Aviation Mentor

Surprise, Surprise

2009-11-21T21:11:00.000-08:00

The concept of automation surprise has been around for years in the large aircraft world and now it's part of the GA aircraft that you are flying or might soon be flying. Automation surprise occurs when a system, such as a GPS receiver and/or autopilot, does something the pilot neither expected nor intended. The result is that the aircraft deviates from an assigned heading, route, altitude, or approach path and the pilot may lose situation awareness, too. Actually, it's the pilot-in-command who is considered to have deviated, not the plane or it's systems and blaming the machine is an argument that's probably not going to hold water. With all the technically-advanced GA aircraft out there, automation surprise is now something that GA pilots must understand and be ready to handle.

While I don't pretend to be a human factors expert, I've both witnessed and been on the receiving end of automation surprise on several occasions. Most of the surprises I've seen in GA aircraft resulted from the pilot making mode errors - not fully understanding the consequences of their knob twisting and button pushing. Yet I have also seen deviations result from equipment failures and even from shortcomings in the design of an instrument procedure. There can be a seemingly endless number of ways for things to go wrong in a complex, automated environment and while we may want to never make any errors, mistakes are going to happen. I'll provide just a few examples of how things can get out of hand when technology is busy making the pilot's job easier and what you can do when the magic turns evil.

Operator Error

Here's a mistake I've witnessed many pilots make with the two-axis KAP-140. ATC instructs "... climb and maintain 7000." You decide it's time for George to do some flying. So you press and hold AP for 1.5 seconds, then press HDG, then select 7000 feet, then press ALT, and are subsequently confused as to why the KAP-140 won't allow you to use the UP button to select a vertical climb rate.

The key is understanding that the KAP-140 goes into VS (vertical speed) mode by default when your press the AP button. The mistake was pressing ALT, which engages altitude hold mode irrespective of the altitude you just dialed in - an odd design, to say the least! Pressing ALT a second time restores VS mode and allows you to enter a vertical climb rate. The problem is that the second time you press ALT to enter vertical speed mode, the altitude you selected is not armed. That means you'll climb, but the KAP-140 will not capture the selected altitude and if you're not paying attention, you'll bust your clearance. Blast!

Having your own SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) for autopilot use, combined with actually looking at the modes being displayed, can help circumvent this problem. A better knobology sequence would be: Dial in 7000 feet, pitch up for the desired climb rate, press and hold AP for 1.5 seconds, then press HDG, then press ARM. This results in the following KAP-140 display: HDG [AP] VS 7000 ALT Armed. The KAP-140 will climb at 500 feet per minute, fly the bugged heading, and level off at 7000 feet.

Unexpected Mode Changes

In an effort to make the pilot's job easier, Garmin's G1000 will automatically switch the navigation source from GPS to a localizer on an ILS, LOC or LDA approach. Interestingly, the G1000 won't automatically switch back to GPS for the missed approach procedure - you must manually switch the navigation source back to GPS. While this may sound like a good feature, it actually creates unintended consequences in aircraft equipped with a Bendix/King KAP-140 autopilot. Here's the setup.

You're flying the Concord LDA RWY 19R approach, approaching from the South, you've requested pilot navigation, Travis Approach has approved, and you're cleared to "cross KANAN at or above 4000' cleared LDA 19 right approach." You've selected and activated the approach on the G1000 with KANAN as the IAF. Your KAP-140 autopilot is engaged in NAV and ALT modes and it is flawlessly tracking a direct course to KANAN.

Crossing KANAN, the GPS sequences to fly the procedure turn and the KAP-140 continues to do a great job. You select 2500 feet, press ALT to enter VS mode, press DN a few times to command a 400'/min descent, and remove some power to keep the airspeed under control. The GPS and the KAP-140 turn the airplane to the outbound procedure turn, then after a minute, they turn the airplane inbound to intercept the approach course.

Reaching 2500 feet, you restore some power and the G1000 then automatically switches the navigation source to the localizer. If you're not observant, you will miss this mode change. The HSI needle changes color from magenta (for GPS) to green (for the localizer) and the switch in navigation source causes the KAP-140 to silently enter ROL mode. That's right, there's no aural alarm to alert you that this mode change has happened, just ROL flashing on the KAP-140 display - which is out of your primary field of view. If you don't realize the KAP-140 is in ROL mode, the airplane will fly right through the localizer. Ooops!

One SOP you could use to prevent this is to always change the KAP-140 to HDG, manually change the navigation source to the localizer, and follow the GPS prompts to manually command the procedure turn using the heading bug. Once you've turned inbound to intercept the localizer, press NAV and the KAP-140 will capture the localizer course.

Missing the Missed Approach

The Garmin G1000, as well as the 430/530 GPS receivers, can help you fly the missed approach using GPS navigation as long as everything goes as planned. For an ILS approach, the GPS must handle two possible cases: The full ILS and a localizer-only approach. The GPS considers the MAP to be at the runway threshold, even though the MAP on an ILS is technically at decision height, on glide slope, and on the localizer course.

For these GPS receivers to suspend waypoint sequencing, you need to fly over the MAP at the runway threshold. Only then can you press the OBS key (or softkey) to re-enable waypoint sequencing, switch the navigation source back to GPS, and fly the missed approach using the GPS. If you don't fly over the MAP, waypoint sequencing won't be suspended and you'll need to do some more work to activate the missed approach. If you don't understand this GPS behavior, you could find yourself very confused at a high workload moment. Do'h!

Procedure Problems

Though rare, automation surprise may occur due to the way an instrument procedure was designed. This is exactly what happened to a pilot I was flying with recently on an approach I had flown many, many times before. The thing is, it had been quite a while since I flew this approach and the procedure had changed. Here's what happened.

The pilot requested the Sacramento Executive ILS RWY 2 practice approach with the published missed approach. Approach responded "... cross COUPS at or above 3000, cleared ILS 2 practice approach." The pilot selected the approach and activated it with COUPS as the initial approach fix. The autopilot was engaged in NAV mode and flew us to COUPS. What happened next was both dramatic and unexpected.

Reaching COUPS, the GPS commanded a 41 degree heading change to the left from a 015 track to a 334 track to navigate to the newly added Computer Navigation Fix (CNF) UBIYI: A 41 degree heading change for a leg that is only 0.2 miles long! The groundspeed was only 110 knots, but there was no time for GPS turn anticipation to smooth this out. As soon as the GPS commanded a turn to the left, it commanded a turn back to the right as the airplane blew through the approach course. It happened so fast that we both wondered what was wrong. Was this a GPS error or an autopilot error?

No sooner had we begun to doubt the automation, the plane was headed back to intercept the localizer. You have to look really closely at the chart to see that the GPS and the KAP-140 were just trying to fly the approach as it is coded. I emailed the FAA to suggest they take another look at the unintended consequences of the change that was made. Good idea!

Ounce of Prevention

The primary ways a pilot can prevent automation surprise are both simple and straightforward:

Know your own limits with regard to currency/proficiency
Know thy aircraft's equipment
Monitor what the automated systems are doing
Stay ahead of (or at least be in synch with) ATC's game plan
Maintain situational awareness
Develop and use SOPs (standard operating procedures)
And be prepared to catch and correct errors.

I'd like to be able to tell you that the average pilot can fly a G1000-equipped aircraft once a month and maintain instrument proficiency. Sadly, this is usually not the case. Unless you are practicing regularly with a G1000 PC Trainer or other simulator, you'll get rusty - fast! Part of this erosion of skill is due to the vast number of features the G1000 offers, but much of the problem lies in the user interface's annoying design that requires you to recognize subtle changes in operational modes. I don't want to mince words here: The G1000 and other GA GPS receivers are not easy to use. They require regular use and practice for pilots to maintain proficiency.

PC-based simulators can be an effective and inexpensive way to maintain your instrument chops, but you need to have a plan. Sitting down and just screwing around is not going to serve you well. As they say in the music world: "If you play when you practice, you'll practice when you play."

A suggestion I've made before is to treat your autopilot and GPS like you would a low-time private pilot. It's okay to trust the systems, but monitor them to ensure they are doing what you intended. This is particularly important during transitions to climbs, descents, level-offs, turns to a heading, and intercepting and tracking a navigational course. So periodically interrupt whatever you were doing to ensure George is still flying the plane the way you intended. Did it capture the altitude you programmed? Has it intercepted the navigational course you intended? Is the autopilot still operating in the mode(s) you intended? If not, promptly drop what you are doing, intervene, fly the plane, and then try to determine why or George will trim you into a stall, flying you into the ground, or take you off course.

Remember that you are the last line of defense when automation goes bad. Never, ever forget that fact.

ForeFlight Checklists for the iPhone

2009-11-08T16:29:00.000-08:00

After the ditching of US Airways 1549 in the Hudson River earlier this year, an interesting fact came out of the review of the accident: In order to apparently save some money, the index tabs on the aircraft check lists had been removed, making the check list more difficult to use. Now in emergency situations there isn't always going to be time to run the appropriate check list, but I kept wondering "wouldn't it be nice if there was as electronic way to quickly access and display this information?" This would be especially nice for frequently used, non-emergency check lists.

Well ForeFlight has created two iPhone apps, Checklist Lite and Checklist Pro, that allow you to create your own aircraft check lists in an easy-to-access format. The Lite version of the app is free and the Pro version costs $19.99. Either app will function just fine with your iPhone in airplane mode. Again, let me disclose that I was provided a complimentary version of ForeFlight Checklist Pro by the developers in consideration for my reviewing their product.

I suggest that if you're serious about check lists on your iPhone (or iPod Touch) that you spring for the Pro version because it allows you to create, edit, and sync check lists on a web site using your browser as an editor. I found this much easier than editing on the iPhone itself (which is all the Lite version supports). Once you have created a check list on the web-based editor, you can sync it with your iPhone. The Pro version also gives you access to a variety of check list templates for a select number of popular aircraft.

In this review I'll just be covering the Pro version, discussing how to use the ForeFlight Checklist web site to create a new check list, then how to sync the checklist with your iPhone and use it with the aircraft in question. ForeFlight has also produced this how-to video.

After purchasing the Pro version, you register a checklist account on ForeFlight Checklist web site. The first thing you'll see when you log onto the ForeFlight Checklist web site is a list of checklists. Their scheme is to name the checklist with the plane's tail number, but I fly a lot of different aircraft with different tail numbers and many of those aircraft are of the same type. So I chose to name my check lists after the type of aircraft, rather than the registration number, so I could have one check list for each type. Your mileage may vary ...

The ForeFlight Check Lists are organized in a three-level hierarchy: The top level, called Group, contains Normal and Emergency/Abnormal items, You can't add, delete, or change items at the Group level. Now I like the check lists I create and use to have a comprehensive list of all the V-speeds in one place, so I created my own Subgroup called "V-Speeds" that contains a List group with those speeds.

You can decide what items you want in the Group and List levels of the hierarchy by using the the icons to the right of each header. You can move items up or down, rename, or delete, them. You can even copy List items to another Group within your check list or to a different check list altogether. The List level contains the actual check list items, organized in a Challenge/Response format along with a provision for notes on each item. If you want to create a header to separate lists of challenge/response items, just type something in the Challenge field and leave the Response and Notes fields blank.

Once you have created your check lists on the ForeFlight Checklist web site, it's time to launch the app on your iPhone (or iPod Touch). That's when you'll see this splash screen reminding you that a check list on your iPhone is not a substitute for the manufacturer's supplied data that should be in the aircraft.

