"Contact the Tower..."

The Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) at my more northerly "home 'drome", Sikorsky Memorial Airport (KBDR), is scheduled to close on or about the 5th of May due to the funding cut-off known as "sequestration". The closure seems to be for an indeterminate period. After Cinco de Mayo, KBDR will become a non-towered field.

photo: Connecticut Post

The tower at KBDR is one of well over 100 "contract towers" that the FAA is standing down to save money. Arguably, some towers that are to be closed are in fact busier than some FAA-staffed towers that will remain open. But the plug can be pulled on the contractor operations with far less bureaucratic fallout than would ensue if the jobs of Federal employees were affected. The half-dozen or so controllers at KBDR, employees of Midwest Air Traffic Control Service, Inc. who I hold in high regard, will be out of work.

It has been quite interesting to attend to the comments from various parts of the aviation community as the tower closures went from rumored to probable to inevitable. Many voices have been raised (some informed, some less so) to decry a predicted reduction in "safety" with the closing of these facilities. But a substantial part of the community is adopting a "Keep Calm and Carry On" attitude. In truth, pilots have always known how to operate around non-towered fields without undue risk and I am quite confident that operations will continue without a sudden epidemic of bent aluminum.

There are, however, two issues raised by the sequestration-related tower closures that have not been widely discussed. One is short term and operational in nature, the other is long term and can change the nature of the system in which we fly.

The tower at an airport like Sikorsky Memorial has two main functions that affect me in my comings and goings. The first and most important is to "control" local traffic, both on the ground and airborne, so as to maintain safe, orderly and expeditious use of the available runways. Traffic at a fairly low-volume field like KBDR, operating under non-towered field procedures, will no doubt become somewhat less expeditious, slightly less orderly, and (I contend) just about as safe. Pilots arriving and departing VFR (i.e., under Visual Flight Rules) should hardly notice the difference. But there may be a significant impact on pilots operating IFR (under Instrument Flight Rules) as N631S and I usually do, absent the tower's other normal function.

The control tower provides a link between the departing or arriving IFR pilot and Approach Control. The tower controller delivers your IFR clearance, obtains your release and sends you on your way. On arrival, it's the tower that cancels your IFR flight plan. Now, IFR pilots will need to interface directly with the TRACON to accomplish these things.

There is no reason that any of this needs to be a big deal. I do it routinely, interacting with Potomac Consolidated TRACON when departing or arriving at KVKX in the DC area. But – the TRACON's are going to be having some sequestration effects of their own. It's reported that controllers will be getting an unpaid day off per payroll period and that translates into fewer controllers on station and higher workloads for the ones on duty. So I expect that departing KBDR on a busy Friday afternoon in the summer when convective weather is rumbling around the area could become difficult. Problems picking up clearances and long waits for release may become the norm. I hope that a few weeks will suffice for development of "work-arounds" and for all the players to adapt.

The second issue that needs some discussion concerns the length of the tower shutdown. There is, I believe, a very significant probability that for many of the closing towers – and I think KBDR is one – the closure may be permanent. Here's the problem:

The chart above (you can click on it to make it readable) depicts annual airport operations at KBDR from 1994 (the year I got my Private Pilot's license) through 2012 with a trend line extending out another five years. The data is from the FAA's Air Traffic Activity System. In 1995 the field had 114,247 operations. Last year it had 61,911, a decline of 45.8%, and the trend line suggests a further drop to about 45,000 by 2017. There is some variability in the data but the long term trend is unmistakable...traffic at KBDR is going away.

I remember a sunny Sunday afternoon in 1995, when I was flying a Cessna 172N (N6583D, I believe) rented from the old Bridgeport Air Center. I'd departed KBDR, flown around for a while just enjoying the delightful day, done a couple of touch & go's at Oxford, then returned to Bridgeport. Arriving there, I found myself one of eight airplanes in the traffic pattern, a number of them students in closed traffic exhibiting shaky pattern discipline (not that I was so great at that point). The tower controller was holding on by his fingernails – but he was hanging on. Making right traffic for Runway 29, I was asked for a left 270 for spacing. An airplane arriving after me was told, "Remain clear of the Class Delta". I soon got my turn at the runway and was grateful for it.

That's the kind of day when you need a tower. Those kinds of days don't happen any more. In 1994 there were three active flight schools at KBDR. Today there is one (plus a few independent instructors). I really don't recall the last time there were more than two airplanes in the pattern while I was flying. The bottom line is that even after the budgetary kerfuffle that led to sequestration is over, it may be very difficult to justify re-opening the tower at KBDR given current traffic levels. And many more of the towers being closed this spring are likely to be in a similar situation. As a result, the once ubiquitous Class D tower may become a rarity.

After my next arrival at KBDR, N631S is going in for this year's Annual Inspection, which will take a couple of weeks. So it's quite possible that the next time I hear New York TRACON say, "Bridgeport is at your 12 o'clock, seven miles. Radar service terminated, contact Bridgeport tower on 120.9"...it will be the last time.

Tweet

My '709 Drive

Those of you that visit here regularly will recall that early in January I was involved in an incident wherein N631S struck and slightly damaged another aircraft (described in this post). At the time I had a cordial conversation with Dean, the assigned FAA Inspector who was opening a file on the incident.

A couple of weeks later, I received a letter from the FAA, sent via Certified Mail, inviting me to participate in a re-examination of my qualifications to hold a pilot's certificate. The re-examination would focus (logically enough) on taxiing and ground operations. I had 10 days to get back to them to schedule the event.

This sort of re-examination is conducted under authority granted to the Administrator by 49 USC 44709(a), which says:

Reinspection and Reexamination — The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may reinspect at any time a civil aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, design organization, production certificate holder, air navigation facility, or air agency, or reexamine an airman holding a certificate issued under section 44703 of this title.

The re-examination is usually referred to as "a '709 ride" (from the referenced USC section). In my case, since we would only be dealing with ground operations, it would be more like a '709 drive.

