religiously and you’ll discover that you have a safer and more reliable aircraft while simultaneously spending a whole lot less on maintenance.

Maintenance ShopRule 1. Choose the right shop

To use a building-trades analogy, an aircraft owner’s job is to act as the “general contractor” for his aircraft maintenance. The owner hires skilled tradesmen—maintenance shops, mechanics and other technicians—to do the necessary maintenance work, then manages them to ensure they perform as desired and that they come in within schedule and budget, and occasionally fires them if they don’t perform to expectations.

The owner’s most important job by far is the first one: hiring the right shop, mechanic or technician for the job. If you hire the right person for the job, the rest tends to work out well. If you hire the wrong person, the best management skills in the world may not be sufficient to rescue the situation.

Many owners don’t take this responsibility seriously enough. Often, they simply use the shop at their home base because it’s convenient to do so. Or they choose a mechanic because he seems friendly. Or one that some aircraft owner friend has nice things to say about.

Doing the job right requires much more “due diligence” than that. You need to interview a prospective shop or mechanic just as you would a prospective employee. What do you look for in such an interview? Lots of things, but the most important attributes you should look for are what I call “the three C’s.” The mechanic (or the shop’s director of maintenance) must be competent, communicative, and cooperative.

  • Competent means that the mechanic or DOM has as much experience as possible with your particular make and model of aircraft. A mechanic’s “total time” is far less important than his “time in type” with your particular make and model. Just because a mechanic has done a great job on your friend’s Bonanza doesn’t mean that he’s competent to work on your Cirrus. Before you hire a mechanic, grill him about his experience with your particular make and model. Try to find someone with the most “time in type” posible.
  • Communicative means that the mechanic or DOM is committed to keeping you “in the loop” while your aircraft is in the shop—keeping you continually apprised of status, and consulting you whenever a decision needs to be made. Many mechanics are excellent at this, but many others are not—their attitude is often “you hired me because I’m an expert at what I do, so please go away, leave me alone, and let me do my job.” If a mechanic has this attitude, run (don’t walk) away.
  • Cooperative means that the mechanic or DOM is someone that you find easy to talk to, and who is willing to listen to your directions and desires and do things your way to the extent that he can (while still complying with applicable FARs). It means someone you “can do business with.” Once again, many mechanics are cooperative and customer-oriented, while others are rigid and dogmatic—they believe that there are only two ways to do something: their way and the wrong way. Dogmatic mechanics tend to view the world in black and white, while cooperative ones view it as it actually is: a thousand shades of gray. Seek out the cooperative, customer-oriented ones—avoid the dogmatic ones like the plague.

Repair EstimateRule 2. Insist on a written estimate

Your next job is to ensure that the shop doesn’t wind up presenting you with an invoice that will make you faint or take out a second mortgage. How do you accomplish that? Simple: Always make sure you know what maintenance is going to cost before you approve it.

You might think this is so obvious that it’s not worth saying. You’d be wrong. It always astonishes me how often even experienced and sophisticated owners approve maintenance without knowing what it’s going to cost, and then suffer from serious “sticker shock” when they get the invoice. It also astonishes me how often shops undertake expensive work without obtaining the owner’s explicit and informed approval.

The irony is that this couldn’t happen if it were your automobile that was in the shop for maintenance rather than your airplane. Virtually every state has laws and regulations that require automotive maintenance shops to present each client with a detailed work order and cost estimate, and to obtain the client’s explicit approval (usually in writing) before starting work. Those same laws and regulations usually prohibit the shops from exceeding the agreed-to estimate by any significant amount without going back to the client and obtaining approval of an amended estimate.

There are no such laws and regulations for aircraft maintenance facilities. Aircraft owners are generally assumed to be smart enough to find out what the work is going to cost and get it in writing before giving approval to proceed. Bad assumption! It’s amazing how often aircraft owners fail to ask the threshold question “what’s that going to cost” before approving work, and only find out the answer at invoice time when it’s too late to affect the outcome.

Ah, but what about an annual inspection, where the shop doesn’t know what things will cost until they open up the aircraft and inspect it? That’s easy, too. Owners must insist that an annual inspection be divided up into three distinct, sequential phases: inspection, approval, and repair.

