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

Nothing to Report

We approach the end of winter, and it has been a really remarkable season in the Northeast. (Meteorological winter is defined to encompass the three calender months having the lowest mean temperatures, i.e. December, January and February – at least here in the northern hemisphere.) We're 10 weeks into that span with only three more weeks to go. And flying over Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, New York and Connecticut on Monday, I saw no evidence of snow cover at all. None. Zero. That's remarkable.

Since the season began on 1 December, N631S and I have been able to make the trip between KBDR and KVKX seven times in each direction, of a possible ten. That's a much better dispatch rate than we've achieved in the previous couple of winters. (At left, the flight southbound for Christmas weekend.) There was one weather related diversion in December, recounted in these two posts, but that was a result of fog, not the wintry stuff endemic to the period.

And it's been warm. Out of seven Friday afternoon departures from KBDR since 1 December I've only once needed to have my friends at Three Wing Flying Services hook up N631S's Tanis pre-heat system – meaning that every other time the temperature was above 40ºF. I've used the pre-heat system a few times of a Monday morning, after a 6:00 AM arrival at KVKX, but never due to anything lower than about 30ºF. In short it's been quite mild.

Of course I'm not complaining. A look into my logbook for the last ten weeks shows many entries that are variations on the theme: "IFR in VMC; uneventful." And of course uneventful is good! But it doesn't provide a great deal of fodder for posts on this blog having the potential to entertain and enlighten my occasional visitor. Still, I'll take the deal.

There are three weeks left in the season and almost certainly I'll find myself on Amtrak a time or two. And then March may be anything but benign...time will tell. However, at the risk of appalling my friends from the midwest, the Mountain States, or Pacific northwest (who have had, of late, far more entertaining weather) I can say that the Winter of 2011-12 already belongs in the "Win" column and I'll hope for one just like it next year.

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

Life's Little Annoyances

It's been one of those weeks.

On Monday morning, I got to Potomac Airfield (KVKX) early – before 6:00 AM local time. The temperature was 28ºF, so I immediately plugged in the Tanis pre-heat system and the quartz heater for the cabin. An hour of that and I'd be on my way.

A few minutes before 0700 I collected my clearance then disconnected the heaters and pulled N631S out of the hangar. And after a bit more housekeeping, got on with the starting program. And achieved no success at all. The voltage readout said 10.4v and the propeller said, "I don't think so."

I called Potomac Approach's Mt. Vernon Sector to let them know I would not be popping up on their scope when expected, and then I called Dan Fragassi at Clinton Aero Maintenance and asked if he would kindly drive over from Hyde Field with a spare battery and a Cessna jumper cable to get me started. Dan said, "Be right there," and thirty minutes later, there he was. Another five minutes and N631S was started and underway.

The good news of the morning was that there was a spanking tailwind yielding ground speeds of about 160 knots as I headed north. Soon N631S and I were over New Jersey and talking to Atlantic City Approach. Soon after checking on with A.C. Approach I heard, "Cessna 631 Sierra, turn 20º left, this will be a vector to Coyle." Cool! A shortcut! I clicked off the S-TEC GPSS module that was allowing the Garmin 530W to control the S-TEC System 50 autopilot – leaving the autopilot in Heading mode – and rolled the heading bug to the left.

Soon, the controller issued "direct Coyle" and I made the necessary key-presses on the 530W and clicked the switch to turn on the GPSS function. And for the second time that morning, the machine said, "I don't think so." No joy – the switch was ineffective.

I completed the trip using manual control of the autopilot in heading mode, and hoping that this wasn't a case of things coming in threes. Two failures in one day were sufficient. On arrival at Sikorsky Memorial (KBDR), after N631S was covered and tied down, I asked Three Wing maintenance to have a look at the battery and at the GPSS switch.

When I checked back with them early on Wednesday morning the news was not wonderful. '31S's battery was not happy. The battery is a Gill G-35 flooded electrode unit (see left) a bit more than two years old. I was told that it seemed to charge satisfactorily but that the electrolyte was discolored and they were concerned about the condition of the electrodes. I fly enough at night in the winter that I don't want to take chances with the condition of the battery so I asked them to install a new one. Hey, it's only money.