I called Dean at his office at the Windsor Locks Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), located at Bradley International Airport (KBDL). After a couple of false starts related to our conflicting schedules we agreed that N631S and I would meet him today at the Hartford-Brainard airport (KHFD). We'd talk for a while, then I'd taxi around a bit while he watched. He'd be evaluating my competence based on the relevant sections of the Practical Test Standard for Private Pilots.

The morning dawned clear but quite breezy. I took a look at the winds at Brainard and was less than thrilled with what I saw:

 
KHFD 211353Z 29013G23KT 10SM CLR M02/M13 A2992 RMK AO2 SLP131 T10221128

The runway at KHFD is oriented 2 - 20, so a wind from 290 is a direct crosswind. At 13 knots gusting to 23 it was fairly sporty already and I suspected that it could easily get more intense as the day went on. I sent Dean an e-mail saying I looked forward to meeting him and commenting on the winds. Very shortly, he called me and asked if I'd like to meet instead at Bradley (KBDL). Bradley has a Runway 33 that would make the wind perfectly manageable so I accepted immediately.

N631S and I departed Sikorsky Memorial (KBDR) at about noon and had a bumpy forty minute flight up to KBDL. Bradley Approach sequenced us into Runway 33 behind a Delta MD-80. The wind was 31020G26KT, and did not present any problem.

I parked on the ramp at the FSDO and announced myself. Dean came down to collect me and escorted me to a conference room. We sat and talked about my incident and about risk-management in ground operations (a subject to which I have given considerable thought of late). He focused strongly on avoidance of runway incursions – still clearly an FAA 'hot button'. While this was going on, one of Dean's colleagues went out and ramp-checked N631S. He joined us and said the only question he had concerned the cable connecting the portable Garmin gps396 with the panel-mounted GNS-530W. It supplies both 5.0v power and flight-plan data to the portable and he wants to see the log entry supporting the installation. Of course, the airplane's logs are home in Virginia so I am on the hook to dig out the pertinent page and send it to Dean.

After about 45 minutes, Dean said, "OK, let's go out and taxi around."

We went out to N631S, started the engine, and taxied over to the Tac-Air FBO ramp. There, we went through the motions of parking. Dean indicated a few spots and said "Would you park there?" or "Could you pull straight in to that spot", or "How could we best get to that spot over there?". I said 'Yes' or 'No' or 'NO WAY!' in what seem to have been all the right places and after about 15 minutes we taxied back to the FSDO ramp. Dean said he'd send me a letter next week attesting to my competence and continued qualification to hold a Private Pilot's Certificate and I was free to go. N631S and I had a somewhat bumpy but really quick flight back to Bridgeport and it was done.

I can't say it was a pleasure, but the experience was minimally painful. Dean, the FAA Inspector, was cordial and totally professional at every turn. I know all of the jokes about the FAA but none of them applied here. I drew one of the "good guys".

Tweet

Happy New Year (With a Look Back)

This is the fourth year that I've used this post title on 31 December. A year ago, I looked back on 2011 in this post, and a year earlier I reviewed 2010 in this one. The retrospective for 2009 was here.

N631S finished 2012 with 4,391.8 hours on the tach, having flown 184.5 hours in 2012. That's just a bit more than the 2011 total of 175.8 hours. I made the round trip from KVKX in Maryland to KBDR in Connecticut and back 32 times this year, two fewer than last year.

I logged 10.1 hours in actual IMC (instrument meteorological conditions) this year, compared with 2011's 10.0 hours. This year's total of 16 instrument approaches flown in actual conditions is up from last year by six. Time logged as night this year was 9.3 hours, not very different from last year's 10.2.

Once again this year, N631S has been a remarkably reliable machine. Beyond the normally expected maintenance items, the things needing repair have been rather minor:

• During the Annual Inspection in March, one of the aft roller assemblies on the pilot's side seat had to be replaced.
  
• Also at Annual, the muffler was replaced with an overhauled unit.
  
• To clean up a bit of 'hangar rash', the right stabilizer and elevator plastic tips were replaced. We used the opportunity to accomplish a Service Bulletin replacing some rivets in the outboard stabilizer rib with larger ones.
  
• Both magnetos were serviced, and each needed some fairly significant parts renewal.
  
• The baggage door latch failed and was replaced with an overhauled assembly.
  
• The left wing strut upper and lower fairings, badly cracked, had to be replaced. (The ones on the right side will get done at the next annual.)
  
• And finally, two steel brackets in the upper cowling (that mate with the lower cowl at the crankshaft opening) failed due to fatigue cracking and had to be replaced.
  

28 December, crossing the Hudson,
'Clear and a Million!'

This is the 43rd post on this blog for 2012. That compares with 70 in 2011, 100 in 2010 and 128 in 2009. This obvious decline in my productivity here is the result of two things: first, my non-aviation life has gotten somewhat busier, and second, some experiences that would have been "bloggable" in the past now feel repetitive. Perhaps that's a hazard to be expected in this sort of venue. Maybe 2013 will be more interesting, but I have mixed feelings about whether that would be a Good Thing.

In closing, I wish all who may visit here a healthy, prosperous and safe 2013.

Tweet

Today at KBDR (cont'd)

Watching the weather forecasts this past weekend, it became quite clear that a Monday morning flight from the DC area to Bridgeport's Sikorsky Memorial Airport (KBDR) was a Bad Idea. Hurricane Sandy was on the way and so I resolved to travel a day early.

I believe I could have made the flight on Sunday afternoon, but it didn't seem quite right to be flying an airplane TO an airport that most people were trying to fly away FROM.

KBDR's airport elevation is 10 feet above Mean Sea Level. The National Weather Service was predicting a storm surge in excess of 10 feet on top of an astronomical high tide. You can do the math.

So I opted to leave N631S in its hangar at KVKX and to take AmTrak. I spent Monday morning getting my office secured and the afternoon and evening listening to Sandy's sound and fury outside my window while hoping that the power would stay on – which it did.

At noon today I drove over to KBDR to have a look at what Sandy had wrought...and came away very happy with the decision to leave N631S in Maryland.