During the first phase (which is typically covered by the shop’s flat rate inspection fee), the shop opens the aircraft, inspects both the physical aircraft and the maintenance records, and generates a report listing the discrepancies found. That discrepency list should clearly identify “airwothiness items” from other, lesser discrepancies. It should also include a specific repair recommendation for each discrepancy, and a specific cost estimate for parts, labor, and outside work.

During the second phase, the owner reviews the discrepancy list, recommendations and estimates. He asks questions about anything he doesn’t fully understand to ensure “informed consent.” He may want to get a second opinion on some items from another mechanic, type club tech rep, or other expert. He may want to explore various alternatives to the repair recommendations offered by the shop. At the conclusion of this phase, the owner goes back to the shop with specific direction (preferably in writing) as to which items on the list he wants repaired, and how he wants the repairs to be done.

During the third phase, the shop performs the repairs as directed, and the owner fully expects that the invoice will conform fairly closely with the written esimates that he has approved. Should unforeseen contingencies arise while doing the work (as they sometimes do), the shop must stop work, go back to the owner with an amended estimate, and obtain the owners explicit authorization to proceed (or not).

As obvious as this may seem, it’s frightening how often it doesn’t occur. Many shops engage in a practice that I call “inspect a little, fix a little, inspect a little, fix a little, lather, rinse, repeat.”  If a shop does that, then there’s no clear “decision point” at which the owner can review the discrepancy list and cost estimates, achieve informed consent, and give explicit authorization to proceed. Owners must insist that shops not operate in this fashion, and fire them if they won’t cooperate.

Rule 3. If it ain’t broke, don’t let ‘em fix it

Every aircraft service manual contains page after page of recommendations for scheduled preventive maintenance. Do this every 50 hours. Do that every 100. Do something else once a year. The lists of scheduled tasks go on and on. The service manual for my Cessna 310 has no less than 350 separate scheduled maintenance tasks.

Any owner who follows the manufacturer’s scheduled maintenance recommendations is simply throwing money down the drain. Why? Simply because the very notion of a one-size-fits-all maintenance schedule makes no sense from a scientific or engineering point of view. It makes absolutely no sense to apply the same maintenance schedule to an aircraft based in Tampa and one based in Tucson. Or one that flies 30 hours a year and another than flies 300. Or one that’s tied down outdoors and another that lives in a heated hangar. Yet that’s what the service manual recommendations call for.

ActuatorConsider this: My Cessna 310 service manual calls for removing, disassembling, cleaning, lubricating, reassembling and reinstalling the elevator, rudder, and aileron trim tab actuators every 200 hours. The service manual for virtually every Cessna single and twin model has a similar recommendation. This involves at least 6 to 8 hours of work. So if you actually “did it by the book,” you’d add roughly $3 per hour to the cost of flying just for trim tab actuator maintenance.

In the 29 years and nearly 5,000 hours that I’ve owned my Cessna 310, I’ve never disassembled or lubricated any of the three trim tab actuators. Not once! Why? Simply because they didn’t need it—and last time I looked, you don’t get extra credit for doing unnecessary maintenance.

How do I know the trim tab actuators didn’t need to be lubricated? Because I check their condition at least annually, and it takes all of two minutes to do so. The procedure is dead simple: First, climb into the cockpit and rotate the trim wheel all the way from one end of its range to the other, checking to see whether the trim wheel rotates smoothly without any sign of resistance or binding. Second, climb back out of the cockpit, walk over to the trim tab, measure how much free-play it has, and check that against the maximum allowable free-play set forth in the service manual. If the trim wheel moves smoothly through its full range, and if the trim tab does not have excessive free-play, then the trim tab actuator is just fine and doesn’t need to be messed with.

Okay, so if a Cessna trim tab actuator can go for 29 years and nearly 5,000 hours without needing to be lubricated, why does Cessna say to do it every 200 hours? Because Cessna’s service manual recommendations have to work for every airplane in the fleet, even the worst-case airplane. And there’s probably some Cessna somewhere—probably a Cessna 185 on floats up in Alaska that spends six months of the year operating off salt water and the other six months of the year locked up in a hangar because the weather is too bad to fly—that actually does need to have its trim tab actuators lubricated every 200 hours! But my airplane lives in a hangar and flies regularly, so servicing the trim tab actuators on my airplane every 200 hours would be gross overkill.