The situation with the GPSS switch was more interesting. Dave, the avionics tech, had verified that the switch had failed but they were having difficulty sourcing a new one. I asked for the part number and then queried the collective intelligence of the Cessna Pilots Association on-line forum about finding a switch.

I quickly learned that a new switch (the widget on top in the picture at left) would be available directly from S-TEC for a mere (gasp!) $957.00. That's a little extreme, so I've decided that I'll placard the GPSS as "inop" for a while and see how I like getting along without it.

Subsequently, I've been informed that S-TEC can repair the switches for about $350 (if it isn't completely fried) and I suspect that I'll probably take advantage of that while N631S is down for its annual inspection next spring.

And meanwhile, the weather for this week's trip south looks a bit iffy. As I type this, it's Thursday evening and the Terminal Area Forecast for KBDR looks like this:

 
KBDR 222330Z 2300/2324 VRB04KT P6SM FEW030 SCT050 BKN150 
     FM230300 08006KT P6SM SCT025 BKN040 OVC080 
     FM230600 06008KT 6SM -SHRA BR FEW007 BKN020 OVC040 
     FM230800 03010KT 3SM RA BR OVC006 
     TEMPO 2308/2311 1SM RA BR OVC004 
     FM231100 01011KT 5SM -RA BR BKN015 BKN030 
     FM231500 35010KT P6SM SCT025 BKN040 
     FM231900 34009KT P6SM FEW025 SCT040

According to this, for tomorrow afternoon I should expect good visibility, a few clouds at 2,500 feet and a scattered layer at 4,000 feet. Conditions to the south are forecast to be a bit better. That's flyable, even with cold temperatures aloft, but the forecast is dependent on some fairly nasty overnight weather clearing out to the east on schedule. Time will tell, and as "Plan B" I have an AMTRAK reservation in my pocket.

Tweet

More About the Fog

Yesterday's post describes an encounter on Monday with dense fog at Bridgeport (KBDR) and the resulting diversion to Waterbury-Oxford (KOXC). It includes the observation that neither the arrival of the fog, nor its persistence, were effectively incorporated in the Terminal Area Forecasts (TAF's) issued for KBDR.

Today I had an exchange on Google+ on the subject with Scott Dennstaedt. Scott is a former National Weather Service (NWS) research meteorologist and the guiding genius behind AvWxWorkshops.com, an excellent source of weather wisdom. He suggested that a comparatively obscure NWS product, the Area Forecast Discussion (AFD), might have helped me to "crack the code" when I was trying to sort out the effects of the fog using the TAF's.

The AFD's are produced by each Forecast Office (Bridgeport is covered by the office at Upton, NY on Long Island) and each AFD includes an Aviation section. The current AFD for the Upton office (OKX) can be seen HERE. Scott was kind enough to send me the Aviation portions of the AFD's that covered the time of interest on Monday.

As I noted yesterday, at 5:00 AM local time Monday KBDR was already fogged in. The TAF extant at that time was predicting that the fog would clear by 9:00 AM (14Z) while the AFD fretted about fog "over much of the area":

 
350 AM EST MON DEC 5 2011
.AVIATION /09Z MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY/...
MAIN CONCERN THIS MORNING WILL BE FOG/LOW STRATUS OVER MUCH OF
THE AREA. NYC TERMINALS GENERALLY RANGE FROM IFR TO VFR...
WITH EWR VSBYS AS LOW AS VLIFR. OUTSIDE OF THE NYC
TERMINALS...CONDITIONS VARY WITH VSBYS AS LOW AS 1/4 MILE TO
OVER 3 MILES. WITH FOG CONDITIONS CHANGING...
IT IS DIFFICULT TO FORECAST JUST HOW MUCH CONDITIONS IMPROVE
TO WORSEN HOUR TO HOUR...THEREFORE AMENDMENTS ARE LIKELY
AND SHOULD BE EXPECTED THROUGH 12Z.