You won't see any check lists when you first launch so you can tap the + button in the upper left and start editing on your iPhone or do what I did and tap on the sync button in the lower left edge of the screen (shown circled in red).

Syncing is pretty fast, but it can be unexpectedly destructive and the process currently provides no warning if the sync action you are about to do will delete a check list entirely. I found this out the hard way - D'oh!

Once the sync is complete, you'll see all the checklists that you created on the web site are now on your iPhone (or iPod Touch).

I tapped on the GA7 check list and this brought up a list of the normal check list Groups by default. To see the emergency/abnormal Group, tap on the red emergency button on the lower right corner of the screen.

Here's how the V-speed list I created on the web site appears when displayed on the iPhone. Granted this is not a check list per se, but hey, it works for me.

To use a check list, select it from the Subgroups list, simply tap on each item as your complete them, and you'll see a green checkmark appear next to the item and the screen will automatically scroll to the next item. No more losing your place in the check list!

If you exit a check list before completing all the items, ForeFlight will remind you: Notice the icon next to that Group item is only partially green, which means you have some unfinished business to attend to.

Return to an uncompleted check list and the display automatically scrolls to the first incomplete item. Pretty foolproof way to recover from the "interrupted check list" syndrome.

Finish all the items in a check list and you'll see the icon next to that Subgroup item shows it is complete. If you want to reset all the check lists in this Subgroup, simply tap on the reset button on the lower right edge of the screen.

From an instructional standpoint, the Notes feature for check lists items is particularly useful. Take the GA7 engine start procedure, which specifies that only left magnetos are turned on until after the engine is started. Placing a brief explanation in the Notes field is a great way for a pilot to learn (or remember) why something is being done the way it is.

For flexibility, you can consciously choose to skip a check list item by tapping the yellow Skip button instead of tapping on the item itself. Be aware that when you exit the check list containing one or more skipped items, ForeFlight will show the check list as being completed as long as all the other items were completed. You can also use the reset button to reset a single check list or an entire group of check lists. Pretty darn flexible, if you ask me.

To display the emergency/abnormal Group of check lists, tap on the red emergency button on the lower right of the screen.

Tap on a particular Group, like Engine Failures, and you'll see the list of Subgroups.

Then just tap on a Subgroup item to access the check list you want to complete.

And after you've gone to all the trouble of creating a check list, wouldn't it be nice to be able to share it with another pilot? ForeFlight has thought of that, just tap on the Share button on the bottom of the check list screen and select the check list you want to share.

The app will prompt you for the pilot's email address and email them a link to use for accessing your check list. The other pilot just needs to open the email on their iPhone and click on the link it contains to get a copy of your check list. Now all that's needed is a way to bill the other pilot for your time and effort!

Like all the ForeFlight apps, I found Checklist Pro to be well-designed and executed. So if you're an iPhone or iPod Touch user with a check list fetish, I recommend you check out ForeFlight Checklist Lite or Pro.

ForeFlight Charts for iPhone

2009-11-02T19:10:00.000-08:00

ForeFlight recently released two new apps for the iPhone, ForeFlight Charts and ForeFlight Checklist Pro. As promised, here's my take on the charts app, including who might benefit from using them, and what I like along with enhancements I'd like to see in future version. As before, I want to disclose that I was provided with complimentary versions of these iPhone apps in consideration for reviewing them. Expect a review of ForeFlight Checklist Pro soon.

The premise behind ForeFlight Charts seems simple: Provide pilots the ability to quick access VFR Sectionals and Terminal Area Charts on their iPhone even if it is in airplane mode and doesn't have a 3G or WiFi connection. Aside from the limited screen size of the iPhone, this $9.99 app succeeds. You can enter an airport, route or just select your current location and in no time you're looking at the VFR chart for that area. Use the usual gestures to zoom in or out and scroll. The screen refresh rate is good on my 3G iPhone and is probably faster on a 3GS phone.

Consider the problem faced by a student pilot (or any pilot for that matter) who needs to plot a course between two airports, but the airports are on different sides of the chart. With ForeFlight charts you can enter the departure and destination airport to quickly find out the straight-line distance and the magnetic course for a direct route between the airports.

It would be cool to be able to do this in flight from your current position, but the iPhone's airplane mode disables the GPS and it's illegal to leave a cell phone active while in flight. I'm told that users who jail-break their iPhones can disable the phone while leaving the GPS receiver active, but this is an issue that Apple really needs to appreciate and address.

You can configure a cruise airspeed and fuel burn (in gallons, liters, or pounds per hour) and, enter a route, and get a rough estimate on the flight time and fuel requirements. Of course this does not take into account winds aloft or the fuel required during climb or descent, but it gives you a rough idea.

The routes you can enter a somewhat limited since ForeFlight Charts doesn't seem to understand Victor airways, VORs, or other waypoints, but you can enter a string of three or more airport identifiers to create a direct route between each. It also a bummer that ForeFlight Charts does not support IFR low-altitude en route charts. Perhaps they'll consider that for a future release.

One unfortunate design assumption is that you already know the ICAO or FAA identifier for each airport. There is no search feature, but remember this app is only $9.99. If you want a more robust search feature, I guess that's what ForeFlight Mobile is for.

So my short laundry list of what I'd like to see in a future release:

IFR Low-altitude En Route Chart support
Search for airports by name, city, or state
Ability to understand Victor airways, VORs, and intersections

All in all, I think ForeFlight Charts is a usable package at a reasonable price. Keep in mind that you'll need to pay $9.99 each year to be able to continue to get current charts, but that's a heck of a lot cheaper and more convenient that what NACO has given us. While this app won't yet replace a paper chart, pencil, and plotter for student pilot use, it is still a great learning and teaching tool. It's also handy for arm-chair flying when you want to imagine all those cool trips you'll be taking in the future. And when the Apple tablet computer finally becomes available, these sorts of apps will become that much better.

Generation D

2009-10-27T19:58:00.000-07:00

It was Douglas Coupland, the Canadian novelist who thrust the term "Generation X" into popular use with his ground-breaking novel of the same name. Gen X was shorthand for the generation born after the postwar baby boom of the 1950's, a generation that allegedly didn't respect their parents and (gasp!) tended to not believe in God. In his follow-on book "Shampoo Planet," Coupland then wrote about Generation Y (aka Generation Next or Generation Net), the folks born in the mid-1970s who some claim have a pronounced tendency exhibit the so-called "Peter Pan Syndrome:" They don't want to grow up or want to delay it as long as possible.

A lot has happened since Coupland first put pen to paper in the Mojave desert and started the idea of "Generation X." For one, the number of US cell phone subscribers has increased from 340,000 in 1985 to 180 million in 2004, a factual tidbit that comes from the US Geological Survey's analysis of the cellphone recycling problem. That's right, PDAs, "smart" phones, and other portable devices have become so widespread that they have created their own recycling problem. Perhaps even worse, portable electronic devices have created another, possibly more immediate risk: A nation of drivers (and pilots) so distracted that at times we barely seem able to function. Consider just the aspect of text messaging while driving, examined in this New Zealand experiment.

Turns out that trying to dial a cellphone or just talk on one (even with a hands-free device) makes you 4 times more likely to be involved in an accident than if you have your head in the game and your eyes on the road. Using a cellphone while driving is equivalent to having a 0.08% blood alcohol reading. Using a cellphone while driving is equivalent to driving drunk. In California (and many other states) it is illegal to text message or use a phone without a hands-free device while driving, unless you are a law enforcement officer or, apparently, if you are the Governor's wife. Actually, there are so many people violating the hands-free driving law in California that giving Maria Schriver a hard time is just scapegoating. Virtually all of us are doing it.

Distracted driving has become of particular interest to me since I recently purchased a second hand scooter and am using it to commute to and from the airport. Since I sit higher than most drivers and am unemcumbered by a steel cage, I am at once more vulnerable and more able to see what drivers are doing. Let me tell you, it ain't pretty. Here are just a few things people try to do while driving:

Read or send text messages/email
Dial or talk on the phone
Eat and/or drink
Put on makeup
Make out
Read legal briefs, newspapers, books ...
Watch videos on their hand-held device
Balance a checkbook
And so on ...

While riding my scooter the other day, I narrowly avoided a bicyclist who blindly strayed into my path because he was talking on his cell phone and simultaneously eating a sandwich. Hands-free cycling! A ground-breaking, new concept!

In this NY Times video, participants in a driving simulator were asked to use a cell phone and to make an exit for a rest stop. More than half of them missed the exit and many didn't realize it until well past the exit. It appears the flight crew of NWA 188 have shown that it can happen to pilots, too. Surprise, surprise. If you think this isn't serious business, consider that the FAA revoked their pilot certificates for their transgressions. They can appeal to the NTSB, but for now they've lost their livelihood and probably their jobs.

The hard fact to face is that all of us continue to vastly overestimate our ability to multi-task even when faced with conclusive evidence to the contrary. Captain Dave startled me with his recent blog post, a commentary littered with the logical fallacies a) the flying public doesn't understand, b) that this has happened before, c) it will happen again, and d) the end result of NWA 188 will just be more regulations and restrictions to stifle flight crews.

So what of NWA 188 flight crew's performance? They became so fixated on whatever it was they were doing that they missed repeated radio calls and messages from their dispatcher. The "hero" of that flight (hey, we need a hero for every story, right?) was the cabin attendant who called the flight deck to ask for an ETA, thereby breaking the chain of distraction.

Drivers and pilots out there, it's time to face facts: Distractions severely reduce our performance and the results can be expensive, deadly, or both. This isn't about political correctness or totalitarianism or over-regulation, it's about the bigger picture. It's about thinking of someone other than ourselves. The growing epidemic of distraction can be solved on an individual level through self-control and sound decision-making. It's easy: Resist the urge to pull out your phone when you hear it ring or feel it vibrate or believe you just got an email or text message. Heck, if you're going to drive (or fly, or work air traffic), just put your phone into airplane mode. If you want to eat, or put on your face, or conduct business, do everyone a favor - pull over and park. And if you're flying, don't become so infatuated with technology and pretty colors that you lose situational awareness.

We've become a nation of gadget addicts and if we don't break the chain, we will be one nation, united by distraction. So you want to really be a rugged individualist, someone who doesn't run with herd? Develop Higher Order Thinking Skills and increase your performance at the same time: Put down your damn portable electronic device and just drive ... or fly.

ForeFlight Mobile

2009-10-26T05:30:00.000-07:00

Several readers suggested I review the iPhone app ForeFlight Mobile and recently folks at ForeFlight contacted me. Again, in the interest of transparency, I'll say up front that I was provided with complimentary versions of their iPhone apps: ForeFlight Mobile, ForeFlight Charts, Checklist Pro, and ForeFlight File. In general, I like what I see: Stable software with excellent user interfaces suggest thoughtful design and implementation along with thorough quality assurance. I mainly cover ForeFlight Mobile in this post and plan to review the others in a future post.