That lake over on the other side of the airplane is a couple of feet deep and Runway 6-24 lies at the bottom of it. Yes, that's the glide slope transmitter for the ILS Rwy 6 approach over on the far side.

There stands the BDR VOR transmitter across the pond. Runway 6-24 runs left to right, about halfway from where I was standing to the VOR. You can see that the flooding continues off to the left, to where Runway 11-29 lies. It's under water as well. The airport is closed indefinitely.

The rumor mill is operational, of course. I've been told that there is no plan for dewatering the field because no one has any idea of how it could be done. The airport was built on marsh so there's no place to send the water. A couple of years ago heavy spring rains left a large pond between the two runways. It took many weeks for the water in that pond to subside.

Over on the other side of the field, a T-hangar collapsed during the height of the storm, taking out two airplanes – a fairly new Bonanza that was in the hangar and a nice Mooney that was tied down next to it. In addition, a number of airplanes are reported to have been partly immersed in the flooding...and that's salt water.

So on the plus side of the ledger, I can congratulate myself for leaving N631S in a safer location as Sandy passed through. On the minus side, I may have to arrange to use a much less convenient airport (likely Waterbury-Oxford, KOXC) for my travels.

Of course, I'm in better shape than the folks who have airplanes at KBDR. Even the ones that came through the storm in good shape are faced with a problem...they haven't got a runway.

---

UPDATE 11/1/2012: I spoke with the Operations office at KBDR this afternoon, and learned that to the amazement and gratification of all, the airport has re-opened.

Runway lights, REIL's, taxiway lights, PAPI's/VASI's, VOR and ILS all OTS. Night ops not advised.

Runway 11-29 is still under water but 6-24 is open, as are a useful array of taxiways. As the ops guy noted to me, the water "subsided amazingly fast. Tuesday we were calling it Lake Sikorsky and figured it was there for a while."

So...Yay!!!

Tweet

Today at KBDR (cont'd)

In July 1943 the US Army Air Forces accepted delivery (from the Douglas Aircraft plant at Long Beach, CA) of a C-47A-40-DL Skytrain aircraft carrying serial number 42-24064 and contractor's number 9926.

By the next spring, the aircraft was serving with the 74th Troop Carrier Squadron at RAF Aldermaston under the command of Major Ralph L. Strean, Jr. The 74th TCS was a unit of the 434th Troop Carrier Group, a part of the 9th Air Force. (The photo above at left shows the flight line at RAF Aldermaston in 1944.)

In the pre-dawn darkness of 6th June 1944, 52 C-47's of the 434th TCG, almost certainly including '064 (now marked with "invasion stripes" and carrying the squadron identifier "ID" and tail letter "N") crossed the English Channel into occupied France. Each Douglas transport towed either a Waco CG-4A or a Airspeed Horsa glider laden with troops, equipment and supplies to reinforce elements of the 101st Airborne Division that had already jumped from other C-47's into battle.

Aircraft '064 continued to participate in supply operations as Allied forces advanced across France and into Germany. The 74th TCS relocated from England to France and on 3 April 1945, while parked at an airstrip in Gelnhausen, Germany (near Frankfurt), '064 was involved in a minor mishap, being struck by a landing aircraft. The damage was repaired within a week.

The D-Day veteran continued to serve the military until it was demobilized and sold as surplus in 1947. Records indicate that as of 1954, now known to the FAA as N74589, it was working for a living in the livery of West Coast Airlines, flying passengers in the Pacific Northwest.

After the conversion to turbine power swept through the airline industry, N74589 went through a series of owners. It was abandoned at least once and claimed by an FBO in compensation for unpaid bills. (See photo at left of '589 sitting in the weeds.)

But eventually, she found a good home. Now, the Normandy veteran has been cleaned up, her paint freshened, and her colors restored to those of her glory days. This morning, I found Douglas C-47A c/n 9926 at rest on the ramp at KBDR, waiting patiently for someone to come spin up her twin Pratt R-1830's and take her into the sky once more. In her 70th year, the old gal still gives us a thrill.

Tweet

Today at KBDR

The roar of big round engines is again being heard in the pattern at Sikorsky Memorial Airport. The B-17G Yankee Lady is in town for display and demonstration rides. I stopped by the field this morning and must say that, at 68 years young, the Lady is looking quite lovely.

Tweet

I Was Wrong

A year ago, we were contemplating the imminent end of NASA's half-century manned space-flight odyssey. As one whose life has progressed in step with that program I had some fairly strong feelings about the events, and I had this to say:

"And I expect to watch the end of the journey as Atlantis plunges toward the threshold of the runway at Kennedy Space Center, flares at the last second and settles onto the ground for the last time. That, I expect, will be a bittersweet moment.

And then? Will manned space flight rise again, Phoenix-like, in this country - driven this time by the efforts of men like Sir Richard Branson and Elon Musk? Is a good dose of the American Entrepreneurial Spirit™ all that we need here? Pardon me if I am not reassured."

I was wrong.

With today's successful rendezvous and capture of the Dragon spacecraft, Elon Musk's team at SpaceX have proven that they can do the hard parts. There are major hurdles still to be overcome – on this mission, berthing, reentry and recovery, then "operationalizing" the system, and then in the future, man-rating the system to provide transportation to low earth-orbit for astronauts. Almost certainly, failures will occur. But that all being said, after today I am reassured (as, a year ago, I was not). SpaceX is the real deal, and I was wrong.

Tweet

Lift is Temporary; Gravity is Permanent

Yesterday about 2020Z, Cessna 631 Sierra and I were motoring along on a 270 heading at 8,000 feet MSL somewhere north of White Plains (KHPN) and east of the Hudson River. We were talking to New York Approach on 120.8 MHz. That's about when I heard an exchange involving an eastbound Bonanza – 1 Sierra Mike – at 7,000 feet (N.B. – all quotes from memory, some paraphrasing inevitable):

1SM: "Approach, Bonanza 1 Sierra Mike, we're going to need a vector to the nearest airport."