The forecaster pointed out that the behavior of the fog was difficult to forecast, which I knew well from experience. Still, the TAF came down on the side of the fog being gone by 14Z.

14Z came and went, with no sign of the fog dissipating. An amended TAF valid at 14Z extended the period where fog was considered likely to 15Z, projecting significant improvement thereafter. The Discussion in support of that TAF was still optimistic about improving conditions, but a new AFD issued just before 15Z – shortly after N631S and I had taken off and flown north – incorporated new pessimism:

 
956 AM EST MON DEC 5 2011
.AVIATION /15Z MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY/...
A COLD FRONT OVER THE ERN GREAT LAKES WILL TRACK SLOWLY THRU
THE AREA TNGT. RIBBON OF IFR ACROSS THE METRO THIS MRNG.
THERE IS EVIDENCE OF SOME UPSTREAM CLEARING...AND WILL
CONTINUE TO EXPECT VFR THIS AFTN. EXACT TIMING OF THIS
CONVERSION REMAINS LOW CONFIDENCE...AND AMENDMENTS HAVE
SLOWED DOWN IMPROVEMENT.

So the AFD's offered through 14Z would not have kept me from departing, while those from 15Z onward might have inspired second thoughts.

As recounted yesterday, N631S and I arrived at KBDR about 1715Z, missed on the ILS Runway 6 approach (when the weather was 1/2 mile and 200 feet), held for a while and diverted to KOXC. We landed there about 1745Z. By that time the 18Z TAF was out and it called for low IFR conditions (a mile and 300 feet) through until 10 AM Tuesday, except for brief periods of slightly better conditions during the afternoon. The supporting AFD had this to add:

 
1252 PM EST MON DEC 5 2011
.AVIATION /18Z MONDAY THROUGH SATURDAY/...
A COLD FRONT OVER THE ERN GREAT LAKES WILL TRACK SLOWLY
TOWARDS THE AREA TNGT. AREA REMAINS SOCKED IN WITH LLVL
MOISTURE THRU THE TAF PERIOD. TAFS INDICATE MAINLY IFR...
HOWEVER SOME BREAKS TO VFR ARE EXPECTED THIS AFTN. THIS
HAS BEEN HANDLED WITH A TEMPO. CIGS LOWER AGAIN
TNGT. SOME -RA POSSIBLE TUE AS THE FRONT GETS CLOSER.
CIGS/VSBY FCST THRU 00Z REMAINS LOW CONFIDENCE...IN
PART DUE TO MID CLOUD COVER OBSCURING LOW CLOUDS ON STLT.

This discussion certainly casts a shadow over the TAF. In fact, the ceiling at KBDR went up to 400 feet for about 1/2 hour mid-afternoon (long enough for N631S and I to make an unsuccessful attempt to sneak into Bridgeport) and promptly went back down to 200 feet, there to stay overnight.

The Area Forecast Discussions are a useful tool, giving insight into the forecaster's thoughts and level of confidence. But having reviewed them, I don't think that they would have changed any of my decisions on Monday. The forecaster's multiple references to "low confidence" in aspects of the TAF's do reinforce the notion that the behavior of fog is hard to predict.

Tweet

"On little cat feet"

Sunday evening it all looked good for a Monday morning flight from the DC area to Connecticut. Temperatures aloft were going to be warm enough for me to file for an altitude of 7,000 feet – fairly unusual for December. The Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) for Bridgeport issued at 9:00 PM (02Z) suggested that the weather on arrival at KBDR would be reasonable:

 
KBDR 050209Z 0502/0524 VRB04KT 1 1/2SM BR SCT030 BKN250
   TEMPO 0502/0505 3SM BR 
   FM050500 20005KT 2SM BR BKN025
   FM050800 VRB03KT 2SM BR SCT005 OVC010 
   FM051400 22005KT P6SM SCT010 OVC040 
   FM051600 22007KT P6SM SCT040 OVC150
   FM051900 22008KT P6SM OVC040=

The plan was to depart soon after 7:00 AM (12Z) for the roughly 2 hour trip. For a 14Z arrival I could expect good visibility, scattered clouds at 1,000 feet and an overcast at 4,000. And conditions were forecast to continue improving. I turned in feeling good about the flight.