More to the point, it never makes sense to maintain a component on a fixed timetable (i.e., every so many hours or so many months) when it’s feasible to monitor the condition of the component (which takes two minutes for trim tab actuators) and maintain it only when the condition monitoring tests indicate that maintenance is actually required. We call this “condition-directed maintenance” (CDM) as opposed to “time-directed maintenance” (TDM).

CDM is always more efficient than TDM, because it causes components to be maintained only when they actually need maintenance, instead of when the manufacturer guesses it might need maintenance. Especially when the manufacturer’s guesses are heavily laced with pessimism to account for the worst-case airplane in the fleet.

We should only perform TDM when CDM is unfeasible because no practical condition-monitoring technique exists. Studies show that CDM is feasible for well over 90% of the components in our aircraft.

Many shops and mechanics insist on “doing everything by the book,” and often suggest to owners that this is required by regulation. In fact, manufacturer-recommended maintenance schedules are almost never required by regulation (unless you own an LSA), and almost always represent a huge waste of money. If your shop is one of those “do it by the book” facilities, just say “no.” And if they won’t take “no” for an answer, find another shop.

Rule 4. Don’t fix it until you’re sure what’s wrong

How many of you have had the experience of putting your aircraft in the shop to get some squawk fixed, then getting it back from the shop with an invoice, only to find on the first flight after maintenance that the squawk wasn’t fixed? Hmmm… I see a lot of hands raised, and I see a bunch of you with both hands raised. Seriously, I doubt there’s an aircraft owner who hasn’t had this experience, and most have had it multiple times.

TroubleshootingAnytime this happens, you’ve experienced a troubleshooting failure. The shop wasn’t lying on the invoice when it claimed to have spent H hours working on the problem, and D dollars in replacement parts. The problem is that the H hours of labor and the D dollars in parts didn’t fix the problem. Therefore, clearly the H hours were spent working on the wrong thing, and the D dollars were spent replacing parts that didn’t actually need to be replaced. Why? Because the shop tried to fix the problem without first thoroughly understanding its cause. That’s a troubleshooting failure!

Inadequate troubleshooting is probably the single biggest cause of wasted maintenance dollars. Why does it happen? There are a number of reasons. One is that many aircraft problems occur only in flight and cannot be reproduced in the maintenance hangar—and if a mechanic can’t reproduce the problem, then there’s no way for him to troubleshoot it systematically, and he’s forced to resort to guesswork about the cause of the problem (and those guesses are often wrong). Another is that good troubleshooting requires excellent systems knowledge, and sometimes our mechanics don’t know some of the systems on our aircraft as well as they should (which is usually our fault for picking the wrong mechanic for the job).

Never let a mechanic try to fix something unless and until you’re quite sure that he has diagnosed the problem thoroughly and understands exactly what’s causing it. Try never to put a mechanic in the position where he has to guess what’s wrong. When mechanics guess, owners often wind up throwing money down the drain.

OverkillRule 5. Don’t overkill the problem

Finally, when your airplane has a problem and you’ve diagnosed it properly, get it fixed but don’t go overboard. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen airplanes go into annual with one or two weak cylinders and come out with a $20,000 top overhaul. That’s nuts. If you have one or two weak cylinders, have them repaired—or replaced if they turn out to be unrepairable—but for Pete’s sake leave the rest of the cylinders alone.

Recently, I was corresponding with a T210 owner who explained to me that at his 2007 annual inspection, the compression test revealed one cylinder that measured 50/80, so the mechanic replaced the cylinder with a new one (at a cost of $2,000). Then at the 2008 annual, another cylinder came up 50/80, and the owner decided to major the engine (at a cost of $45,000)!

Give me a break! We don’t overhaul engines because of weak cylinders! We repair the cylinders, or if they’re unrepairable we replace them. We only overhaul an engine when something goes wrong with the “bottom end” that can only be repaired by splitting the case—a spalled cam, a cracked case, a prop strike, or something like that.

This stuff really works!