ForeFlight before Flight

As its name implies, ForeFlight Mobile is primarily a preflight planning tool and I wish I'd had it few years ago. Lockheed-Martin had just taken over FSS, I was still flying freight, and I would have given my eyeteeth for a product like ForeFlight. On more than one occasion I found myself delayed on the ramp for over an hour before departing into rapidly deteriorating weather. With no internet access, I had no way to get an updated weather briefing other than call FSS on my cell phone. So I sat inside the plane, watched the pouring rain, the poor rampers getting drenched to the bone, and waited on hold for a FSS briefer. After over 15 minutes, I had to hang up. The ramp agent was pushing release paperwork at me and explaining a 727 was inbound and needed to park right where I was sitting. So I called a fellow pilot who was sitting standby and asked him to use his laptop to give me a picture of the weather. If I'd had ForeFlight Mobile, I'd have been better prepared and a lot calmer when I departed. Of course, this was several years before the iPhone had even been created.

Search and Yee Shall Find

The ForeFlight Mobile interface is centered primarily around airports, which I found very logical. You can also enter a ZIP code. If you enter an aircraft tail number, the aircraft registration information is returned. If you enter a route, you can see recently assigned ATC routings and file a flight plan.

Entering the airport in which you're interested will display information on the runways and airport facilities. You can view an airport diagram and even add the airport to your list of favorites. If you want, ForeFlight mobile will open Google Maps and display the area in road map, satellite, or hybrid view.

By scrolling down you can access even more information on the runways, terminal procedures, sunrise and sunset, and fuel service. When you access terminal procedures (where available), you can choose to save the procedure which will allow you to display the chart when your iPhone is in airplane mode or when a data connection is otherwise unavailable.

A row of buttons at the bottom of the airport window lets you access information on nearby airports, NOTAMs, and see the airport displayed on a VFR or IFR chart, though you can't zoom out or scroll around on the chart. That's where ForeFlight Charts comes in. You can also get FBO information and find a hotel.

Weather the Storm

Tap on the WX button in the upper right corner and you can access current and forecast weather for that airport and the surrounding area. This brings up one of the best ForeFlight Mobile features - animated color radar images. Here's a snap of a particularly nasty rain storm that rolled through the Bay Area last Monday, which by the way the forecasters totally blew. No I wasn't flying that day, but I did need to walk my dogs!

If you select an airport that has no weather reporting, ForeFlight Mobile will automatically display the current and forecast weather for the nearest airport or airports. Note the convenient color-coding for VFR, IFR, and low IFR.

Get the Big Picture

Back on the main screen, you can also access national or international weather imagery.

Staying in the Loop
When the data that ForeFlight uses needs to be updated, you'll see a red number superimposed over the app's icon. You access the download feature from the "More ..." button. You best have a WiFi connection (not 3G) when you choose to update ForeFlight data.

So is it a "Real" Briefing?

Pilots often ask me when a preflight briefing is considered "official" and does a ForeFlight Mobile briefing put them in compliance with 14 CFR 91.103; Namely, becoming "... familiar with all available information ..." That's a tough question, only made tougher by all the excellent sources of aviation weather information out there.

For their part, the folks at ForeFlight have announced that parts of ForeFlight Mobile have received Qualified Internet Communications Provider (or QCIP) approval from the FAA. Apparently the advisory circular that describes QCIP approval is a bit vague. It also appears this AC hasn't been updated in 8 years.

So the best advice I can offer to pilots out there is to get the most complete picture of the weather that you can using all available sources, then cover your fundament and get a briefing from FSS, DUAT, DUATS, or FltPlan. Doing this last step will ensure that there is a record of your briefing, should something not work out the way you wanted or planned.

Hv u seen my "vo"?

2009-10-20T14:54:00.000-07:00

It occurs to me that one use of a blog might be to make lame posts that document things that occurred at a specific time, kinda like sending yourself something in the mail as a proof of copyright. Okay, maybe a blog posting doesn't carry the same legal weight, but that's how I'm going to use it today.

At dinner the other night, a friend mentioned that he thought there should be a short, two letter placeholder that could be used to substitute for any noun that should be obvious from context. His idea was to have a shorthand for text messaging a noun using just one or two key presses.

I found this interesting because a few years ago my wife and I had taken to using the word "schnitzel" during conversation for just such a purpose: "Honey, have you seen my schnitzel? I left it right by the front door and now I can't find it." You see, as you get older it can often be difficult to produce certain words from the depths of one's brain on the spur of the moment. If you're younger than age 50, this probably won't make any sense and you'll have to indulge me.

Back to the dinner conversation, I heard my friend's lament and immediately thought of a unique consonant and vowel combination and blurted out "Well, how about vo?" You know, rhymes with snow?" Another friend immediately chimed in: "VO could stand for 'very obvious.'" I was there. I saw it happen. Perhaps this will turn out to be as momentous an occasion as the completion of the East-West Railroad, or Neil Armstrong setting foot on the moon, or some other ... vo.

So my question to you, gentle reader, is can you think of some uses of vo for a noun that should be obvious from context? Or is this just a further degradation of language brought on by technology and sloth?

And here's another question: Should it be permissible to use vo as an adjective that should be obvious from context, or is that just too ... vo?

In any event, just remember when vo starts appearing in text messages, in emails, and on your local news programs, you heard it here first.

LogTen Pro Update

2009-10-18T15:12:00.000-07:00

A recent, major upgrade to the Mac-based electronic logbook LogTen Pro has added some nifty features. For airline pilots, LogTen Pro 5 on the Mac allows you to import flight schedules from a wide variety of airline scheduling systems.

A feature that all pilots can appreciate is the ability to download data on more than 27,000 "landing places" and have that data automatically filled in when you log your flights. They aren't called airports because "places" include things like heliports, sea ports, even oil rigs.

LogTen Pro 5 is said to be significantly faster than the previous version, though I haven't noticed that much difference. The new version offers ways to track currency and duty limits that are simple to figure out and use. On the downside, some users (including me) have experienced occasional, yet nagging syncing problems between LogTen Pro and LogTen Mobile.

In spite of some minor gripes, LogTen Pro and LogTen Mobile have become staple applications for many pilots. Both products have certainly changed the way I track my flight times. And in the interest of transparency let me add that I received my upgrade to version 5 at no cost in consideration for my reviews of LogTen, past and present.

TFR Musings

2009-10-14T09:40:00.000-07:00

For the first time in quite a while, my teaching schedule will be affected by a presidential TFR and I feel the urge to get on my soapbox. I accept the government's authority to use airspace restrictions to protect VIPs, that I will lose a day's worth of income, and that I will not be compensated for my loss. To add insult to injury, the way the TFRs are defined and disseminated is, quite simply, ridiculous.

Now in fairness, the TFR system has improved in the last few years. For one thing, the FAA now actually charts the restricted areas on a map, but there is still room for considerable improvement. You can go to the FAA's website to look up TFRs, though the site contains a disclaimer saying that the descriptions may be incomplete.

The TFR that will affect the Bay Area has four - count 'em! - components covering two different areas and four different effective times.

FDC 9/4760 ZOA PART 1 OF 4 FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS SAN FRANCISCO, CA, OCTOBER 15-16, 2009 LOCAL. PURSUANT TO 49 USC 40103(B), THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA) CLASSIFIES THE AIRSPACE DEFINED IN THIS NOTAM AS 'NATIONAL DEFENSE AIRSPACE'. PILOTS WHO DO NOT ADHERE TO THE FOLLOWING PROCEDURES MAY BE INTERCEPTED, DETAINED AND INTERVIEWED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT/SECURITY PERSONNEL. ANY OF THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL ACTIONS MAY ALSO BE TAKEN AGAINST A PILOT WHO DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OR ANY SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR PROCEDURES ANNOUNCED IN THIS NOTAM:

A) THE FAA MAY TAKE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION, INCLUDING IMPOSING CIVIL PENALTIES AND THE SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF AIRMEN CERTIFICATES; OR

B) THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT MAY PURSUE CRIMINAL CHARGES, INCLUDING CHARGES UNDER TITLE 49 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 46307; OR

C) THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT MAY USE DEADLY FORCE AGAINST THE AIRBORNE AIRCRAFT, IF IT IS DETERMINED THAT THE AIRCRAFT POSES AN IMMINENT SECURITY THREAT.

PURSUANT TO TITLE 14, SECTION 91.141 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, AIRCRAFT FLIGHT OPERATIONS ARE PROHIBITED:
END PART 1 OF 4

Okay, okay, we get it. Don't violate the TFR or bad things will happen, up to and including being shot out of the sky, but does this actually need to be stated each and every time a restriction is posted? At least put it at the end of the NOTAM, because the effect of having it appear at the beginning of each and every TFR is, well, mind-numbing. So skip over the obvious stuff and then we get to the meat of the TFR that describes the affected areas and the effective times of the TFR:

FDC 9/4760 ZOA PART 2 OF 4 FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS SAN FRANCISCO, CA, WITHIN A 30 NMR OF 374600N/1222320W OR THE OAK270008.2 UP TO BUT NOT INCLUDING 18000 FT MSL.
EFFECTIVE 0910152350 UTC (1650 LOCAL 10/15/09) UNTIL 0910161705 UTC (1005 LOCAL 10/16/09). WITHIN A 10 NMR OF 373720N/1222131W OR THE SFO060000.7 UP TO BUT NOT INCLUDING 18000 FT MSL.
EFFECTIVE 0910152350 UTC (1650 LOCAL 10/15/09) UNTIL 0910160055 UTC (1755 LOCAL 10/15/09). WITHIN A 10 NMR OF 374600N/1222320W OR THE OAK270008.2 UP TO BUT NOT INCLUDING 18000 FT MSL.
EFFECTIVE 0910160020 UTC (1720 LOCAL 10/15/09) UNTIL 0910161640 UTC (0940 LOCAL 10/16/09). WITHIN A 10 NMR OF 373720N/1222131W OR THE SFO060000.7 UP TO BUT NOT INCLUDING 18000 FT MSL.
EFFECTIVE 0910161600 UTC (0900 LOCAL 10/16/09) UNTIL 0910161705 UTC (1005 LOCAL 10/16/09). EXCEPT AS SPECIFIED BELOW AND/OR UNLESS AUTHORIZED BY ATC IN CONSULTATION WITH THE AIR TRAFFIC SECURITY COORDINATOR VIA THE DOMESTIC EVENTS NETWORK (DEN):
END PART 2 OF 4

Okay, is it just me or does specifying the 0.7 DME distance from the SFO VOR seem just a wee bit precious? And why do they specify the upper limit as 18,000 feet at the beginning and the state it again, four times? Much of the complication comes from the unimaginative idea that the inner ring of the TFR must follow the VIP and be centered on their every move. When a VIP lands at an airport and then travels 10 or 15 miles to a fundraising event, having the TFR explicitly move with them needlessly complicates the restriction and probably just increases the likelihood that someone might mistakenly violate the restriction.

For crying out loud, just create one outer ring and one inner ring, centered on an easily identified landmark (like the SFO VOR), and make it big enough to account for the VIP's movements. In other words, KISS - Keep It Simple. I'll get off my soapbox now, as if anyone is listening.

I won't bore you by posting the remaining two components of the TFR. If you're going to fly on Thursday or Friday of this week in the SF Bay Area, get a preflight briefing - don't rely on my observations. And if you are a self-employed pilot or flight instructor who loses income due to these TFR, I'll leave you with the words of the late John Ciardi "May you stay solvent by whatever means are available to you."