My first indication that all might not be well came when, on arising at oh-dark-30 (actually 5:00 AM), I checked the METAR at KBDR:

 
METAR KBDR 050952Z 00000KT 1/4SM FG VV002 07/05 A3036 RMK AO2 SLP279 T00670050=

This was not good. The fog, without being in the forecast, had come to KBDR "on little cat feet" and with the wind calm (0000KT) it could well sit "over harbor and city on silent haunches" for an unpleasantly long time. And 1/4 mile visibility with an indefinite 200 foot ceiling (VV200) was well below minimums for the Runway 6 ILS approach. Still, the forecast continued to call for improving conditions so I headed for the airport.

By the time I'd pre-flighted N631S, taxied to the fuel island and topped off the tanks, the 12Z TAF was out:

TAF KBDR 051120Z 0512/0612 VRB03KT 2SM BR OVC006
   TEMPO 0512/0514 1/2SM FG OVC002 
   FM051400 22005KT P6SM SCT010 OVC040 
   FM051600 22007KT P6SM SCT040 OVC150 
   FM052200 22008KT P6SM OVC040 
   FM060200 19007KT 5SM BR OVC020 
   FM060700 19008KT 4SM -RA BR OVC015=

Now, in the TEMPO group, the forecaster at least acknowledged the presence of the fog. But conditions were still projected to improve after 14Z (9:00 AM).

But I've been flying in and out of Sikorsky Memorial Airport for quite a few years now, and I've seen fog before. The phenomenon could be very persistent, lingering for hours beyond the time when things were forecast to improve. So I wanted to see an improvement at KBDR before I'd launch in that direction. I'd wait a while.

Things improved a bit at KBDR just before 10:00 AM as the following METAR's show:

 
METAR KBDR 051452Z 00000KT 1/2SM FG BKN004 OVC008 10/09 A3038=
SPECI KBDR 051459Z 00000KT 1SM BR BKN004 OVC008 11/09 A3038

Visibility had improved to a mile and the ceiling was up to 400 feet. These values were adequate for the ILS approach. In addition, an amendment to the TAF had issued that seemed to promise continued improvement:

KBDR 051347Z 0514/0612 VRB03KT 1/4SM FG VV002
   TEMPO 0514/0515 2SM BR OVC006 
   FM051500 22005KT P6SM SCT010 OVC040 
   FM051600 22007KT P6SM SCT040 OVC150 
   FM052200 22008KT P6SM OVC040 
   FM060200 19007KT 5SM BR OVC020 
   FM060700 19008KT 4SM -RA BR OVC015=

If I got underway, I'd be at Bridgeport a bit after noon (17Z) and the forecast suggested that visibility would be good and the ceiling would be, by that time, overcast at 4,000 feet. Neat! So I fired up N631S and we were off the ground at 1522Z, headed north.

Of course, a forecast is just a forecast. A "guess" – a highly educated guess, but... So as soon as N631S was settled down in cruise at 7,000 feet I checked the new METAR at KBDR:

 
SPECI KBDR 051515Z 00000KT 1SM BR OVC002 11/09 A3038 RMK AO2=

Rats! The ceiling was back down to 200 feet. This was not what I wanted to see. So I did two things. First, I slooooowed N631S down a lot. Prop RPM down to 2100, fuel flow down to 10 gallons per hour. Perhaps some extra time would allow the happier parts of that forecast to materialize. And second, I started looking for another place to land.

 
SPECI KDXR 051544Z 22003KT 8SM SCT007 OVC055 11/09 A3037

With eight miles of visibility and a high overcast ceiling, Danbury (KDXR) was a good option. With that Plan "B" in hand, all that was left was to go to KBDR and see what I found there.