That’s all there is to it:

  1. Chose the right shop—one that’s comptent, communicative, and cooperative.
  2. Insist on a written discrepancy list and estimate before approving any work.
  3. If it ain’t broke, don’t let them fix it.
  4. Don’t let them fix it until you’re sure what’s wrong.
  5. Don’t overkill the problem.

These five simple rules encapsulate the essence of good maintenance management. Follow them and you’ll wind up with a safe, reliable airplane while saving many thousands of dollars a year in unnecessary maintenance costs. My company provides professional maintenance management services, and we employ these principles every day managing the maintenance of 600 airplanes and have saved our clients millions. I guarantee they’ll work just as well for you.

One Six Right, see it again for the first time

Tuesday, February 9th, 2016

“As a filmmaker you want to be able to affect, move and inspire.” Brian J. Terwilliger

 16R

On a bright sunny Los Angeles day last week I was lucky enough to get to check in with movie maker Brian J. Terwilliger at his office in Universal Studios. We had first met in July at Oshkosh when he did a media screening of his latest movie Living in the Age of Airplanes. Brian and I spent a little under an hour talking in July about general aviation, movie making and life. However with the 10th anniversary of his documentary film, One Six Right: the Romance of Flying and its release on Blu-ray, I wanted to follow up.

Brian says he was passionate about aviation since childhood. As many future aviators he spent time making airplane models and watching the sky. He learned to fly at Van Nuys Airport KVNY, and later made the iconic airport his muse for One Six Right.

Sigmund Freud is attributed for saying that a human needs four things to be healthy:

1) work you love to do;

2) love of friends and family;

3) physical health;

4) passion.

When I am working with counseling clients I often describe passion as the one thing that you have a hard time explaining to someone who doesn’t share that passion. Luckily for us aviation-addicts, One Six Right was released in 2005 to help capture the love of flying and the value of our airports.

Flash forward ten years to the re-release onto Blu-Ray. “One Six Right was filmed with a state-of-the-art digital cinema camera, though due to the technical limitations of DVDs which display less than 20 percent of the camera’s resolution, the audience has never seen the full quality of the film,” said producer/director Brian J. Terwilliger. “The Blu-ray is not only six times the resolution of the DVD, we went back to the original camera masters and re-digitized every frame, re-mastering each shot to achieve more vibrant colors and sharper images by using tools not previously available. It looks better now than it did on the night of the premiere!” The anniversary edition Blu-ray includes the special features from the DVD plus the entirety of One Six Left (the companion DVD), including “The Making of One Six Right.” The Blu-ray also features 10-minutes of never seen before air-to-air footage of 12 different airplanes — all in high definition. Watching anniversary edition is almost like watching a different movie. The aerial photography sequences are simply stunning. Click HERE to see the DVD/Blu-ray comparison video.

One Six Right was five years in the making. Brian describes that during the project he was compelled to tell the story of general aviation. I have to admit that I love the word compel. For me it means that the gift just has to come out of us. Now that the Blu-ray of One Six Right is out, I would highly encourage folks to pick up a copy and share it with your friends and neighbors. As pilots we truly live life in three dimensions. Our passion for airports and airplanes is sometimes very hard to describe to those on the ground. Luckily for us we have this great aviation film to move and inspire us.Kids_at_Fence

 

Born in to the Golden Age of Aviation

Tuesday, January 26th, 2016

The Golden Age of aviation started when Lindbergh flew across the Atlantic 1927, and continued to 1939. According to Norm Baker, aviation was on everyone’s mind in the country, with air races, speed records, Lindbergh and Earhart. As child he built model airplanes and looked skyward. His was a family of modest means, yet his parents fully supported his dreams of becoming an aviator.

“As a child I always loved the look of airplanes, that is why I built model airplanes. The look of something detached from the Earth, all alone. I wanted to look at the Earth from the sky”

Norm was 8 years old when the DC-3 first flew in 1935. As a 12-year-old Boy Scout he dreamed of someday flying a DC3. In 1941 the Piper Aviation Company sponsored a national contest to build a J3 Cub model. 13-year-old Norm entered the contest and by mail received the contest rules and specs. Immediately he went down to hobby shop to buy balsa wood, glue etc. Maybe fortunately, Norm didn’t win first prize but won a lower prize: flight lessons. His supportive parents allowed him, at age 13, to get lessons.