NY Approach: "What was that? 1 Sierra Mike, you need to go to an airport?"

1SM: "Yes, we're having some engine problems and we're going to need to land."

NY Approach: "OK, that'll be White Plains. 1 Sierra Mike, turn right to a heading of 240 and descend and maintain 3,000 feet. You can expect the visual to Runway 16 at White Plains."

1SM: "OK, right turn to 240, descend to 3,000, 1 Sierra Mike."

Am I the only one that has a couple of problems with that? Hold the thought while I continue here.

After a couple of minutes...

1SM: "New York, 1 Sierra Mike, can you tell me where the airport is?"

NY Approach: "The airport is about 9 miles at your 10 o'clock now."

1SM: "OK, we don't see it; I guess we want to try to stay a little higher here..."(sic)

NY Approach: "1 Sierra Mike, altitude your discretion, the airport is about 8 miles now at your 9 o'clock. Turn left to 180."

1 SM: "We're having trouble holding altitude here. I'm not sure we're going to make the field."

Here, courtesy of FlightAware.com is the ground track of 1 Sierra Mike, beginning with departure from Teterboro (KTEB):

My inference is that the controller had 1 Sierra Mike on a left base for Runway 16 at KHPN and planned to turn him onto the localizer somewhere around the usual intercept gate for IFR approaches. (As usual, click to enlarge. Bonanza 1SM is the blue track.) Unfortunately, 1 Sierra Mike was running out of altitude before that plan could be accomplished. Meanwhile, the riveting exchange continued on the frequency...

NY Approach: 1 Sierra Mike, say souls on board and, er..., fuel."

1SM: "It's the two of us on board and we've got one full tank and the other side is about half."

1SM: "Approach, 1 Sierra Mike is definitely not going to make the field. We're going to put it down out here. There's a field and a road over to the right."

NY Approach: "1 Sierra Mike, radar contact lost."

A minute or so later, an Emergency Location Transmitter (ELT) signal began on 121.5 MHz, the emergency frequency. 1 Sierra Mike was presumably on the ground, and had decelerated abruptly enough to trigger the ELT.

Again courtesy of FlightAware.com, here are the altitude and speed profiles for 1 Sierra Mike.

Quite soon thereafter N631S and I were handed off to the next sector, but I tuned the number two radio to 120.8 and kept monitoring. Soon, several aircraft, carefully separated by altitude, were looking for 1 Sierra Mike's location. One searcher posed a question:

Search Aircraft: "New York, what's the type aircraft and color?"

NY Approach: "It's a BE36...I guess we don't know the color."

After perhaps another five minutes, the controller said to one of the search aircraft, "Thanks for your help, you can continue. Somebody found them over there."

When I arrived at home in the DC area I quickly looked for news of the incident on-line and was rewarded with a brief article that referred to a "forced landing" and, more importantly, did not mention injuries or worse.

This, to me, is a beautiful picture. They may not get to use that airplane again, but it shows a controlled touchdown and a survivable event. The pilot, who had sounded very calm throughout, clearly kept his composure, chose a viable emergency field, and executed a good off-airport wheels-up landing.

This morning, I learned from updates to the news item, that the two on board were transported to the hospital with injuries judged to be not life-threatening. So the outcome, basically, was good. And that leaves open a question: Why am I troubled by this incident?

Let's start with a disclaimer: I'm not a qualified accident investigator. I am typically appalled by speculation in the aftermath of accidents. I guess I'm about to do that which usually annoys me. Well, here goes...

• First, the pilot – who really did a great job throughout this incident – erred, in my view, by not using the E-word on the first call to approach after the engine went bad. His phraseology was ambivalent and the seriousness of the situation was not at all clear. It costs NOTHING! to say, "Bonanza 1 Sierra Mike is declaring an emergency due to loss of power." Doing so removes all doubt from the minds of the ATC people.
  
• Second, the controller treated the situation like a normal approach into KHPN. He issued a descent to 3,000 feet (to get below KLGA arrivals?) and pointed the airplane toward the 16 localizer. The pilot didn't declare an emergency, and the controller didn't treat it as one. If the initial vector had been directly to the numbers at KHPN Runway 16, would 1 Sierra Mike have made it?
  
• Third, the controller issued a descent to three thousand and the pilot knew his engine was in trouble. The best one word response would have been, "Unable!" Instead, he started down. With the engine questionable (or worse), altitude is your bank account. You don't give it up without a really good reason. It seems that the pilot ceded command authority to ATC...never a good idea.
  
• Fourth, even as it became clear that an emergency had developed, the controller asked for "souls on board" (good!) and "fuel" (why?). In the moment, it would admittedly be hard to do the logical thing – ask for the color of the airplane that is about to be on the ground – but that just emphasizes the rote nature of the responses. Perhaps ATC needs a better training module for dealing with emergencies.
  

I would ask a favor from all who read this. Please don't think that I'm condemning the pilot or the controller in this incident. They both did well given the circumstances, and the people on the airplane will, it appears, be OK. But I believe there are lessons here. I've taken them aboard and I hope others will, as well.

Tweet

Shangri-La

On this date seventy years ago – 18 April 1942 – 80 men led by Lt. Col. James H. Doolittle launched from the aircraft carrier USS Hornet in sixteen North American B-25 Mitchell bombers to turn the violence of war back upon the Empire of Japan.

Of the 80 men who departed Hornet on what became known as the Doolittle Raid, 69 returned (five are still among us). Their audacity, their professionalism, their unmatched courage inspire to this day.

The President of the United States
in the name of The Congress
takes pleasure in presenting the
Medal of Honor
to

DOOLITTLE, JAMES H.
(Air Mission)

Rank and organization: Brig. Gen'l, U.S. Army Air Corps.
Place and date: Over Japan.
Entered service at: Berkeley, Calif.
Birth: Alameda, Calif.
G.O. No.: 29, 9 June 1942.