Crystal Ball

2009-10-04T21:28:00.000-07:00

Persusing the Internet can lead to some interesting virtual destinations, like the NACO's Instrument Flight Procedures Coordination search facility. This is where IFR geeks can peer into the future and see what changes or entirely new instrument procedures the FAA has in store. You can search by state or by airport name or airport ID (just don't enter an ICAO ID). This is where I first learned of the now-published RNAV (GPS) RWY 14 approach into Yuba County Airport, one of the new approaches in the FAA's LPV-200 initiative, offering a 200 foot decision altitude comparable to an ILS.

I wrote a while back about hearing a pilot get a contact approach clearance he shouldn't have asked for and shouldn't have been given into Little River, situated on a fairly remote portion of the Northern California coast. Well if things go as planned, come December of this year pilots operating into and out of Little River will have a brand spanking new RNAV approach and SID.

You can also get some insight into the significant amount of effort that goes into creating an approach procedure.

Come October of this year, it appears the venerable Tracy VOR or GPS A approach will be no more. Many a time I've watched instrument candidates struggle with this fast-paced, challenging approach, especially with the missed approach holding pattern that is very close to the airport.

This approach will be replaced by the existing RNAV (GPS) RWY 26 approach and a new VOR/DME RWY 26 approach.

Other changes for Northern California include the cancellation of the Ukiah VOR/DME RNAV or GPS B approach, one of the few remaining VOR/DME RNAV approaches left.

If you're wondering what's in store for your neck of the woods, wait for a dark, cold, rainy night and then curl up with the Instrument Flight Procedures Coordination search page and start browsing.

iPhone EFB Redux

2009-09-29T22:58:00.000-07:00

A few days ago, a pilot friend sent me this link, a write-up about a new PDF reader for the iPhone called GoodReader and PDFPlates. So I snagged GoodReader at the iTunes app store, where it is on special for a limited time for a mere $0.99US. I've used PDFPlates before, and found it reasonably useful. And it works on the iPhone, too, due in no small measure to the usefulness of GoodReader, which is true to its name.

I got to thinking how I disliked looking up airports by page number when I test drove the Kindle DX. Finding an airport, then finding the page number, going to that page, and then scrolling to find the approach you want has got to be akin to one of Dante's circles of hell. After using GoodReader's bookmark feature with approach and A/FD files from Nacomatic or PDFPlates, all I can say is vive la différence! Unlike the Kindle DX, GoodReader on the iPhone supports bookmarks. I also found Nacomatic's newly improved bookmark structure (since I last tried it) to be pretty useful. And GoodReader lets you create your own, personal bookmarks to frequently used procedures.

After purchasing GoodReader, you'll need to go here and download GoodReaderUSB. I'm using MacOS, so if you're a Windoze user you'll need to figure out that version of the equation. Install GoodReaderUSB, connect your iPhone to your Mac using the USB cable, and you just drag-and-drop the files you want to transfer to your iPhone. There are other ways to transfer, but this is by far the most preferable and it's dirt simple.

Once you've loaded the terminal procedure or A/FD PDFs that you want to view, you're ready to launch GoodReader and get down to business. Here's a sequence of iPhone screen snaps that illustrate looking up the A/FD entry for San Martin/South Country Airport using Nacomatic. This earlier mentioned link illustrates the use of PDFPlates using the page lookup method, which is odd since PDFPlates has bookmarks. In my opinion, bookmarks are a whole lot easier to use.

After you open the A/FD file, tap on the magnifying glass icon at the bottom of the screen to access bookmarks. By the way, in these examples I selected GoodReader's landscape view.

Here's a sequence of screen snaps illustrating the look up for the RNAV-A approach at Lampson/Lakeport:

The downside of all this is that the iPhone's screen is pretty damn small for cockpit use, though you can look at half of an approach chart in landscape view. And zooming in makes it just kinda, sorta readable.

The upside is that for an investment in an iPhone, you can have current A/FDs and terminal procedures in your phone for very little money. Methinks you should be able to do all this on an iPod Touch, too.

BTW, the special low price on GoodReader expires October 1st.

It's Official

2009-09-28T23:04:00.000-07:00

In Thursday's mail, I found a letter from the FAA containing a special issuance 3rd class medical certificate. So as of Thursday, it was once again legal for me to be pilot-in-command. Then in Saturday's mail, I found another letter from the FAA containing a 2nd class medical certificate, which superseded the previous letter and medical certificate. So why did the FAA send me two medical certificates?

The first package of material that I sent to the FAA contained a neurologist's report on my latest exam. The latest exam was described as "unremarkable" and noted that subsequent TGA episodes were unlikely. My understanding was that before the FAA could rule on this report, they would need to also have my application for a new medical certificate (deferred to them by my local AME).

Turns out the FAA, based on my doctor's report, decided to give me a special issuance 3rd class medical that would be good until October 31st of this year. That would have been the same expiration date of my old medical that was revoked last December. After they sent that letter, they must have received the application for a 2nd class medical that my AME referred to them. So the FAA approved a special issuance 2nd class medical, in short order, and sent it out with another letter.

Pilots who are working to get approval for a medical certificate application that has been referred to Oklahoma City are usually told to expect a three to six week turnaround. It appears my case was reviewed in a matter of days, possibly a matter of hours for all I know. At any rate, it was quick. I think part of this credit goes to the doctors and staff at Virtual Flight Surgeons, who I had chosen to represent my case. Credit is also due to my local AME for seeing me on short notice and promptly getting the paperwork to the FAA. I've been known to be critical of the FAA, so let the record show that I'm very grateful to all involved for the expeditious handling of my case.

To Be or Not To Be

For the last 11 months, being without a medical certificate, I could act as pilot in command, but I couldn't be pilot in command. The legal distinction is a bit tricky, but here is how I understand it. One can act as PIC of an aircraft if one holds a pilot's certificate for the category and class of aircraft in question. Acting as PIC means you can be the sole manipulator of the controls, but it doesn't necessarily mean you can fulfill the role of a required crew member. To be PIC (and to have legal responsibility for the aircraft and the operation), you must also possess a valid medical certificate for the type of operation and meet all the other currency requirements.

So without a valid medical certificate, I was unable to act as a safety pilot for a pilot wearing a view limiting device (used to simulate instrument conditions). Since I tended do a lot of instrument instruction, that took a big bite out of my income. Sometimes these legal distinctions sound a bit like a Marx Brothers routine, but that's the regulatory world that we pilots live and fly in. So as my wife has been known to say to me: "Get used to it!"

Back in the Saddle

My first flight as PIC occurred tonight, solo, and mostly at night. A pilot I used to fly with regularly had graciously offered me the use of his twin Grumman for my first flight as PIC in nearly a year. My mission was to do some maneuvers and return 60 minutes after sunset so I could do three stop-and-go landings and reset my multi-engine currency.

I didn't expect to feel apprehensive before this flight, but that's exactly how I felt. After a few minutes aloft, I settled into the usual rhythm and enjoyed a beautiful sunset while I flew a selection of commercial multi-engine maneuvers. In the end, it felt great to be PIC again and I had a renewed appreciation of what it means to be a pilot.

Morality Aside

More than one person has asked me if I had it to do over again, knowing what I know now, would I tell the FAA about my medical problem. My answer is an unequivocal "Yes!" Let me be clear that I don't have a halo over my head, just because I did what the regulations required me to do. As I said right after my TGA event, I have always advocated for general aviation safety and telling the FAA about my problem was the obvious, correct choice. Sure the results of doing the right thing were uncomfortable, troubling, inconvenient, and expensive but the thing is, I knew it was the right thing to do. In fact, I think that each of us usually knows what the morally and ethically correct course of action is, even if society tells us that lying is okay.

Let's face it, we are constantly being told (directly and indirectly) that lying is okay, especially when it is expedient, offers us a personal advantage, and there's a good chance we won't get caught. Here's an interesting quote from an article I was referred to recently.

Lies are often much more plausible, more appealing to reason, than reality, since the liar has the great advantage of knowing beforehand what the audience wishes or expects to hear.

Hannah Arendt

Part of the problem is the widespread acceptance of naive realism, which basically says "Hey, I'm being reasonable. It's the FAA (or substitute your favorite organization) who is being unreasonable." After all, who knows better than each of us what is correct? Indeed!

The truth is that I'm not an expert in neurology. I could always claim to be an expert and to know more than I know, but is it really unreasonable to be told to wait a year without a recurrence of symptoms before being granted a medical certificate? I don't think so.

AFGO

That stands for Another Fine Growth Opportunity, though there is a more ribald version. So what did I learn and how did I grow? Well, actually, I shrank. Having lots of time off allowed me to exercise and concentrate on my diet. That resulted in a loss of more than 20 pounds and three inches off my waistline.

After my TGA incident, my primary care doctor looked at my lipid blood panel and became concerned with my cholesterol, which was on the high side of normal. The suggestion was that I begin statin therapy, but I was adamant that the first thing to try was a change in diet and exercise due to studies that have linked statin use to cognitive impairment. 11 months later, a new lipid panel showed nearly a 40 point drop in my total cholesterol and a healthy readjustment to my HDL, LDL, and triglyceride levels.

A Matter of Time

Jim, also known as Doctor ATP, learned about my predicament and wrote me to tell me about the first time he lost his medical certificate. By describing his trials and tribulations, and he's had a bunch, Jim gave me a new perspective on just how precious a gift it is to be a pilot. It's a tremendous privilege to fly an aircraft and though you might not want to hear this, it's only a matter of time before each of us reaches a tipping point. We can deny facts and lie to ourselves, or we can embrace our situation, come to grips with our mortality, and develop a daily appreciation of what we have before we lose it.

Jim continues to be an inspiration as he once again is facing medical problems and the thorny issue of mortality in a head-on fashion. I recommend you go read about Jim's situation and his approach to problems that most of us can't even imagine. And while you're there, why not leave him a few words of encouragement?

Ch-ch-changes

2009-09-21T11:58:00.000-07:00

The FAA has proposed some interesting changes to Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulation, entitled "Aeronautics and Space." Some of the proposed modifications reflect changes in the aircraft that are available for pilot training while other changes seem to simply have commerce in mind. Here's my rundown on some of the more important changes and some of the questions they raise. The public has until midnight, November 30, 2009 to comment on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

Complex Aircraft

I've written before about the problems surrounding how the FAA defines a complex aircraft, which is the type of aircraft that must be used to train flight instructors and commercial pilots. Here's what the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking had to say:

The current definition of a ‘‘complex airplane’’ in § 61.31(e) requires that the airplane have a retractable landing gear, flaps, and a controllable pitch propeller.

One way around this problem has been to use a twin-engine aircraft (virtually all of these meet the current definition of "complex aircraft") to train instructors and commercial pilots, then use a fixed-gear aircraft to add the single-engine rating to the candidate's multi-engine instructor or commercial certificate. Using a twin for the initial training is much more expensive for the applicant since two engines burn a lot of fuel and multi-engine aircraft are expensive to operate. Unfortunately, the new definition of "complex aircraft" doesn't do much to address the situation. Continuing to quote the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (emphasis mine):

... a number of training providers have complained to the FAA that they have had to keep older airplanes in their inventory that meet this current § 61.31(e) ‘‘complex airplane’’ definition for providing commercial pilot and flight instructor training of § 61.129(a)(3)(ii) or § 61.129(b)(3)(ii) and the additional training requirements of § 61.31(e). To remove this unnecessary burden, we are proposing to consider an airplane equipped with a FADEC system as being equivalent to one having a controllable pitch propeller.