To cut to the chase, conditions at KBDR did not improve by the time I got there. N631S and I flew the ILS Rwy 6 approach, advised by the tower that the ceiling was at 200 feet with 1/2 mile visibility – well below minimums. At 300 feet on the glide-slope there was nothing to see but gray. I reported on the missed approach, tower switched me back to New York approach and the controller there said, "Say intentions."

I requested a couple of turns in the hold to figure things out. While the Garmin 530W GPS worked with the S-TEC 50 autopilot to fly N631S around in the hold I checked the METAR's at nearby airports. Waterbury-Oxford (KOXC) was only about 12 miles north and was VFR so that's where we went. N631S and I landed there at 1746Z. (The clip above shows the approach to KBDR, the hold and the flight path up to KOXC. Click to enlarge, if you like.)

So there I was in Oxford and there sat the fog at Bridgeport. I checked the 18Z TAF, which had just been issued:

TAF KBDR 051733Z 0518/0618 VRB04KT 1SM BR BKN003 OVC060
   TEMPO 0519/0523 6SM BR SCT005 BKN060 
   FM052300 21005KT 1SM BR BKN003 
   FM061500 22008KT 4SM BR BKN008=

The forecaster was now suggesting that prevailing weather for the balance of the afternoon would be a mile visibility and 300 foot ceiling, with brief periods of good visibility and a 6,000 foot ceiling. I'd watch the METAR's and hope for a break in the weather that I could use to sneak into Bridgeport.

The break came (I thought) at about 2:00 PM (19Z), when the visibility rose to 3 miles and the ceiling lifted to 400 feet:

SPECI KBDR 051859Z 00000KT 3SM BR OVC004 12/10 A3030 RMK AO2=

OK, that was good enough. I quickly called Flight Service and filed an IFR flight plan for KOXC to KBDR, direct.

In short order, N631S and I were back in the air and headed for KBDR. The New York Approach controller asked if I had ATIS "November" at Bridgeport, which I quickly picked up. It was consistent with the last METAR I'd seen. So far, so good. The controller began to issue vectors to me for the ILS Rwy 6 approach (see clip above, at left). About then I heard another aircraft on the frequency mention "Tango at Bridgeport". Uh-oh. That could only mean a later ATIS incorporating a change in conditions. I went back to the Bridgeport ATIS frequency and heard, "Visibility one and three-quarter miles, sky condition overcast 200 feet." Back below minimums. This wasn't my day.

The controller asked me if I had gotten "Tango" and I said, "Yes, and it's depressing." She said, "A King-Air just missed there...do you want to try it anyway?" I declined and asked for a vector back to KOXC, which still enjoyed excellent visual conditions.

That wrapped up aviating for the day. I arranged with the FBO to park N631S overnight and, with another pilot who'd diverted from KBDR, rented a car for the short drive to Bridgeport. That turned out to be a good choice, as for the rest of the day the ceiling at KBDR never got above 200 feet. The weather at this writing (Tuesday evening) continues to be poor. But this weather system will pass through tomorrow and Thursday is forecast to be VFR. That's when I'll find my way back to Oxford to retrieve N631S.

Tweet

"It's the Third Approach that Kills You"

One of the "Ancient Pelicans" hanging around KBDR shared the wisdom in this post's title with me soon after I got my Instrument Rating. His theory was that if you were shooting an instrument approach for the third time you were tired, and frustrated, and maybe getting a little thin on fuel...and thus perfectly set up to push things a bit too far. And your funeral would be held on a sunny day.

So, he advised, go ahead and take it around for a second try. But if the second approach is a miss...go somewhere else where conditions are better. I thought that was pretty good advice.

That advice came back to me this afternoon, after the folks at FlightAware.com sent me an e-mail notification about a friend's flight. I have the "N" numbers of several friends' airplanes set up for the service and one of them had departed Lancaster (KLNS) for a flight to Manassas (KHEF). I clicked on the link to see where he was.