Flushing Airport, Queens NY

Flushing Airport, Queens NY

In 1941 Piper Aviation paid for lessons for Norm at Speed’s Flying Service at Flushing Airport in Queens [which no longer exists]. Of course, he learned to fly in J3 Cub. A quick study he was eligible for solo with 8 hours of instruction, but Norm had to wait until his 17th birthday in 1945. Norm flew the same Cub all the way to pilots license at 40 hours, age 18 years. Had it not been for the prize money from Piper, he would not have been able to afford lessons.

Norm recounts how Speed Hanzlik may have saved he and his brother’s lives when he flew from Ithaca New York to Flushing airport during school break. “It must have been 1946 after I had my private pilot’s license and we flew down to Flushing where our parents were waiting to take us home for the holiday. Inexperienced pilot that I was I didn’t plan my flight well and arrived after dark in a Piper Cub with no lights and no radio. I managed to find the field and was enormously relieved to see the runway lighted by automobile headlights arranged to be there by Speed.”

Norm later attended Cornell University Ithaca, New York, studying engineering. He joined Cornell Pilot’s Club, 26 students owned one Piper Deluxe, side by side.

Norm was also enamored with the sea and joined the Naval Reserve. In 1951-53 when the Korean War broke out he was assigned to a destroyer- USS Samuel N. Moore DD747. As the ship’s Navigator, Norm had to be a celestial navigator for there was no radar more than 200 miles off shore and GPS hadn’t yet been invented. He used the sun, stars, moon, and planets as navigation aids in mid-ocean.

In 1982 Norm and his wife Mary Ann purchased a 95-foot schooner named the Anne Kristine. The 123-year-old-ship was the oldest continuously used sailing vessel in the world, launched from Norway in 1868. In May of 1991 the Anne Kristine set sail from New York for Tortola. However within thirty-six hours the lives of the crew were in grave danger due to the convergence of two storms Hurricane Grace and the nor’easter that the movie Perfect Storm was written about.   Though the ship was lost in the perfect storm, thanks to a dramatic midnight rescue by Coast Guard, there was no loss of life.

In 1992 Norm went back to his first love, aviation, and started flying again. He bought a 1966 Cessna 172, N4676L, which be lovingly named Anne Kristine II. Norm and wife Mary Ann flew a lot together. He attends EAA AirVenture at Oshkosh annually. A non-smoking marathoner, skier, horseback rider, hiker and swimmer, Norm’s bride, Mary Ann, unaccountably passed away in May 2003 from lung cancer.

Norman Baker with Anne Kristine II Photo Credit: Tracey Eller

Norm never forgot his childhood dream of flying the DC3. He contacted Dan Gryder who owns Elite Flight Services. “You meet people from all walks of life in aviation, and meeting Norm Baker was a true gift.  Norm called me as a cold call, and informed me that he would be taking my DC-3 class. In speaking with him several times, I suspected that Norm was probably retired, but I never asked his age or why he wanted to fly the DC-3″ Dan says.

DC3 Student

DC3 Student, Norm Baker

In December 2015, Norm flew to Griffin Georgia alone in his Cessna 172, fully IFR and holding a second class medical.  “He got out a tow bar and pushed the 172 around like a high school kid would.  Turns out Norm was 87 years old, almost 88 and out flying around America.” Gryder recalls.

Norm attributes his good health to staying active, and a special exercise routine that he complete each day, a ritual that consumed 45-minutes per day but kept him in top shape.

Norm flew the DC-3 and Dan was proud to issue him a new pilots license with the coveted DC-3 type rating on it, And then just for fun he opted for an hour left seat in a jet where he experienced touch and go landings, and a few climbs of over 5000 feet per minute…something he had never seen before. Gryder muses, “He boarded his 172 and flew off into the sunset, but I made a friend on this trip that really affected me in a profound way.  What a shining example for all the rest of us!”