Citation:
For conspicuous leadership above and beyond the call of duty, involving personal valor and intrepidity at an extreme hazard to life. With the apparent certainty of being forced to land in enemy territory or to perish at sea, Gen. Doolittle personally led a squadron of Army bombers, manned by volunteer crews, in a highly destructive raid on the Japanese mainland.

Tweet

A Long-Term Relationship

The trip from Connecticut to the DC area on Friday had something to offer and a price to be paid. On offer was a perfectly clear sky – not a cloud to be found – and an unusual (for the route) tailwind out of the north. The price of admission was fairly continuous light turbulence (and occasionally not so light) up to 8,000 feet.

The photo at left was taken approaching the Hudson River at Croton-on-Hudson from the east. There's a little haze, but looking past the Tappan Zee Bridge you can discern the George Washington Bridge and the upper reaches of New York Bay. That's about 40 miles distant.

Soon after that picture was snapped, after reaching the Sparta VOR (SAX) and turning south, N631S's tach time rolled to 4,245.0 hours. Not a terribly "round" number, but one that I took note of. Back on 27 September 2004 (about seven and a half years ago) when Bob Parks and I departed Keokuk Muni (KEOK) for the flight back to Connecticut, the tach read 3,245.0. That was my first flight in N631S as its ninth owner, and as of Friday last, the airplane and I have flown 1,000 hours together.

Among the owners who've had the privilege of caring for N631S, I've had the longest tenure in calendar time at 90 months (and counting). In terms of flight time I'm in second place, about 200 hours behind the pilots at Erect-a-Tube, Inc. (Shout-out here to Sam F.!) At the rate things have been progressing, I ought to catch up in a bit over a year.

After a thousand hours, you get to know an airplane. I don't recall the last time N631S surprised me. Its responses are predictable and stable. It does everything fairly well and some things brilliantly, and it never bites. I'm grateful to Dwane Wallace and his colleagues at Cessna for a wonderful bit of airplane design.

While it is always risky to indulge in prediction, I suspect – and hope – that N631S and I will be together for a long time to come.

Tweet

Something Happened

Something happened on this day thirty-five years ago in Wichita, Kansas. A Cessna Aircraft Company production test pilot named Jim Ballard picked up a blank Aircraft Log. On the cover next to the 'N' he entered '631S' and next to 'SERIAL NO.' he wrote '18265554'. Then he turned the page and on the first leaf, next to 'Record of' he entered 'Cessna 182Q 18265554 N631S'. On the next line, next to 'With Engine' he wrote 'Continental O-470-U 465712'. Then he went out on the ramp at Wichita's Mid-Continent Airport to meet the machine whose birth as an airplane he was about to facilitate.

Jim certainly performed a careful pre-flight inspection, then he climbed into the cabin and started the big Continental six and, with concurrence from the tower, taxied for departure. Senses alert for any sign of defect or maladjustment, he took the machine off the ground and into its natural element. For 1.3 hours he checked and verified, in accordance with his production test check-list, the readiness of this machine to be sent on to its new owner-pilot. Then he landed, back where he'd begun.

After shutting down he opened the Aircraft Log once again and turned to the first page for the recording of flight data. He filled in the year, '77', and the day, 'Mar. 18'. Under From, 'Ict' and under To, 'Local'. Nature of Flight is 'Test', and Duration of Flight is '1.3'. And then he signed the column labeled Signature of Pilot...'Jim Ballard'. N631S had passed its test.

Thirty-five years later...two engine overhauls later...nine owners and 4,235.2 tach hours later...N631S continues to pass each test, to be a machine admirable in every respect. As the current caretaker, my gratitude flows to Jim Ballard and to every owner and pilot who has cared for and worked with this airplane in the intervening years. I'll try to be worthy of the airplane you've entrusted to me.

Tweet

Are you Sinistral? (cont'd)

Two weeks ago I posted a request for pilots visiting this blog to participate in a survey, asking whether they were "left handed." I recognize (now, as I did then) that this is thoroughly unscientific. There is much more to handedness (or laterality or chirality) than which hand you use to pick up a pen. Just speaking for myself, I would be classified in a more sophisticated study as mixed-handed or cross dominant. But the question under consideration is: does the pilot community as a whole reflect the "handedness" of the general populace? Perhaps the survey result would be an indicator.

I leave it to you to decide whether the result is significant. Here's what emerged:

• Total respondents: 91
  
• Respondents self-identified as "left handed": 30
  
• %'age of "left handed" respondents: 32%
  
• %'age of the general populace "left handed": about 10%
  
• Factor by which left handed pilots exceed general incidence of left handedness: about 3.2X
  

Actually, I'm surprised, having expected that the pilot community would be "handed" about like the general populace. Well, maybe not so much!

As vulnerable as this query is to confounding factors, it's hard to imagine a scenario that would explain away the entirety of excess left handedness among pilots reflected in the data. I have to conclude that pilots are, to a significant degree, more often left handed than "normal people."

Tweet

A Dark Cold Day

At about 0915 PST last Tuesday, Capt. Carroll 'Lex' LeFon, USN (Ret'd), died when the IAI F-21A Kfir that he was piloting crashed just inside the west gate of Fallon NAS in Nevada. I infer that he was returning from a sortie flown on behalf of his employer to provide "dissimilar type" aggressor aircraft services to the Navy so our young fighter pilots will be better equipped to stay alive and prevail in future encounters. As far as I'm concerned, Capt. LeFon died in the line of duty, serving our country.

There was another side to Lex. He maintained a blog at Neptunus Lex where he wrote eloquently of military affairs and the sea and politics and life. And flying. He wrote with an immediacy that pulled the reader into the cockpit and into the reality of flying the fast-movers. His writing could get your heart beating faster, could get your blood flowing. So I ignored (with difficulty) his politics and reveled in his exquisite tales of the airman's world. (The blog will be there; go on over and read his work.)

Lex retired from the Navy in 2008 and thought to make a second career working at a desk. But that ability was not given to him, so he went back to flying jets. Specifically the Kfir, which is sort of a tinfoil airframe wrapped around a roaring J-79 afterburning turbojet. He had to have loved it.