Now if you think that the FAA is addressing the problem that there really is only one single-engine complex training aircraft (the Piper Arrow) and only one multi-engine training aircraft (the Piper Seminole) currently being manufactured, think again. Near as I can tell, the change to the definition of complex aircraft only affects one aircraft - the twin-engine Diamond DA42. The DA42 meets all the requirements of the current definition of complex aircraft, except for the fact that the propeller is not directly controllable by the pilot - it's controlled by FADEC (Full Authority Direct Engine Control). So the new definition simply allows the DA42 to be consider a complex aircraft. Unencumbered by facts, here's what the NPR says about the costs associated with this change:

Small businesses that would be affected by the revised definition of ‘‘complex airplane’’ would be schools and training providers. Many pilot schools would not have to keep an inventory of two kinds of airplanes to meet the commercial pilot and flight instructor certification requirements. This would engender cost savings, which the FAA estimates at $1,000 per
airplane annually.

With all due respect, what are they smoking? Unless Cessna or Piper has plans to manufacture a new single-engine, retractable gear trainer that has FADEC, the new definition of complex aircraft does nothing to change the fact that many flight schools will still to have to keep old Cessna 172RGs, Piper Arrows, Mooneys or other aged aircraft in order to train single-engine flight instructors and commercial pilots. And of the flight schools that train initial instructor and commercial candidates in twins, I can't imagine that many of them can afford to drop half a million-plus dollars to buy a Diamond DA42. While this change is good news for Diamond Aircraft, it doesn't seem to address the problems faced by smaller flight schools.

Combined Private & Instrument

Under the current rules, holding a private pilot certificate is a prerequisite for applying for an instrument rating. Under the proposed rules, pilots would be allowed to apply for their private certificate and their instrument rating concurrently. Here's the rationale:

Historically, accident statistics show that all weather-related accidents account for approximately 4.0 percent of total accidents. For single engine airplanes with a fixed landing gear, the airplane used predominantly by both student and private pilots, by far the largest weather-related accident cause is continuing to fly under VFR into IMC. This occurs when a pilot encounters changing weather conditions and does not land prior to encountering IMC. The proposed rule change would permit private pilot applicants to combine their private pilot and instrument training, which would improve their skills to operate in IMC and should reduce weather-related accidents. Thus, the FAA is proposing to revise § 61.65(a)(1) to allow applicants for an instrument rating to concurrently apply for a private pilot certificate.

Combining private pilot training and instrument training makes sense for large part 141 schools like Embry Riddle or Middle Tennessee State University, which interestingly enough already had an exemption to do this. This rule change simply benefits other part 141 schools who wish to seek approval to do the same thing.

It's not clear to me if or how this would affect pilots who train under part 61 since one prerequisite for the instrument rating is 50 hours of pilot-in-command cross country experience. Since the only time a student pilot can log PIC time is when they are solo, they'd have to log a lot of solo PIC cross country time and receive an endorsement from an authorized instructor for each and every solo cross-country flight. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't think this is what the FAA intended and it doesn't seem to increase flight safety. In fact, it might do just the opposite.

Complex Aircraft Experience for Commercial Candidates

The current rules require commercial pilot candidates have 10 hours of aeronautical experience in a complex aircraft, but the proposal is to replace that requirement with 10 hours of "advanced instrument training" in an aircraft, flight simulator, or approved flight training device. Here's the proposed definition of advanced instrument training:

... must include instrument approaches consisting of both precision and nonprecision approaches, holding at navigational radio stations, intersections, waypoints, and crosscountry flying that involved performing takeoff, area departure, enroute, area arrival, approach, and missed approach phases of flight.

First, there isn't much about this training that would seem to warrant the adjective "advanced." All of the items listed involve basic tasks and areas of operation included in the instrument rating practical test standards. What this change will allow is for commercial candidates to save some dough by logging these 10 hours in a simulator or flight training device, but it's not clear to me that this will result in better pilot training. It will also help candidates who are training for the commercial certificate and their instrument rating concurrently. Wait, I thought that in the future some pilots were going to get their instrument rating when they got their private pilot certificate? At least the FAA's proposal continues the tradition of keeping the rules and regulations confusing.

The NPR also contains this:

The FAA proposes to revise the
Commercial Pilot Certification—Airplane Single Engine (Land and Sea) rating because fewer single-engine airplanes are being produced with retractable landing gears. Manufacturers of general aviation airplanes now produce technologically advanced airplanes with ‘‘glass cockpits,’’ but which do not have retractable landing gears. Many pilot schools have complained about the necessity to keep 30-year old Cessna 172RGs and Piper Arrows in inventory, which are less technically advanced airplanes, for the sole purpose of providing 10 hours of complex airplane training.

Call me crazy, but the Commercial Pilot Airplane and Flight Instructor Airplane practical test standards still require the use of a complex aircraft for the practical test, so these schools will still have to keep the old aircraft around for folks to take their check rides. Unless the FAA has plans to change the commercial PTS, too ...

Proficiency Checks for Single-Engine Turbojets

Even though the economy has tanked, there is the belief that soon there will be a fair number of singe-engine jet aircraft that will most likely be piloted by the owners. Sensing that these aircraft could become the next breed of so-called "Doctor killers," the FAA is proposing that the folks who pilot these aircraft should demonstrate proficiency on a regular basis. I'm sure the insurance companies will also require regular recurrent training, too, but this seems like a sound idea.

Sound off!

If you'd like to comment on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, try using this link

Road Trip

2009-09-16T09:12:00.000-07:00

There are many reasons for the lull in blogging. While I plan to post about the upcoming changes to the regulations that govern pilots, for now here's a post about my recent travels, taking a small vacation. Here’s are two photos taken near where we stayed for a few days. Can you guess where?

It’s been a number of years since I visited this city and the city itself has changed, but I’ve changed, too. The weather during our stay was remarkably good: Warm, but not excessively hot, balmy without being terribly humid. If you’re still guessing, here’s another photo.

This city has a large amount of green, open space with parks and sculpture scattered throughout virtually every neighborhood. Here’s another photographic clue.

Still guessing?

Several US presidents have lived in the state where these photos were taken. My wife says this is the quintessential American city, that it is more representative of America than say, New York. This city has some amazing architecture, too.

Known to some simply as “The city that works” and to others as the “Second City," by now of course you should recognize it as Chicago. Home of two baseball teams (one of which may, or may not be cursed), one of the country's finest museums, and what I believe to be some of the best pizza on earth.

In addition to enjoying the sights and sounds of Chicago, I visited some of my old haunts and saw some old, old friends – some of whom I had not seen in over 30 years. I visited the airport where I first soloed, which now has two runways, one of which is 7000 feet long! And I don't believe there is any other place in the US where two state highways intersect in the middle of a city and are bisected by two railroad tracks.

I wouldn’t be the first to observe that you can’t go back. I could still find my way around town in a rambling, dreamlike sort of way. Houses, stores, hospitals, schools, and hotels now stand where corn and soybeans used to grow. The Sip-n-Dip drive-in is no more and I'm not sure if it's been replaced by a car wash or a vacant lot.

I tried to refrain from making what must have seemed like pointless observations: “There used to be railroad tracks right there and I rode my dirt bike on a trail right next to them.” “This used to be a gravel road and I ran here many times while preparing for my first marathon …” “My high school sweetheart lived in that house …” “When I was an undergraduate, I worked as a night watchman in this building, which used to be a factory …”

The specifics hold little meaning for other people because it's difficult to convey the feeling, mood, and experience behind the words. Friends that I hadn’t seen in decades seemed to understand, though we remembered different events and details. One of us would tell a story that would trigger memories that hadn’t been examined for years.

Hair turns grey, hairlines recede, joints and backs become stiffer, waistlines grow, but friendships remain.

Falling Leaves

2009-08-26T06:00:00.000-07:00

Summer never really seemed to come to my neighborhood this year and though there were a few truly hot days, they've been quickly forgotten. Walking the dogs this afternoon, the air was thick was the unmistakable feeling of autumn. Undeterred by the cold, onshore sea breeze, I have defiantly worn, and continue to wear, shorts. I'll admit I usually find the need of a sweater, too. This year saw more overcast skies than I can remember since moving to Berkeley over 13 years ago and to the Bay Area nearly 25 years ago. We had rainfall in June - a rare event - and so I don't think it's just me.

Impending change has been borne out by our vegetable gardens. Tomatoes and strawberries never really came into their own. The kale and eggplant, thriving in cool weather, are growing like weeds. Even the kids playing in the park know that summer has begun to lay down. Their hoots and hollers, not entirely drained of enthusiasm, are noticeably tinged with melancholy. Still savoring freedom and green grass, knowing it will soon give way to fidgeting under fluorescent light, constrained by rules, rain, and the teacher's droning.

Maybe my perception of the seasons is what has changed. Without an FAA medical certificate for over 10 months, I've done a lot less flying and teaching, spending more time on the ground looking up. This time last year, the opposite was true: I was often on top of those clouds. I tell myself it's been interesting, a growth experience, that I did the right thing, made the complex choice by telling the FAA about my medical issue. We Americans are in love with easy and you can usually tell you've done the right thing because the consequences are seldom simple or easy.

In October I expect to be found qualified to once again hold an FAA medical certificate, having fulfilled the one-year "recovery" period mandated by the folks in Oklahoma City. October is also when I renew my flight instructor certificate. Since I've done a lot less teaching and recommended few pilots for practical tests, I can't renew my instructor certificate based on my activity as an instructor. So while the kids outside play tug-of-war with the last scraps of summer, I lead the way to the classroom, fidgeting in front of my computer, completing an on-line Flight Instructor Refresher Clinic.

The forecasters predict an El Nino year where warmer than usual waters in the Pacific Ocean feed large amounts of moisture into the atmosphere. The jet stream will find its wandering way down from the North and if the weather forecasters are correct, the winds will well up from the Southwest, scoop up moisture from the warm Pacific, and pelt us Californians with steady, unrelenting rain, maybe some snow. And at some point, in October or November, I plan to glimpse the inside of one of those rain clouds, inside a fragile aluminum cocoon, hand resting lightly on the yoke. With a student or perhaps by myself, but once again pilot-in-command because autumn is coming.

Kindling

2009-08-24T13:02:00.000-07:00

After reading about the Great, Failed Modbook experiment, a kind reader offered to lend me their Kindle DX so I could form some opinions based on firsthand use. After using the Kindle for several days, I have some observations to make - some good, some not so good.

Like the eFlyBook that was released about three years ago, the Kindle's electronic paper display is excellent. The print might be a bit small for aging eyes without reading glasses when viewing an entire approach chart on the display, but the contrast and readability in bright light is unquestionably very, very good. The Kindle's size and weight are also excellent, as is the battery life and the quality of construction. The weight is less than most kneeboards and the Kindle can easily fit into a flight bag or rest under your seat when you don't need it. The cost of acquiring a Kindle is just outside what I'd call reasonable, but it's not prohibitively expensive like some other vendor's solutions and with time the price could come down. Lastly, the Kindle has an uncluttered interface and it is capable of storing a lot of data - enough for a ton of terminal procedures and Airport/Facility Directories.

Yet if the Kindle hardware is willing, the software is weak. I had read of the Kindle's PFD handling being crippled by the lack of bookmark/hyperlink support, but actually using the Kindle drove home the point. Without bookmark/hyperlink support or some other way to organize and access information, the Kindle is just an electronic book reader best suited for paging through text one page at a time. That's just not going to cut it for an Electronic Flight Bag where the name of the game is to 1) provide a way to carry a lot of data and 2) provide a way to quickly sift through all that data to locate the chart or data that is needed in flight.