Dan Gryder presents  Norm Baker with this type rating

Dan Gryder presents Norm Baker with his DC3 type rating

I asked Norm about inspiring the love of flight in kids. His answer surprised me a bit. I suppose that many times I think we just need to have big events, and get lots of kids in airplanes. Norm paused and thought about it. He said that he has to spend time with the child. “I have to know what the child looks at that thrills him. You have to talk about what the kid wants to hear, what lights them up. They might ask, “Can I do it?” We need to be able to say, “Yes you can!”

Norm Baker was lucky to be born into the Golden Age of Aviation. Perhaps the lesson I take away from meeting Norm is our ability in the aviation community to make our current age a golden age. Yes, we need to have events at our airports, and get loads of kids into our airplanes, but as well, we need to slow down and really talk with our youth. Find out what lights them up about aviation. That way we can all resoundingly say, “Yes you can!”

To give anything less than your best, is to sacrifice the gift

Wednesday, December 9th, 2015

Toys for Tots 2015Toys for Tots BackThis past weekend was our eighth annual Toys for Tots event at Oceano Airport.  I was honored by the US Marine Corps with a Warrior Coin for organizing the Friends of Oceano Airport‘s effort.  As I accepted the award on behalf of our volunteers,  I thought about the quote from Steve Prefontaine, the runner from University of Oregon, “To give anything less than your best, is to sacrifice the gift.” I was raised with this ideal.

Putting on an airport event of this magnitude is a lot of work to be certain. From publicity, to preparation, to staging, setup, to day-of -the-event, there are always roadblocks and hurdles to any sort of activity the involves hundreds of people or numbers of airplanes. I am usually exhausted after the last guest leaves our airport.  The medallion is lovely, and I will cherish it,  but I believe to give one’s best is a reward unto itself.

Aeronca Santa

Aeronca Santa

Our event is always the first Saturday in December.  For us, it signals the beginning of the holiday season.  It is so fun to see people with their arms loaded with gifts to put under the tree, wearing antlers and Santa hats.To see the aviation community flock to our beach side airport with airplanes full of toys was thrilling.  We had about a hundred people and forty airplanes join us at our airport for the activities that included an elf catapult, holiday music featuring the Jingle Bells, BBQ lunch, and the all important toy collection.

It was during the toy collection that I met a charming six year old girl named Naya Pearson.  Naya came to hear her Aunt Terri sing and bring a big bag of toys to donate.  But the story of this remarkable child doesn’t stop there.  Because if we stick with the premise of this article we can’t possibly end here.

When Naya found out about the event, she wanted to be able to bring toys to put under the tree.  She didn’t ask her parents to buy toys that she picked out.  Instead Naya brought toys that she bought with her very own money that she earned at her homemade lemonade and vegetable stand.  She raised even more money by singing at her  lemonade stand for tips.

Naya and her bear

Naya and her bear

 

With her money she purchased six beautiful toys and a lovely stuffed bear.  SIX YEARS OLD.  To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift. Naya’s best was to give of herself, her talent and her light.  Those gifts will help children she doesn’t even know.

Our weekend at Oceano Airport was much the same. We all did our best.   We had airplanes from Los Angeles, Bakersfield, San Diego, Stockton, Apple Valley and our local airports. Those pilots donated their fuel, time and effort to come and make someone’s Christmas brighter.  Thirty brothers from Lambda Chi Alpha fraternity donated two days of service again this year to help our local families.  Empirical Systems Aerospace sponsored our music which put us all in the Christmas spirit. Our volunteers made sure there was wood in our fire pits [though it was 75 degrees and sunny] and visitors were greeted.  Kids who always wanted to get a look at at airplane or a gyro-plane got to talk to the owner or get inside.  Look at Naya, the toothless smile, the zeal. Admit it, you get the same look when you nail a landing, or take off and see the mist over the Smoky Mountains, or see the Pismo Dunes at sunset. Your best, or we sacrifice the gift.

The A&P Exam

Thursday, September 17th, 2015

Although I’ve been an aircraft owner since the late 1960s and heavily involved in GA maintenance since the late 1980s, I didn’t actually become an official card-carrying A&P mechanic until 2001. By the time I decided to go for my A&P ticket, I was already a pretty seasoned aircraft mechanic with a reputation for encyclopedic knowledge of aircraft systems and an aptitude for being able to troubleshoot thorny maintenance issues that had other mechanics stumped. I figured that passing the A&P exam would be a piece of cake.