He also loved the poetry of William Butler Yeats. And so these words, taken from W.H. Auden's "In Memory of W. B. Yeats", seem to serve:

He disappeared in the dead of winter:
The brooks were frozen, the airports almost deserted,
And snow disfigured the public statues;
The mercury sank in the mouth of the dying day.
What instruments we have agree
The day of his death was a dark cold day.
- - - - -
But in the importance and noise of to-morrow
When the brokers are roaring like beasts on the floor of the Bourse,
And the poor have the sufferings to which they are fairly accustomed,
And each in the cell of himself is almost convinced of his freedom,
A few thousand will think of this day
As one thinks of a day when one did something slightly unusual.

What instruments we have agree
The day of his death was a dark cold day.

Carroll "Lex" LeFon, Capt., USN (Ret'd)
Gone West, 6 March 2012

Tweet

Book Review: "Flight for Control" by Karlene Petitt

The world in which Karlene Petitt's debut novel, Flight for Control, takes place looks very much like our own. It's a world where the airline industry, an important part of the fabric of society, is operating under severe economic and operational pressure...much like it does in our world, but a little...just a little worse.

"Flight for Control"
by Karlene Petitt; 382pp.
Jet Star Publishing, 2012

It's a world where independent agencies like the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) come under the extralegal influence of an increasingly out-of-control Homeland Security complex...to a degree perhaps slightly greater than we see in our world.

And it's a world where good men and women strive ceaselessly against these pressures while seeming never to make progress or see improvement in their personal and professional lives. And where, perhaps, they wind up vulnerable to the schemes of a charismatic and Machiavellian figure who promises drastic action to solve their intractable problems.

The narrative is focused on an ex-NTSB accident investigator who left her career for family-track reasons. But circumstances surrounding a series of airline mishaps draw her back into the fray. As it happens, she is married to an airline Captain who is running for a leadership position in the pilots' union on a confrontational platform – the classic "Man on Horseback." There is, of course, much more to his plans than can be seen on the surface.

The plot hurtles forward, keeping the reader engaged. The author, a pilot who flies Airbus A330's on international routes for a major air carrier, keeps the aviation side of the story "shiny side up" to the gratification of the airplane-savvy reader. The dialog is crisp and the characters well-developed and believable.

(Required caveat: The tale includes several scenes where adult characters do adult things with each other. Probably not what you want to give to your aviation-smitten thirteen-year-old...unless you have a very mature thirteen-year-old.)

I found this book hard to put down (as in, "Hey, it's only 11:30 – one more chapter won't hurt me..."), and it left me looking forward to meeting the protagonist again in a sequel.

In several dimensions, the world of Flight for Control is our world, writ large. The question becomes whether this world is some intriguing alternate reality – or our own future. At the end of the book the author includes some "Questions for Discussion" regarding crew-related challenges that confront the aviation industry. We need viable answers to these, or some aspects of the story may become too real for comfort.

Tweet

Send in the Drones? (cont'd)

I guess we have to talk about this. A post appeared on this blog 20 months ago, saying in part:

..we are being prepared for the day, not very far off, when we will be sharing the skies with Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), also known as drones or remotely piloted vehicles (RPV's)...

As of Valentine's Day, when the President signed the recently passed FAA Reauthorization Act (Public Law 112-95), that day is upon us. There are some who are evincing surprise at the developments in this arena. I can only surmise that they have of late been asleep.

Section 332 et seq. of P.L. 112-95 has quite a lot to say on the topic of Unmanned Aircraft Systems. To begin with, the Law requires that on or before the 14th of May of this year the Secretary of Transportation must enter into agreements with "appropriate governmental agencies" that streamline the issuance of waivers or authorizations to operate "public unmanned aircraft systems" in the National Airspace System [P.L. 112-95 Sec. 334 (c)(1)].

The contemplated agreements must provide for expedited review, approval action within 60 business days, and expedited appeal in the event of disapproval. These agreements will, further, permit one-time approval of "similar operations carried out during a fixed period", and allow a "government public safety agency" to operate UAS's weighing up to 2 kg. within the operator's line of sight, up to 400 feet AGL during daylight conditions in uncontrolled airspace outside of 5 statute miles from any airport, heliport, etc.

One suspects that after about mid-August, anyone that flies low in uncontrolled airspace (agricultural applicators? pipeline patrols? balloonists? transiting helicopters?) is going to need to keep a sharp lookout for little 4 pound camera carriers buzzing around to help the constables search for marijuana patches, meth labs and undocumented immigrants. Will it be the responsibility of the operators of these devices to "see-and-avoid" other traffic? That would seem to be a rule-making matter,but the expedited schedule allows little time for orderly rule-making.

Once that little piece of business is under control, P.L. 112-95 gives the Administrator of the FAA until the 12th of August to set up a program of, at most, five years duration, that will establish six "test ranges" for the integration of UAS's into the National Airspace System (NAS) [P.L. 112-95 Sec. 332 (c)(1) et seq.]. In selecting locations for the test ranges, the Administrator is required to consider "geographic and climatic diversity", "ground infrastructure and research needs", the views of NASA and DoD, and no doubt (though not explicitly required), the location of the districts represented by the relevant congressional committee chairs.

The program's goals are fairly ambitious:

• To "safely designate airspace" for integrated manned and UAS operations;
  
• To "develop certification standards and air traffic requirements" for UAS's;
  
• To "coordinate and leverage" NASA and Dod resources;
  
• To "address both civil and public" UAS's;
  
• To coordinate with NextGen;
  
• To verify the safety of UAS's and related navigation procedures before integration into the NAS.
  

With these pilot projects established, no doubt to the financial pleasure of the usual suspects among DoT contractors, the cognizant managers will need to hustle to comply with the next requirement of P.L. 112-95. The act gives the Secretary until November 10th of this year to develop a "comprehensive plan to safely accelerate the integration of civil [UAS's] into the [NAS]." This plan is to be formulated "in consultation with representatives of the aviation industry, Federal agencies that employ [UAS] technology in the [NAS], and the [UAS] industry." [P.L. 112-95 Sec. 332 (a)(1) et seq.] (One wonders whether the GA community will have a seat at that table.)