He'd departed KLNS shortly before 2:00 PM, launching into some fairly significant weather. By the time I brought up the web site (just about 3:00 PM) I expected he'd be close to his destination. But I found him 20 miles north of Manassas, on the ILS approach to Runway 17 at Leesburg (KJYO). Given the weather depicted on the screen, this would likely be an interesting approach. I pulled up the METAR:

 
KJYO 221955Z AUTO 00000KT 4SM RA BKN002 OVC017 10/10 A3009

That was not at all a sure thing! Ceiling reported at 200 feet, and the Decision Height for the approach at 250 feet AGL. I refreshed the screen a couple more times, watching the airplane icon near the airport location, and the altitude readout roll down. Then, it started to roll up, the speed readout increased and the icon turned away. Missed approach.

My friend flies a Cirrus SR-22, and is a fine instrument pilot. But this was no-kidding-around weather – the Real Deal. I had to hang around to watch the story unfold.

The airplane icon moved off to the north, then turned back toward KJYO. Vectors for a second approach. Back to the final approach course, speed reduced, altitude decreasing...and then increasing. A second missed approach! And the advice of the Ancient Pelican, gone West years ago, arose in my mind. Get out of there, my friend. You don't have to be in Leesburg today.

At left, the track as shown on FlightAware.com to this point. (Click to enlarge.) You can see the first approach, the turn outbound and then back in for the second ILS. And finally, the airplane icon outbound again to the Northwest. "Say intentions."

I will admit to a sigh of relief when he turned to the northeast and left KJYO well behind. Having decided that two tries at that ILS were quite enough he was headed somewhere else. I watched to see where he'd go.

The track bent to the east and then around to the southwest. He was lining up for the Runway 23 ILS approach at Frederick (KFDK). As the icon representing my friend's airplane approached KFDK I pulled up the METAR that was on offer there:

 
KFDK 222051Z AUTO 36005KT 7SM +RA SCT004 BKN009 OVC023 08/08 A3009 RMK AO2 P0002

Despite the heavy rain (+RA) this looked better. Good visibility and a broken ceiling at 900 feet. I watched, refreshing the display periodically, as the tiny blue airplane moved over the airport symbol...and stopped. Safe on the ground. (Below, the rest of the track courtesy of FlightAware.com)

Of course, the outcome was never seriously in doubt. My friend is a capable aviator, well qualified to deal with these conditions. But I'm sure he had some adrenalin flowing and he probably sat in the airplane for a minute after shutting down, while some tension dissipated.

As for me, I applauded the good judgement he exercised in avoiding a third approach to KJYO. Perhaps somewhere my other friend, the Ancient Pelican, is smiling.

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

First, the Good News...

The weather forecast is fine for a flight this afternoon from KBDR down to KVKX in the DC area. While temperatures aloft will be below freezing (after all, it is November), the skies should be clear or at least ceilings should be quite high. Thus, icing ought not to be at issue.

On the subject of ceilings, I've been enjoying a new (to me) weather data site, the High Resolution Rapid Refresh (HRRR) model from NOAA. (A "hat tip" to Jim Fallows for pointing this one out on his blog a couple of days ago.) It appears to have evolved from the highly regarded Rapid Update Cycle (RUC) model and includes excellent forecasted ceiling graphics like, for example, this:

That graphic depicts ceiling heights forecast for 23Z this evening and, as you can see, it's an optimistic picture. And, the Terminal Area Forecasts (TAF's) are consistent with it. So it's all good, but...

Now, the Bad News!

This morning, when I went to the airport to stow my bag and pre-pre-flight N631S, a problem cropped up. The flashing beacon (that red flasher on top of the vertical stabilizer) neither flashed nor beacon-ed. I'd expect to be flying after sunset, and the rules say that if you have anti-collision lights installed they have to work. So I look at this as a "no-go" item. My friends at Three Wing Flying Services are working on the problem. If it's an easy fix, I'll be good to go. If it turns out to be hard or to require a part that isn't in stock, then I will find myself on AmTrak this weekend.

Tweet