I figured wrong.

An applicant for an A&P certificate must take and pass three multiple-choice 100-question knowledge tests.

An applicant for an A&P certificate must take and pass three multiple-choice 100-question knowledge tests.

By way of background, an applicant for an A&P certificate must surmount three sequential FAA-imposed hurdles. First, the applicant must prove to his FSDO that he has the minimum required experience performing maintenance on civil aircraft: 30 months on a full-time basis, or 4,800 hours on a part-time basis. Second, the applicant must take and pass three multiple-choice 100-question knowledge tests—mechanic general, mechanic airframe, and mechanic powerplant—and score at least 70% on each one. Third, the applicant must submit to an exhaustive (not to mention exhausting) oral and practical test with a Designated Mechanic Examiner—the mechanic’s equivalent to a checkride—which is normally at least a full-day affair.

When I started studying for the three A&P knowledge tests, my first surprise was the study syllabus, which struck me as being firmly anchored in the 1940s. For example, in preparing for the powerplant test, I reviewed more than 1,000 multiple-choice questions from the FAA’s “question bank” and found that the overwhelming emphasis was on radial engines, pressure carburetors, Hamilton Standard hydramatic propellers, and similar subjects of unquestionable interest to warbird buffs but of absolutely no relevance to contemporary GA aircraft of the sort that interested me. There were only a handful of questions about horizontally-opposed engines, perhaps two or three about fuel injection, only one about modern Hartzell compact hub propellers, and nothing at all about McCauleys.

The question bank for the powerplant test contained not a syllable about any technology that was less than 30 years old. Nothing about engine monitor data analysis, borescope inspections, spectrographic oil analysis, or scanning electron microscopy of oil filter contents. Nothing about compression ignition (Diesel) engines or electronic ignition systems or FADECs or lean-of-peak operation. Similarly, the airframe test was devoid of questions about composite construction (unless you count wood and fabric, which I suppose is the original composite).

To be fair to the FAA, there were actually lots of questions about “modern” 1960-vintage technologies, but they were all related to turbine and transport aircraft. To score a decent grade on the tests, it was obvious that I would need to master lots of material about turboprop and turbojet engines, air cycle machines, Roots blowers, and other esoterica that I knew I’d never remember or have any use for once the test was done.

Mastering the wrong answers

I took my three A&P knowledge tests at a local computerized testing center.

I took my three A&P knowledge tests at a local computerized testing center.

This was frustrating enough, but what really bugged me was that the “official FAA answer” to many of these multiple-choice questions was often the wrong answer. It became obvious that if I wanted to get a good score on the mechanic knowledge tests, I’d have to commit these “FAA answers” to memory even though I knew that they were the wrong answers.

Would you like to see some examples? Here are some actual questions from the 2001 FAA mechanic exam question bank, with the “official FAA answer” that would be used by the FAA to grade the exam:

#8072. Which fuel/air mixture will result in the highest engine temperature (all other factors remaining constant)?

A—A mixture leaner than a rich best-power mixture of .085.

B—A mixture richer than a full-rich mixture of .087.

C—A mixture leaner than a manual lean mixture of .060.

FAA-approved answer: C.

Discussion: Stoichiometric mixture (peak EGT) is around 15:1 or .067, so the FAA-approved answer C (“leaner than .060″ or about 17:1) would be very lean-of-peak, far leaner than most engines can run without unacceptable roughness (unless they are fuel-injected and have tuned fuel nozzles). This is definitely a mixture at which the engine would run cool, not hot. Of the three choices given, the “most correct answer” is A. The FAA-approved answer (C) is just plain wrong, and perpetuates the Old Wives’ Tale that rich mixtures are cool and lean mixtures are hot. With training like this, is it any wonder so many A&Ps blame almost every cylinder malady to LOP operation?

#8678. Why must a float-type carburetor supply a rich mixture during idle?

A—Engine operation at idle results in higher than normal volumetric efficiency.

B—Because at idling speeds the engine may not have enough airflow around the cylinder to provide proper cooling.

C—Because of reduced mechanical efficiency during idle.