The Act is fairly explicit on what it expects this "comprehensive plan" to comprehend, among other things (emphasis added):

• The anticipated rulemaking that will (i) define operating and certification standards for civil UAS's, (ii) ensure that UAS's incorporate "sense-and-avoid" capability, (iii) establish standards (including registration and licensing) for operators and pilots of UAS's;
  
• To project methods to enhance the technologies needed to achieve safe and routine operation of UAS's in the NAS;
  
• To recommend a phased-in approach to the integration of civil UAS's in the NAS;
  
• To project a timeline for this phased-in approach;
  

The plan is required to provide for the "safe integration" of UAS's into the NAS "as soon as practicable, but not later than September 30th, 2015."

The Act requires that the integration plan be forwarded to congress within a year (i.e., by February 14th, 2013), and that also by that date "the Secretary shall approve and make available in print and on the Administration’s Internet Web site a 5-year roadmap for the introduction of civil unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace system...," said roadmap to be updated annually.

And, finally, the Act requires [P.L. 112-95 Sec. 332 (b)] that:

• "not later than 18 months after the date on which the (integration) plan...is submitted (i.e., at latest, by August, 2014)...the Secretary shall publish...a final rule on small (i.e., 25 kg or less) unmanned aircraft systems that will allow for civil operation of such systems in the national airspace system...",and;
  
• "a notice of proposed rulemaking to implement the recommendations of the (implementation) plan (presumably to encompass UAS's other than "small")...with the final rule to be published not later than 16 months after the date of publication of the notice (i.e., not later than December, 2015)."
  

So let us summarize the timeline:

• May, 2012: Agreements with government agencies on waiver procedures for operating public UAS's (of max. wt. 2 kg) in the NAS;
  
• August, 2012: Likely first operations of public UAS's in the NAS under waivers;
  
• August, 2012: Establish "test ranges" for development of UAS technologies and methods needed for integration;
  
• February, 2013: UAS Integration Plan due to Congress; Roadmap published in print and on-line;
  
• August, 2014: Deadline for final rule for civil operation of "small" (i.e., 25 kg.) UAS's in the NAS.
  
• December, 2015: Deadline for final rule for civil operation of all UAS's in the NAS.
  

The planning and rulemaking processes set in motion by the recent act of Congress deserve close watching, particularly as each key milestone is reached. It's going to get busy up there over the next few years!

Tweet

Are you Sinistral?

Over on an on-line forum that I frequent, a question has arisen about whether the prevalence of left-handedness in the pilot community matches that in the general population.

So, a somewhat unscientific experiment. Could I ask visiting pilots (only, please), to register their "handedness" (one vote each please!) on the widget at the top of the sidebar at right. I'll say up front that I expect to see no real difference between pilots and folks in general, but hey, that's why we do the experiment!

Tweet

Book Review: "The Map of My Dead Pilots" by Colleen Mondor

I have no standing to remark on a book about flying in Alaska. I have not endured the awful cold, withstood the cutting wind, peered into the frozen fog. Like everyone else, I've seen the photos – watched the films – read the stories. But of course, there are stories and there are stories.

"The Map of My Dead Pilots"
by Colleen Mondor; 242pp.
Lyons Press, 2012

Early in the 1990's, with a degree in Aviation Management and a need to expand the boundaries of her life, Florida-girl Colleen Mondor went to Alaska and took a job as a Dispatcher for an air-charter company (what aviators refer to as a Part 135 operation) in Fairbanks. For seven years she scheduled aircraft, typed manifests, wrangled customers, pitched in on the ramp and soaked up the reality of Alaskan aviation. And she befriended pilots and got to know them, and watched as they departed in ragged, challenging Alaska weather. And dined and drank with them when they returned. And drank with their friends when they didn't.

She earned a graduate degree in History while she worked in Alaska, studying the origins of Aviation in the Far North. She learned about Eielson and Merrill and the Wiens and other legendary names, not just accepting the stories that sustain the legends, but delving into contemporaneous sources from the 1920's.

She's blended this historical knowledge with the perceptions derived from her personal experience, allowing it all to simmer for a decade, and has now given us something more than a mémoire. The Map of My Dead Pilots has a tremendous immediacy and the ring of truth. It's for people who have shivered in Alaskan cold to comment on the accuracy of Ms. Mondor's details, but she gets the airplane stuff spot on. This is a hard book to put down.

And, oh yes, the lady can write. Within the bounds of fair use, here's a taste:

"But then there was this.

When Henry Smoke passed away in the hospital, his family asked the Company to send Tony home with the body. They wanted a pilot who knew Henry and could call him by name. Tony had been flying in and out of the Upper Yukon for years, and Henry was the Company's agent in Stevens Village forever. The two of them went way back. When Tony landed in the Navajo, most of the folks from Stevens and the surrounding villages were on the ramp waiting for the plane. They unloaded the heavy, ornate casket, placed Henry down in the back of a waiting truck, and then drove slowly away. Tony waited until he was the only one left at the airport before he started up the engines. He said later he wanted to preserve the quiet for as long as possible – he wanted to keep the ground holy.

Tony was not a religious man, but there you go. For Henry Smoke, that was the word he thought of.

He said later he was glad he took that flight, that they asked for him. He packed Henry's flight away with the ones to keep with him, and when Tony left Alaska he had well over ten thousand hours of flight time, but Henry Smoke was the only body he knew by name."

The Map of My Dead Pilots is an elegant mémoire of the author's years spent in the service of Alaskan commercial aviation. Its stories are informed by her knowledge of the historical background. But the book is more than a compendium of interesting stories.

It becomes an exploration of the variability of memory, the plasticity over time of historical information, and the malleability of stories depending on the needs of the teller and the audience. The author's tale is one of striving for the truth and learning that truth can only be approached as an asymptotic limit.