A former NASA researcher friend of mine fiercely (and I think correctly) maintains that devices for cockpit use should be designed so that it takes no more than three or four steps to perform a task. Here is a series of photos showing how long and how many steps it took me to turn on the Kindle, locate the appropriate terminal procedures volume, and display the airport diagram for the Oakland Airport.

You turn on the Kindle by pressing and releasing a switch on the top edge of the unit. When the Kindle I was using was at rest, it randomly displayed one of several illustrations of a famous writer. The illustrations have an odd, almost menacing feel, especially the one of Edgar Allen Poe. The intent seems to be to give the Kindle a bookish, academic feel - probably to make it more appealing to people who are bookish, academic types. I'm told the screen saver can be disabled by a hack. I'll be generous and not count turning on the unit as one of the steps.

PDFs can be downloaded to the Kindle DX using a USB connection to a desktop computer and I'll assume you've already downloaded a PFD file of the terminal procedures or Airport/Facility directory you want to use from Nacomatic or PDFPlates. Now the first step is to locate the appropriate file and this is where the irritating levels of user interface indirection starts. If you're not on the Home screen, you press the HOME button to get there.

I was using a file from PDFPlates and the Oakland Airport diagram is found in a file named SW-2 0909, which stands for the ninth edition of the Southwest Volume 2 for 2009. I think my first ease-of-use suggestion would be to rename this file to something more intelligible because a good user interface never forces a user to maintain context in their head and never assumes that you will always be opening the same volumes and use the same charts. Using the little joystick button called a 5-way, I moved the dark highlighting line down until it was under SW-2 0909 and then pressed down on the 5-way to select that file.

Now if you're using a file from PDFPlates, the first page of the file is an index. If you're using NACOmatic files, the index is on the third page, though it's important that I point out I didn't actually test the NACOmatic version. The index page is where the fun starts. Since the Kindle DX software does not support PDF links, you must locate the three letter identifier of the airport you're interested in, find the associated page number, press the MENU button, cursor with the 5-way to the Go To Page ... item, press down on the 5-way, and prepare to enter the page number. You'll invest many seconds to initiate this procedure, we're up to about seven steps so far, and woe unto him or her who mistakenly enters the wrong page number because it will take several button pushes and more head-down time to start over.

To enter the page number, you use the teeny-tiny keyboard on the bottom edge of the Kindle. To enter numbers, you must hold down the ALT key as you press the numbers and presupposes you can read the labels on the teeny-tiny keys. Your head is really going to be down since you're looking at the lower edge of a unit sitting on your lap or strapped to your leg. With practice, one might be able to do this accurately and repeatably with one hand, but it's probably a two-handed operation.

After you've entered the page number, press the return key and wait for the Kindle to find that page. At this point I'm about halfway through the process and it's been 60 seconds and at least eight steps so far since I started the process of just trying to locate the airport diagram.

Finally I saw the COMO ONE arrival displayed and this is where I needed to page through the section of procedures for Oakland using the NEXT PAGE button to find the airport diagram (which is about mid-way in the stack). If the amount of brain power and mental cross-indexing weren't enough, the Kindle takes anywhere from a second to several seconds to change to next page. It appears the Kindle might do some caching of a page once it has been displayed because paging back seems to go a bit faster. After 2 minutes (I lost count of the button pushes), I've finally located the airport diagram I wanted to display.

What about using the Search This Document feature? Well it all depends on how much time you have or how long you're willing to wait. I found the search to be glacially slow and not even worth the trouble. The procedure for using the A/FD is similar and presupposes you already know quite a bit about the airport you're trying to look up (either it's location within the A/FD or it's three-character identifier).

One way around some of this hassle is that you can create bookmarks to frequently used procedures, but the worst case scenario for usability is having to quickly locate a chart because you need to divert. For this type of use, the Kindle is really not at all usable. This isn't the fault of PDFplates or NACOmatic, by the way: It's the crippled nature of the Kindle software.

Unlike a tablet computer, you can't use the Kindle to take notes, but what about displaying a IFR low-altitude en route chart? I connected the Kindle to my MacBook using the USB cable and copied a NACO L1 PDF. Opening that PDF took over 2 minutes, the resulting image was too small to read, and I couldn't for the life of me get the thing to zoom so using the Kindle to display charts seems like a bust.

Like the Illiad/eFlyBook, I really wanted to like the Kindle. Really, I did, but the bottom line for me is that in its current state, the Kindle misses the (book)mark and is not yet the missing (hyper)link. It may be fine for displaying charts in onesy-twosey fashion, but when it comes to the rapid-fire world of real IFR, it' just ain't ready.

Eschew Obfuscation

2009-08-21T10:52:00.000-07:00

I always get a kick out of the government's Federal Rulemaking process, a procedural system for changing regulations that has had far-reaching consequences on US citizens. When a decision is made to change a regulation, there is a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and that's supposed to give the general public a chance to comment. If enough comments are received, the proposed changes may be modified or abandoned altogether. This is just what happened a few months ago when there was an NPR to restrict public access to bird-strike data, there was a significant and negative public reaction, and the proposed change was abandoned. This makes the NPR seems like a good process, but sometimes the notices are so arcane that it can be nearly impossible to determine just what is being proposed without being a subject matter expert or hiring an attorney.

I wrote a while ago about proposed T-routes that were submitted to the public simply as a series of latitude and longitude coordinates. Well it's happened again. There is a NPR to create a new restricted area in Southern California in the vicinity of Fort Irwin that would extend from the surface to 16,000 feet and would change the boundaries of an existing Military Operations Area. I don't fly in that area too often, but my curiosity was piqued because of how the area was described.

R-2502A Fort Irwin, CA [New]

Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 35[deg]25'48'' N., long.
116[deg]18'48'' W.; to lat. 35[deg]25'30'' N., long. 116[deg]09'46''
W.; to lat. 35[deg]23'15'' N., long. 116[deg]09'47'' W.; to lat.
35[deg]06'54'' N., long. 116[deg]30'17'' W.; to lat. 35[deg]07'00'' N.,
long. 116[deg]34'03'' W.; to lat. 35[deg]18'45'' N., long.
116[deg]18'48'' W. to point of beginning.
Designated altitudes. Surface to 16,000 feet MSL.
Time of designation. Continuous.
Controlling agency. FAA, Hi-Desert TRACON, Edwards, CA.
Using agency. Commander, Fort Irwin, CA.

Riiight ...

For their part, AOPA announced the NPR and provided a teeny tiny graphic of what was being proposed. So being a good citizen, I used MacGPS Pro and dutifully entered the six lat/long coordinates onto a downloaded LA VFR sectional. This should give you a better idea of the new restricted area being proposed.

The area is just West of the Baker airport and North of the Barstow-Daggett airport and the Daggett VOR. I don't have a problem with the new restricted airspace since it doesn't seem to eat into the narrow corridor of available airspace that pilots use when transitioning over the Mojave Desert, I do have a problem with the area not being described in a way that the average person can understand, thereby preventing or limiting the amount of comments.

Perhaps I've missed something and this proposed restricted area is a bad idea. Or maybe the idea of further carving up the national airspace system for military use rubs you the wrong way. In any event, if you'd like to comment on this NPR I'll make it very easy: Click here and fire away. You have until August 27, 2009.

The Big Sky

2009-08-17T06:31:00.000-07:00

On August 8, 2009, at 11:53 a.m. EDT, a Eurocopter AS 350 BA (N401LH) operated by Liberty Helicopters and a Piper PA-32R- 300 (N71MC) operated by a private pilot, collided in midair over the Hudson River near Hoboken, New Jersey. The certificated commercial pilot and five passengers onboard the helicopter were killed. The certificated private pilot and two passengers onboard the airplane were also killed. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and no flight plans were filed for either flight. The local sightseeing helicopter flight was conducted under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 136. The personal airplane flight was conducted under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91.

Following this very prominent midair collision, the media have been talking about procedures, policies, and regulations with which most reporters have little experience or expertise. This is nothing new. Every time I read a news story on a topic about which I'm not familiar, I wonder how accurate that story really is. But I digress ...

One news report seemed to imply that the pilot of the Piper (being a private plane) was at fault because it had run into the Eurocopter. The author of another story focused on the shocking fact that aircraft operating in the thin sliver of airspace over the Hudson River do so without talking to air traffic control and without a flight plan. Other reports tried to compare and contrast the water ditching of a US Airways Airbus with this accident. This compels me to comment on what is known about this accident, provide a pilot's perspective on operating in airspace that has little or no ATC intervention, and talk about just how well the see-and-avoid approach to preventing midair collisions really works. I'll attempt to address these issues so that non-pilots can develop a better understanding of just what pilots of smaller aircraft who fly at lower altitudes have to deal with on a regular basis.

Apples and Oranges

First off, the only thing this midair accident has in common with the ditching of US Airways Flight 1549 is that in both cases, the aircraft ended up in the Hudson River. The US Airways accident involved a bird strike (which I guess is kind of like a midair collision) that resulted in a loss of power to both engines: The Airbus was still be flyable, it just didn't have any thrust to keep it from losing altitude. The fact that the plane was still flyable, combined with the skilled flight crew and a lot of luck, resulted in an amazingly successful water ditching. In contrast, the midair collision between the Piper and the Eurocopter caused catastrophic damage, both aircraft departed controlled flight, and the impact with the water was not survivable. The only thing these two accidents had in common was their location.

ATC's Role

The Piper departed Teterboro Airport and was, in fact, communicating with the tower controller until he was over the Hudson, when he was handed off to the Newark control tower. Talking to an airport's tower controller is mandatory when an aircraft is within that airport's airspace. In these situations, ATC will point out other potentially conflicting air traffic, but this is done on a workload permitting basis. Here's just a bit of what the Aeronautical Information Manual has to say on the subject:

4-1-15. Radar Traffic Information Service

This is a service provided by radar ATC facilities. Pilots receiving this service are advised of any radar target observed on the radar display which may be in such proximity to the position of their aircraft or its intended route of flight that it warrants their attention. This service is not intended to relieve the pilot of the responsibility for continual vigilance to see and avoid other aircraft ...

Many factors, such as limitations of the radar, volume of traffic, controller workload and communications frequency congestion, could prevent the controller from providing this service. Controllers possess complete discretion for determining whether they are able to provide or continue to provide this service in a specific case. The controller's reason against providing or continuing to provide the service in a particular case is not subject to question nor need it be communicated to the pilot. In other words, the provision of this service is entirely dependent upon whether controllers believe they are in a position to provide it.

Some questions have arisen about the Teterboro Tower's handling of the flight. Reportedly the controller was making a "non-business" phone call to the Newark tower which may have contributed to coordination problems with the handoff of the Piper from Tereboro to Newark. A conflict alert indication was shown on the radar displays at both towers as the Piper and the Eurocopter began to converge. Though these alerts usually produce both a visual and audio warning, neither controller recalled seeing or hearing the alert.

Several initial news reports made a big deal of the fact that the Piper's pilot never contacted the Newark tower after being handed off by the Teterboro tower. It's hard to know why that was, but it's also important to point out that a delay checking in after a handoff is quite common. Radio communication in aircraft is somewhat primitive - only one person can talk at a time. Perhaps the Piper's pilot was busy tuning his radio to the new frequency so he could check in, but we don't really know. It does appear that the frequency change came at a very inopportune time and the collision occurred shortly afterward. Remember all those studies that show distractions (like cell phone use while driving) reduce reaction time and situational awareness? The same thing can happen in aircraft and, apparently, in control towers.

