 |
 |
|
Tuesday, June 2, 2004
Vol. 1 No. 1 |
|
Welcome to the inaugural issue of Over the Airwaves aviation newsletter. This irregularly published e-mailing is being sent to members of the Western New York E-Pilots listserv. The aim of this e-publication is to promote flight safety, encourage students and new pilots, enhance pilot awareness of upcoming events, and to build enthusiasm for aviation in general. Designated Pilot Examiners (DPEs) and Flight Instructors Gathered Together in Rochester: The Rochester FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) hosted a day long meeting of Designated Pilot Examiners (DPEs) and certificated flight instructors (CFIs) on Wednesday, May 26 to be briefed on a variety of flight training topics. One particularly gratifying area for me, personally, was a presentation by Don Mann, FAA Aviation Safety Inspector. Don and I had a lively debate about six months ago regarding the interpretation of FAR 61.1 pertaining to the logging of student cross-country time. Don insisted that the regulations required that EACH leg of a cross-country flight be more than 50 miles long in order for that leg to be counted as cross-country time. I, on the other hand, argued that the ALL legs on a cross-country flight could be counted as cross-country time as long as the furthest point of landing was more than 50 miles from the original point of departure
The official FAA HQ answer was received on the very day of the DPE/CFI meeting. Don presented the news to the gathered participants . . . then he handed me a gift certificate for lunch! My interpretation proved to be the correct one. However, I quickly conceded the point that Don had been making all along. That is, the intent of cross-country flight is to train students to navigate over reasonably long distances. If one were to land every few miles, this training opportunity would be lost. On the other hand, if a student elects to land 30 or so miles into a specific leg, say for lunch or a potty stop, he or she should not be penalized. A copy of the official FAA legal opinion letter is shown HERE. In the final analysis, this debate proved that the FARs are not "black and white." There's lots of room for interpretation, based upon specific circumstance. Don's point is a good one. That is, if you are in doubt about a specific FAR, follow the more restrictive approach until official clarification can be obtained. Herein lies a very important aspect of safe flight. Just because a flight action is permissible by FAR, it does not necessarily make it safe. For example, under Part 91, it is "permissible" to take off in zero visibility conditions. Safe? How about operating VFR with only one mile visibility? Legal - yes. Safe, doubtful. What about launching in IFR with the legal minimum fuel load? Not a wise move, in my opinion. There is lots of room for sound judgment and proper interpretation of the FARs. Literal reading of the FARs in today's changing technology and national airspace system can be a dubious thing. A good example of this is FAR 91.185. This FAR addresses what to do when loss of communications occurs in IMC flight. FAR 91.185 was added back when navigation and communications radios were two different units. Back then, it was reasonable to lose communications without losing the navigation radio. It was also written back before there was nearly universal radar coverage. Today, a communications failure in IMC conditions could quickly translate into a navigation radio failure as well (remember, the com and nav radios are connected in the same box). If, for example, the initial problem was caused be an electrical short or fire . . . is it possible that this fire could burn through a vacuum line as well? Imagine, no voice, no nav, no electric, no vacuum in IMC conditions!!!! This is NOT a survivable scenario. If I lost communications in IMC flight, would I follow FAR 91.185? Not necessarily. Depending upon the circumstances, I would likely squawk 7700 (emergency code, then descend to a VFR altitude (where no other traffic is likely to be in IMC conditions). From there, I would navigate by VOR or GPS to the nearest airport (or VFR conditions), and land. Don't even think about using your handheld, backup radio. Their transmission range is limited to less than 12 miles. As long as we are beating up FAR 91.185, imagine motoring along in your C-172 on a route from Baltimore to Boston in solid IMC conditions when you lose communications. Do you really believe ATC would want you to continue on your flight planned route through the busiest airspace in the world . . . during Friday night arrivals into Newark, LaGuardia, Kennedy, and Logan????? If you followed FAR 91.185 in this instance, east coast traffic would be delayed for hours as ATC cleared a path ahead for you! Ask any NY TRACON or Center controller what s/he would want you to do. The answer would most assuredly be . . . go away and get on the ground as soon as practical. Yes, but is this legal? Certainly, under your emergency authority (FAR 91.3), you can do anything you wish, to the extent necessary to resolve the emergency. So why is FAR 91.185 written the way it is? FAR 91.185 provides a series of possible solutions to communications failure in IMC flight. These solutions may not be the only solutions. This is where AERONAUTICAL DECISION MAKING (ADM) comes into play. As pilot-in-command (PIC), you have the final authority on how to deal with any emergency situation. Here again, total communications failure in IMC is an emergency! Treat it as such and take the action YOU consider the best to resolve the matter. Hopefully, your flight instructor prepared you for such emergencies. Real world wisdom . . . aircraft radios very seldom fail, particularly in a dual radio set up. More often than not, the pilot pushed the wrong switch on the audio panel or dialed in the wrong frequency. Carefully and completely troubleshoot any radio problems BEFORE exercising your emergency authority. If you can't remember what frequency you were on, dial in 121.5 and ask whoever answers. Iraq War Female Pilot Shares Recent Combat Flight Experiences with Aero Club of Buffalo Members: U.S. Air Force Major Pamela Norkaitis, C-130 pilot with the 914th Air National Guard unit- based at Niagara Falls, told of her experiences flying equipment and personnel into and out of Iraq. With most of the world hearing news of Iraq as filtered through the news media, Pamela provided listeners with a first-hand account of what it was really like. Pam's story was particularly compelling because she is a women functioning in a very "male" world. She began her career in the Air Force as a navigator. Unable to secure a pilot's license via the military, she went out on her own and secured her private pilot's certificate on her own while stationed in Japan. "Trouble was, she said, Japan's weather in the winter is nearly always cloudy." "We had to fly 50 miles over open water to get to the practice area - and to do that we needed at least a 5,000' ceiling. This almost never occurred," she added. Pam persisted and eventually secured her private pilot's certificate. Pam's story should serve as an inspiration for all aspiring pilots . . . particularly women.