FAA-approved answer: B

Discussion: None of the given answers is correct, but the FAA-approved one is the probably the worst possible choice, because it suggests that pilots should keep the mixture full-rich during idle and taxi in order to obtain proper cooling. Do you suppose that OWT explains why so many pilots taxi around at full-rich and foul the crap out of their spark plugs? Are they learning this from their A&Ps? Here’s the correct answer: “Because a very rich mixture is required for cold-starting, and aircraft carburetors don’t have a choke to provide such a rich mixture (the way automotive carbs do), so the idle mixture has to be set extremely rich … which is why as soon as the engine starts to warm up, you need to come back on the mixture control.” Of course, that answer isn’t one of the choices offered.

#8773. Carburetor icing is most severe at…

A—air temperatures between 30 and 40 degrees F.

B—high altitudes.

C—low engine temperatures.

FAA-approved answer: A

Discussion: Are you kidding me? The AOPA Air Safety Foundation briefing on carb ice states, “Icing is most likely to occur—and to be severe—when temperatures fall roughly between 50°F and 70°F and the relative humidity is greater than 60%.” It shows a gory photo of the fatal crash of a Cessna 182 caused by carb ice that formed at OAT 80°F and dewpoint 45°F. If the FAA genius who wrote this question was a pilot, it’s a sure bet that most of his experience is flying Gulfstreams, not Skylanes. (Keep in mind that to get a decent grade on the A&P knowledge test, you have to memorize these FAA-approved wrong answers, or risk failing!)

#8829. Which of the following defects would likely cause a hot spot on a reciprocating engine cylinder?

A—Too much cooling fin area broken off.

B—A cracked cylinder baffle.

C—Cowling air seal leakage.

FAA-approved answer: A

Discussion: Once again, the FAA offers three possible answers and then claims that the “wrongest” one is the one they consider correct. Every IA I’ve asked agrees with me that by far the most likely cause is a bad baffle (answer B), and none has ever seen a case where a cooling fin was broken off badly enough to create an issue.

#8982. If a flanged propeller shaft has dowel pins…

A—install the propeller so that the blades are positioned for hand propping.

B—the propeller can be installed in only one position.

C—check carefully for front cone bottoming against the pins.

FAA-approved answer: B

Discussion: Well that’s interesting. The Continental TSIO-520-BB engines on my 1979 Cessna T310R have flanged propeller shafts. Each flange has a pair of identical dowel pins spaced 180° apart. This permits my three-bladed McCauley C87 props to be installed in two possible orientations, one that results in the vertical blade pointing down when the engine stops, and the other that results in the vertical blade pointing up. According to the Cessna service manual, only one of these orientations is the correct one, so you need to be careful when installing the prop. The FAA-approved answer (B) is just plain wrong. So are the other two answers.

I could go on, but you get the idea.

Mind-numbing

results.

Here’s irrefutable proof that I was able to remember all those FAA-approved wrong answers long enough to score 96, 99 and 99 on my three mechanic knowledge tests.

Well, it took me many hours of study, practice and drill to memorize all of the FAA-approved wrong answers to the thousands of multiple-choice questions in the question bank. As you can imagine, going through this mind numbing exercise was a character-building experience that greatly expanded my vocabulary (of expletives) and bolstered my respect for the cutting-edge mindset of our favorite friendly federal agency.

I guess I must’ve done a workmanlike job of studying and memorizing, because when I finally took the three FAA knowledge tests at my “Don’t try this at home, kids” LaserGrade computerized testing center, I scored 96% on the general and 99% on both the airframe and powerplant. (See Figure 1.) I don’t want to brag, but it’s a rare skill to master so many wrong answers so consistently in such a short period of time, if I do say so myself.

Once the exams were done and my scores were in the bag, I celebrated with the obligatory overnight soak of my brain’s medial temporal lobe (seat of long-term memory) in a 50-50 mixture of cheap champagne and methyl ethyl ketone, just to make absolutely sure all those FAA-approved wrong answers and Old Wives’ Tales were permanently purged from my gray matter. After all, it would certainly be embarrassing to inadvertently pass any of them on to the next generation of A&P mechanics, wouldn’t it?