Different Frequencies

Aircraft operating over the Hudson usually communicate using a CTAF - common traffic advisory frequency - which is like a party line where only one person can talk at a time. The CTAF is different from the frequencies used by Teterboro and Newark towers. The idea with the CTAF is that each aircraft announces their position, altitude, and intentions so that other pilots can put together a mental picture of where other traffic might be and avoid them. If this sounds primitive, it is! Yet in areas where there is no ATC service (usually at rural airports) and when there's not too much traffic, the CTAF set-up is pretty workable. The thing is that CTAF areas are usually not swarming with the volume of traffic that is seen on a daily basis over the Hudson River corridor. The important point here is that the Eurocopter was probably monitoring and transmitting on the CTAF while the Piper was monitoring and transmitting on the Teterboro Tower frequency.

Big Sky, Little Planes

This brings up the big sky theory of preventing midair collisions: The sky is big when compared to the size of aircraft, so the probability of a collision is reduced by the simple fact that the sky is so much bigger than the aircraft. This is a good theory if you assume that aircraft are randomly or evenly distributed throughout the big sky. Unfortunately, aircraft tend to congregate around certain locations (like around airports, helipads, and land-based navigation transmitters) like bees around a hive and that dramatically increases the probability of a collision.

The situation over the Hudson River adds another wrinkle since the area of airspace used by the sightseeing helicopters and other light aircraft is underneath and physically constrained by an overlying area of controlled airspace called Class Bravo. Entering Class Bravo requires a clearance from ATC precisely because this airspace was created primarily to keep small, slower aircraft away from larger, faster aircraft. When aircraft are cleared to enter Class B, ATC will guarantee separation between aircraft: This separation is not done on a workload permitting basis, it is guaranteed. This dramatically enhances the safety of aircraft operating in Class B, but ironically creates a thin layer of airspace for the smaller aircraft to share, which makes the Big Sky quite a bit smaller, and increases the probability that these smaller aircraft who are not in Class B will come close to one another.

Invisible Hands

So how about separating aircraft with a controller using radar? Air traffic control (ATC) can and does provide many valuable services to pilots by providing traffic advisories when aircraft get close or appear to be converging, but they are not an invisible hand that holds the aircraft and keeps them completely safe. Just because the pilot or flight crew of an aircraft is talking to a controller does not mean they are immune to mechanical problems, bird strikes, or midair collisions. The idea that ATC keeps aircraft safe, while not entirely a fantasy, is a belief that non-pilots may find comforting. Non-pilots need to remember that it's the pilot that is flying the aircraft and there is no invisible shield provided to aircraft that just happen to be talking to ATC.

Another misconception held by non-pilots has to do with flight plans. The idea that an aircraft is operating with an open flight plan is somehow safer than one operating without a flight plan may or may not be true. There basically are two types of flight plans: Instrument Flight Rules and Visual Flight Rules. Non-pilots need to know that the primary purpose of VFR flight plans is so that the appropriate authorities will be notified if you don't call in and close your flight plan when you arrive. In short, filing VFR flight plan helps ensure that if you crash and no one sees the crash, someone will eventually come looking for you.

Rules, Rules, Rules

Some reporters have claimed that aircraft which are not under ATC control are completely unregulated and not following any rules, but nothing could be further from the truth.

The aircraft that fly in any airspace must meet FAA airworthiness requirements including regular maintenance inspections with specific criteria.

The pilots that fly these aircraft must be certificated (we don't call them licenses in the US, but the media can't get that right either), they must hold a medical certificate, and they must meet recency experience to be able to act as pilot-in-command and to carry passengers.

The airspace in which these aircraft are operated have specific flight visibility and cloud clearance requirements. And there are specific right-of-way rules that pilots follow when they see they are getting too close to one another.

To equate these areas of airspace not under air traffic control to the Wild West is uninformed and stupid.

Technology to the Rescue, sort of

Without radar, isn't there someway that technology can keep two aircraft from trying to occupy the same airspace? It's not as if no one has tried to create technology to do this, but the success has been mixed.

Large aircraft are required to have traffic collision and avoidance systems (TCAS), but even with TCAS these planes can run into one another.

Several similar systems are available for smaller aircraft, but they can be expensive and not every aircraft has them. One system is the FAA's Traffic Information System (TIS) where appropriately configured ground radar facilities upload traffic information to appropriately equipped aircraft. This is a common system in many newer general aviation aircraft, but many ATC radar facilities do not support TIS. Oh, and the FAA is planning to phase out TIS. Yes, you read that correctly. The reason is that another system is supposed to replace TIS, even though virtually no small aircraft out there are currently equipped to support the new system. Call me a curmudgeon, but that sounds about right for the FAA ...

Another system for smaller aircraft (that is also expensive) is an Traffic Advisory System (TAS) that actively interrogates other aircrafts' transponders, just like ATC's radar. These systems can be quite helpful, but with some aircraft (like the Cirrus) there is no way to mute the aural warnings and keep them from barking "Traffic! Traffic!" when you're trying to talk to or listen to ATC.

The last system for small aircraft that I'll mention is a class of portable devices that warn of nearby aircraft and are sometimes referred to as Portable Collision Avoidance Systems (PCAS). These devices are not perfect, but they help pilots have an idea when other aircraft are nearby, even if they don't tell you exactly where those aircraft are. As a side note, I always fly with a PCAS unit.

What's a Pilot to Do?

First, scroll back to the top and watch the YouTube video of the Hudson midair. I know it's scary, heartbreaking, and painful, but watch it nevertheless.

Hopefully that video has you in a mood to listen.

Remember that accident statistics indicate that midair collisions tend to occur on clear, sunny days and usually in the vicinity of airports of navigational transmitting stations.

Keep your head on a swivel when operating in crowded airspace.

Fly at an appropriate VFR altitude for your direction of flight. I see at least one pilot violating this simple safety rule every time I fly.

Avoid distractions, like unnecessary conversations or fiddling with your GPS or MP3 player.

Listen up! Poor radio phraseology and technique not only wastes everyone's time, it can actually threaten your life, the lives of your passengers, the lives of other pilots, and the lives of people on the ground.

If you have a traffic detection device, use it.

If you think this sort of collision can't happen to you, watch the video a few more times.

Two steps forward, three steps back

2009-08-14T21:20:00.001-07:00

Some disappointing news to report. After three weeks of use, my Modbook started acting up with uncommanded pointer/cursor movements. Application windows that were open would spontaneously close and "About This Mac" windows would magically appear. In case you're wondering if the problem was due to RF from avionics, the problem acutally started happening while I was at home. I took the machine back to the folks at TechRestore, they did some tweaking, I tried it again, but the problem persisted.

While I'm not sure exactly what the problem was or is, TechRestore assured me they had done their best to work out a solution with Axiotron. TechRestore stood behind their service, refunded the entire purchase price, and restored my Macbook to it's original state. For their part, Axiotron apparently doesn't want me as their customer. It appears the Modbook conversion is not compatible with all revisions of the Macbook logic board, several revisions are out there, and Axiotron doesn't seem to want to identify which ones are compatible. I'm told that there are reports of many Modbook users having this "jumping" cursor problem and it's all very discouraging because my unit was working fine for the first few weeks.

Here's how the technician who did the work described the situation:

The Modbook was assembled using Axiotron's instructions with ALL shielding provided in place. Also, the unit exhibited the jumping cursor problem just sitting here in our shop. After we swapped the logic board for another of the same type, the problems continued. When the unit came in we eliminated the theory of software problems by booting the machine from a squeaky clean version of Mac OS X 10.5.4 and Axiotrons installed software. PERIOD. No updates, no add-ons, nothing other than a factory fresh install. Just for the record this was NOT the first unit we have put together. It is disappointing when a product we were excited about does not perform as it should. It is more disappointing when a reseller does not have a solution for a known problem and the only recourse is to refund the customer.

The latest scuttlebutt on the Mac tablet is that it might not appear until early 2010, so I'm compelled to come up with a Plan B. That might be an inexpensive (gulp) Windoze tablet computer like an Asus T91 or a refurbished Lenovo X61, or ... dare I say it? ... a Kindle DX.

For now, it's back to the Electronic Flight Bag drawing board.

Winds Aloft with PFMA

2009-08-08T06:00:00.000-07:00

Internet search engines have quickly become something few of us can live without and it's because of an internet search that the developer of PFMA (an iPhone aviation calculator) contacted me. PFMA stands for Pocket Flight Management Assistant and after a test-drive, I found it to be a useful tool with a nice balance between simplicity and frequently-used features. Plus it has a user interface that resembles a Flight Management System - how cool is that?

One thing I've found missing from many iPhone E6B apps is the ability to calculate winds aloft, so that was the first thing I attempted with PFMA. I just located and tapped on the WIND item and just started entering the stuff one usually knows when trying to calculate winds aloft in flight - ground speed, true airspeed, heading and course (or track). You enter data into each of the fields by first typing in the value using the keypad (you'll see the value appear in the lower left side of the display) and then pressing the field you want to fill with that value. There's currently no user's guide (one should be available soon), but I was able to figure out how to calculate winds aloft in under 20 seconds. I find this to be a pretty good indicator of just how easy-to-use an interface is. PFMA passed my initial test with flying colors. (N.B.: Most of the enhancements I suggest in this post have been favorably received by the developer and should be addressed in an upcoming version.) You can use the WIND screen to determine landing crosswind components, too.

There's also an ALTITUDE-AIRSPEED screen that has the same simple design philosophy - fill in the fields you know and PFMA will calculate the fields you don't know. This prevents having a plethora of appropriately-name menu items for each function and really contributes to the ease-of-use. One design enhancement would be to have PFMA remember any field that was calculated in a previous screen and populate that field by default whenever it occurs in another screen. For example, if the ALTITUDE-AIRSPEED screen were used to calculate true airspeed, it would be cool to have that calculated value automatically appear by default in the WIND screen.

In the meantime, you can do a sort of cut-n-paste operation by tapping on a field displaying a value, which copies the value to the input field in the lower left side of the screen. Next, select the function screen where you want to enter that data and tap on the appropriate field - this will copy the value for, say, ground speed on one screen into the ground speed field on the next screen.

There's a dirt-simple SETUP screen that allows you to specify the units you plan to use most often for distance, altitude, speed, temperature weight, and volume.

The NAVIGATION screen is provided mostly for completeness, but I didn't find it terribly useful (maybe that's just me). Here I've entered the Origin Lat/Long for KAVL (Asheville, North Carolina) as N35:26.1/W82:32.5 and the Dest Lat/Long for KTRI (Tri-Cities Regional in Tennessee) as N36:28.5/W82:24.4. You can then solve either for time or for ground speed by supplying the appropriate field. PFMA will calculate the other field, providing the distance and bearing. I'm not a big fan of entering Lat/Long, but it works.

The FUEL screen is equally simple, allowing you to enter any two fields to obtain a solution for the third field. While the FUEL FLOW and FUEL QTY both indicate Gallons (since I selected that in the SETUP screen), you can really enter a value representing any volume or weight in your desired units and calculate the desired answer. In this example I entered a common Caravan fuel flow of 310 pounds/hour and a total fuel on board of 1300 pounds to obtain an endurance of just under four hours.