Photos: Left: C-130 Hercules. Center: Major Norkaitis with Aero Club president, Tom Kopera and his wife, Jeanette; Right Erica Miller with Major Norkaitis. Click on each photo above to enlarge.
The World's Last
Remaining Flying B-29 along with a B-24 Coming to Buffalo:
The Commemorative Air Force (formerly the Confederate Air Force)
will be flying the world's last airworthy Click here for a brief history of the B-29. If you are you are not yet a member of the Aero Club of Buffalo, now would be the time to join. The dues are still only $25 per year. Simply complete this application.
Landings Gone Bad: There's an eye-popping article in the Airmanship section of the July, 2004 issue of Aviation Safety titled, "Landings Gone Bad" by Paul Berge. The article points out that, according to the NTSB, 1,500 fixed wing general aviation aircraft crashed in 2001. That's four every day! Take off-and-landing accidents accounted for 58 percent of these accidents. Here's a couple of things we all can do to prevent landing accidents:
After-School Aviation
Program to be Offered in Akron Central Schools:
Akron High
School students will have an opportunity this coming year to receive
ground
AVGAS Prices: The range in price for 100LL is broadening (low of $2.49 at Buffalo/Lancaster and high of $4.04 Buffalo-Niagara International). Be sure to check all the prices in your area before you leave by clicking HERE. Bookmark this site for future use. Instrument Students Alert: The FAA recently published major revisions to the Instrument Pilot Practical Test Standards (PTS). These revisions will become effective October 1, 2004. Among the changes are two additional required maneuvers. These are the circling approach and, if equipped, a GPS approach. Also added is a coupled approach in airplanes having an autopilot. The new PTS also incorporates abnormal and emergency procedures including failure of primary instruments in airplanes equipped with electronic flight systems (glass cockpits). A copy of the new Instrument PTS is available HERE. Upcoming Flying Events: This summer is packed with a full calendar of exciting aviation events throught out the region. Click HERE for a quick reference guide. Akron Airport Memorial Day Breakfast - Near Record Numbers Despite Rain: A soaking rain did not deter nearly 500 people from coming out to Akron Airport's annual Memorial Day breakfast! The event was held in Christian Airmen, Inc.'s recently completed heavy equipment hangar. This facility along with the new runway, taxiway, lighting, access road, ramp improvements, and landscaping were all completed this past year. The airport is still waiting for local zoning changes before it can erect ten new T-hangars, the cross-wind runway, and total perimeter fencing.
Click on each of the photos above to enlarge. Precision Runway Monitoring: If you plan on arriving IFR at Philadelphia, Minneapolis, and a growing number of larger airports, you better be qualified to shoot an ILS-PRM approach. If you're not, you may be turned away when IFR operations are underway. The FAA is continuing efforts to increase the number of Precision Runway Monitoring systems at specific airport locations across the country. The installation of equipment and the implementation of PRM procedures allows simultaneous closely spaced operations to be conducted at airports where parallel runways are separated by less than 4300 feet. PRM offers opportunity for increased arrival operations efficiency at airports meeting FAA criteria for closely space parallel runways. To realize the full benefits of PRM, all pilots flying into an airport using PRM must be able to accept a clearance for the approach when services are offered. The effect of non-participant aircraft requesting arrival services into a PRM location during operations is significant. Pilots are encouraged to support these operations by completing training as identified by the FAA. Click HERE to learn more about ILS-PRM approaches. Please let me know if you would like to secure the required ILS-PRM training for qualification to use these approaches. Speaking of IFR maneuvers, I have been conducting an Instrument Refresher course tailored to individual pilot needs. This six hour course focuses on IFR emergencies, partial panel approaches, and upsets as well as the new IFR-PRM approaches. Drop me an email at rjma@rjma.com if you would like to brush up your rusty IFR skills and receive an Instrument Proficiency Check at the same time. For Sale:
Wonderful World of Flight: Be sure to visit the Wonderful World of Flight website at http://www.rjma.com/flight/homepage.htm. For Flight Students to Think About: If you think you can or if you think you can't - either way, you're right. I've never seen it fail!
Safe Flying,
Bob Miller, CFII
|