There are stories and there are stories. Ms. Mondor tells her stories as accurately as memory and circumstance allow, and she leaves the reader (I believe) with an understanding of the truth of flying in Alaska.

Tweet

Happy New Year (with a look back)

This is the third year that I've used this post title on 31 December. A year ago, I looked back on 2010 in this post, and a year earlier I reviewed 2009 in this one.

N631S finished the year with 4,207.3 hours on the tach, having flown 175.8 hours in 2011. That's really very close to the 2010 total of 177.9 hours. I made the round trip from KVKX in Maryland to KBDR in Connecticut and back 34 times this year, three and a half fewer than last year. That's in addition to a trip from the DC area down to the Carolina Outer Banks, thence inland to Nashville and back to home plate.

I logged 10.0 hours in actual IMC (instrument meteorological conditions) this year, compared with 2010's 12.9 hours. The weather has been good! The down-side of this is that this year's total of 10 instrument approaches flown in actual conditions is down from last year by four. Time logged as night this year was 10.2 hours, not materially different from last year's 9.2.

Since N631S came to us in 2004, it has been a remarkably reliable machine. But age may be catching up with it a bit, for this year has been – shall we say – maintenance intensive:

• In February, the alternator was replaced.
  
• During the Annual Inspection in April, the voltage regulator was replaced.
  
• Also at Annual, the 121.5 MHz ELT was replaced.
  
• In May, replaced the pilot's Push-to-Talk switch.
  
• In July, replaced the left fuel bladder.
  
• In November, replaced the switch, circuit beaker, flasher and lamp for the rotating beacon.
  
• In December, a new battery, and tagged "Inop" the activation switch for the GPSS module.
  

And the last item in the above list calls for a mea culpa from me regarding the recent absence of posts here. The December weather has been remarkably cooperative, allowing flight from KBDR to KVKX on the Friday before Christmas (with due attention paid to potential icing), then a return to KBDR after the holiday weekend, and finally, back to the DC area this Friday past to end the year. Each of these trips was completed uneventfully. Let me just offer this video clip, collected over central New Jersey whilst headed south at 6,000 feet on the 23rd, just above the solid, cold and icy undercast. As always, ATC was concerned and helpful:

And finally, may I wish all who may visit here a healthy, prosperous and safe 2012.

Tweet

Children of the Magenta Line

The video embedded below was posted on the AvSig online forum by a friend. It's a presentation by a senior American Airlines training Captain on the subject of automation dependency (a subject I've commented on before). For my friends out there who fly aircraft that are able to let the GPS navigator drive the autopilot – well, you really ought to invest the 25 minutes in watching this; every time he says "FMC", substitute "GPS".

Automation Dependency from Bruce on Vimeo.

Tweet

Parsing the Regs

The previous post discussed the "inop" status of the beacon that sits atop N631S's vertical stabilizer. In summary, (a) as of Friday morning it was not working at all; (b) the maintenance folks were on the case; and (c) I believed it to be a "no-go" item that would need to be fixed if I wanted to make my weekly trip from Connecticut to the DC area by airplane rather than AmTrak.

Well, perhaps not so much.

Midday Friday I went over to Three Wing Flying Services and talked with Tony and Jared. Tony had the bad news: "We found a short, and your lamp is shot...and we don't have a 14 volt lamp in stock." Jared offered the good news: "You've got strobes, right? As long as you have strobes, you don't need the beacon."

Really? I needed to think about this a bit. This was one of those times when it would be necessary to see what the regulations said, and to consider what the regulations mean!

The applicable regulation is found in Title 14 CFR Part 91 Subpart C (Equipment, Instrument, and Certificate Requirements) Section 91.209 (Aircraft lights), which says in relevant part:

No person may:...(b) Operate an aircraft that is equipped with an anticollision light system, unless it has lighted anticollision lights. ...

N631S is in fact "equipped with an anticollision light system", so that part of 91.209 is applicable. In normal circumstances, that system is comprised of the red flashing beacon atop the vertical stabilizer and the white wingtip strobes. If the beacon is "inop" but the strobes are working just fine, then the aircraft complies with the requirement that it "ha(ve) anticollision lights" when being operated. So far, so good.

Here's an excerpt from an on-line forum called TheCFI.com that shows at least one other person using the same logic to arrive at the same conclusion:

Beacon/Rotating Beacon vs Anti-Collision Lights
by jdkiger » Tue Aug 19, 2008 10:02 am

A recent discussion at my flight school resulted in very different opinions in understanding of what is required. Not quite addressed in past questions on this forum. Our situation is: Aircraft has wing tip strobes/anti-collision lights in addition to a vertical stabilizer mounted aviation red/white strobe (individual power supplies). With the strobe out on the vertical stabillizer inop, placarded as such. Required log book entries documented. Is the aircraft airworthy? Many suggest that since the wing tip strobe/anti-collision lights are operating the aircraft meets the requirements to be airworthy. How about it?

jdkiger

by midlifeflyer » Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:50 am

This is pure guesswork on my part since I've never seen anything from the FAA on it...

91.209(b) says "an" anticollision light system (so do the applicable provisions of 91.205). If the aircraft has two different ones that each comply with TSO C96a (and whatever other requirements there might be), one should be sufficient for compliance with 91.209(b).

That is, of course, assuming that the other requirements of 91.213 regarding flight with inoperative equipment are met.

Like I said, pure guesswork.

Finally, I recall that the previous airplane in my life, N82953, a 1981 Piper Archer II, came from the factory with wingtip strobes and no rotating beacon. And it was just fine in that configuration. So in the end, I concluded that N631S was indeed airworthy with the beacon placarded "inop" (as required by 91.213) and the strobes fulfilling the requirement of Section 91.209 for operating anticollision lights. I could make my flight to DC without transgressing the bounds of the regulations.

Three Wing is ordering the parts needed to restore N631S's beacon to operating status, which work will be done during the coming week.

Tweet