The CONVERSION screen lets you convert common values and has a nice, logical grouping. DISTANCE lets you convert a distance or speed from one unit to another. METEOROLOGICAL lets you convert barometric pressure to different values (this would have come in handy when I was flying in the Caribbean last summer) and Fahrenheit to Celcius. In the WEIGHT screen shown below, I've entered 600 pounds to determine the equivalent value in kilograms.

The VOLUME screen lets you convert a volume of your choosing into a weight (using a fuel density constant), but it's curious that the only weight you can solve for is KILOGRAMS. It would be nice if this screen defaulted to the weight unit you selected in the UNITS screen or, better yet, if pounds were just shown as another possible value along side kilograms.

In my example I've copied 272 kilograms (or 600 pounds) of Jet-A required from the WEIGHT screen to obtain a volume of 89 gallons since the guys and gals who do fueling usually dispense in gallons, not pounds. Of course you can calculate this conversion pretty easily in your head by dividing the desired weight of fuel in pounds by 10 and then multiply the result by 1.5 to get the approximate number of US gallons, but there can be times (say at the end of a very long duty day) when mental math becomes error prone and it's nice to have a way to verify your results.

The TIMER screen contains separate timers for block and air time as well as three elapsed timers for whatever use you might want. One suggestion here is a simple count-down timer: Let's say you enter a time value for one of the elapse timers and that would make it countdown rather than up and would also provide an vibrating alarm. Another idea would be a counter one could tap to count touch-and-go landings, but that's more of a gee whiz sort of feature.

In a nutshell, PFMA is a nice aviation calculator that works well and is easy to use. If you are new to aviation and need a product that will lead you by the hand with explicitly-named functions and features, then PFMA might not be for you. For experienced aviators who want a fast and simple-to-use app, PFMA is a good choice. And in a world of $400/year database subscriptions, US$4.00 for a full-featured calculator looks like a pretty good value to me.

Straw Man

2009-08-02T21:20:00.000-07:00

Listen and you'll hear the voices of folks who say they have the solution to the shrinking GA pilot population. Some voices say we need initiatives that will encourage people to learn to fly. Others say that sport pilot training and low-cost sport aircraft are just the ticket. My belief is that we need more career instructors, flying late-model aircraft that are up to the task.

The soon-to-be-released Cessna Skycatcher would have been great, were it not for the marketeers who messed it up. Instead of a viable replacement for the aging fleet of versatile 150s and 152s, what is being offered is a glass panel two-seat aircraft that isn't even certified for IFR. Kinda makes the plane's glass panel seem silly, doesn't it? I don't think anyone honestly cares that the Skycatcher is in the sport aircraft category, though that seems to have been Cessna's primary goal.

Adding insult to injury, which new plane probably cannot be used for intentional spin training? Why the Skycatcher, of course. And which certificate is the only one that requires instructional training in spin recovery? That'd be the flight instructor certificate. And which aircraft are the subject of an Airworthiness Directive (which I think was necessary, by the way) that has resulted in many of them being placarded "Intentional Spins Prohibited"? That'd be the Cessna 150 and 152, the very aircraft that the Skycatcher is supposed to replace.

I've written before about the shortage of complex single-engine training aircraft suitable for initial flight instructor practical tests, so I won't belabor that point. The question remains: Who will teach all of the new GA pilots (not to mention the next wave of future airline pilots) and help the current pilot population stay current and proficient? Well that'd be flight instructors - the very group that has been mostly ignored in these solutions to growing the GA pilot population.

One of many reasons that GA is in this mess is that the people in a position to make things better, the people who could have made the right product choices, the people who could affect and change policy ... well, they did something no pilot should ever do: They lost situational awareness. They lost the big picture.

So here's my dream - a conscious and cooperative effort between the various alphabet pilot groups, the aircraft manufacturers, and the FAA to help grow the population of competent, career flight instructors.

Until something happens, those of us who are trying to teach the next generation of flight instructors can sing this song, with apologies to the Scarecrow from The Wizard of Oz.

We could while away the hours
while you teach us pitch and power
and why right rudder is germane.
You'd be ready for your check ride
Before the ink on your last check's dried
If we only had a plane.

We were teaching folks in Pipers
while you were still in diapers
To us instructing's not a game.
If your right seat landings are iffy,
We could fix that in a jiffy
If we only had a plane.

Oh, we would tell you about
stalls and spins galore.
And why our clothes are so tattered
and we're so poor.

Regarding our friends at the FSDO
You'd learn to do it 'cause they said so
Even if it seemed inane.
With every logbook you'd be signing
For the airlines you'd be pining,
If we only had a plane.

Bermuda Triangle

2009-07-29T06:52:00.000-07:00

Pilots often think the real work surrounding flying begins once they are airborne, probably because taxiing for takeoff or after landing usually doesn't seem very demanding, interesting, or dangerous. Some of my more harrowing moments in airplanes have occurred during ground operations and the years have taught me that planning, organization, and situational awareness on the ground during single pilot operations can be just as critical as when you're airborne.

The FAA, recognizing the importance of safe ground operations, has published AC 91-73A: Part 91 and Part 135 Single-Pilot Procedures During Taxi Operations, which divides single-pilot ground operations into planning, situational awareness, written taxi instructions, radio communication, and finally taxiing itself. It's a pretty good read, especially for seasoned pilots who may have become a little complacent, and it got me thinking of some of the more memorable experiences I've had while I was just taxiing.

Standardization

The AC suggests that pilots use SOPs (standard operating procedures) which should be introduced during initial training, applied during each flight, and evaluated during recurrent training. The problem is that GA pilots whose initial training was accomplished under part 61 often have little exposure to SOPs, other than their instructor's biases and what they see other pilots do. My wife says that dogs mostly learn bad habits from other dogs and the same could be said for pilots, so here are some recommended practices for single pilot ground operations.

Get a briefing and check for NOTAMs
Write down taxi instructions
Have the airport diagram out and refer to it
Avoid distractions during taxi, like programming the GPS
If reading a checklist, hold it up so your peripheral vision is outside
If confused about your taxi clearance, get clarification
Don't be bashful about asking for progressive taxi instructions
Expect the unexpected at non-towered airports, even on the ground

Have a Plan

Before calling for taxi, especially at an unfamiliar airport, it's good to review the airport diagram and mark any NOTAMs for taxiway or runway closures or other changes. Listen to the surface weather (ATIS, ASOS, or AWOS) to determine which runways are in use and look at the airport diagram and estimate the best route to the departure runway. That way when you get your taxi clearance, you'll more likely actually understand it. Jeppesen, for their part, marks hot spots on their airport diagrams and even includes some description of why the areas require special attention.

At larger towered airports, the airport diagram will list all the various clearance delivery, ground, and tower frequencies that you'll need to use. If I had a dollar for every time a pilot asked me what a particular frequency was, I might be sitting on a warm beach, sipping a cool beverage.

Becoming a Literate Pilot

As pilots gain experience I've noticed that many tend to skip the step of writing down the taxi instructions they receive, mistakenly thinking that this is what experienced pilots do. Writing down taxi clearances is easy, especially if you always do it as part of your own personal SOPs.

One morning I called for taxi and got a much more complicated clearance than I had expected. I was used to hearing "taxi runway 28 left via Alpha" but instead was given "taxi 28 left via Delta, Zulu, and Zulu One, hold short 28 right."

A recent change to ATC procedures requires ground controllers to specify the taxiways leading to your departure runway. I heard a pilot recently ask a controller if they had to read back the route, as if it were really that much trouble to do so. I often marvel at how some pilots expend considerable energy in seeing how much they can get away without doing rather than just doing what they know they should.

Be careful that you don't mistakenly hear, write, and read-back the taxi clearance you expect to get. If you read back the incorrect clearance, the controller may not catch your error, hearing what they expected you to say (sometimes called a hear-back error).

Mental Picture

Referring to your airport diagram during taxi can help keep you from making a wrong turn, but it's not foolproof. And don't rely on the ground controller to keep you out of trouble, as witnessed by this takeoff accident where a combination of factors led to the crew taking off on the wrong runway with disastrous results.

I've learned to be especially alert when I hear one controller working both the tower and ground frequencies, which is routinely done at my home airport later in the evening. While I understand that staffing considerations may drive these practices, it carries additional risks for pilots operating on the ground.

One night I called for taxi from the fuel island to parking. I received and read back my clearance. As I began taxiing, I noticed a Lear rolling out on the runway adjacent to my taxiway, both of us approaching a particularly confusing intersection of taxiways locally known as "The Bermuda Triangle." As the Lear taxied off the runway, I heard only the tower's side of the conversation as he was working both tower and ground while the Lear crew was still on the tower frequency. Keep in mind that the Lear and I were the only two aircraft on the field.

I heard the tower say "Lear 123, taxi to parking." After a pause, I heard the tower say "You can take either route" and I knew it wasn't good. Sure enough, the Lear crew chose the route that brought them straight at me - at a high rate of speed I might add. The controller had not said a word to either of us about the other. Sensing a collision was imminent, I turned on my strobes, added power, and sped past just as the Lear's wingtip missed the end of my plane by what I estimate was less than 10 feet. There wasn't any time to say anything on frequency and since the Lear was still on tower and I was on ground, it wouldn't have helped anyway. I have no idea if the Lear crew even saw me.

Eyes Peeled

Several years ago another pilot and I narrowly avoided being hit by another aircraft while doing our engine run-up. The preflight and taxi had been uneventful, but during the engine runup we noticed an anomaly in one of the cylinder head temperature indications. This led us to stay in the runup area longer than usual as we tried to figure out what was causing the high reading. The longer the engine ran, the more the cylinder head temperatures normalized. To fly or not to fly?

We had just resolved to stay in the pattern and watch the engine closely when I caught a glimpse of the aircraft that was headed straight for us. It was a home-built, tailwheel aircraft and I found myself asking aloud "Why is he taxiing so damn fast?" followed by "Jesus, he's not going to stop!" I was certain he would hit us, but at the last moment he jammed on his brakes. This raised the tail of his plane into the air, buried his prop in the pavement, and his craft slid to a stop on it's nose just short of our propeller. We told the ground controller we'd had a near collision in the runup area, that we'd be exiting our aircraft, and that we'd remain clear of the taxiway. The other pilot apologized and confessed he was headed into the sun and hadn't see us.

Speak Up

If you see a conflict unfolding that the ground controller is not aware of, it's critical to say something on the frequency. I frequently see pilots seem to just freeze in these circumstances and wonder why this is so. Perhaps it's because pilots feel intimidated by controllers or mistakenly believe they must always follow their instructions, even if those instructions are going to put their aircraft in harm's way.

Taxiing out for takeoff a few weeks ago, I heard a Gulfstream call for taxi, too. We got our clearance, joined the taxiway and headed to the run-up area. The Gulfstream got their clearance to the South Field and ended up behind us, taxiing in the same direction. That's when we heard a 727 taxiing from the South Field switch to the North Ground frequency. The 727 was ultimately going to be headed in the opposite direction. I knew there was time for us to get into the run-up area and get out of the way, but the ground controller now had a conflict between the Gulfstream and the 727. The controller ended up having the Gulfstream do a 180 degree turn on the taxiway, then taxi onto an adjacent runway so the 727 could pass. And I was glad that we had gotten our little plane well downwind of all the jet blast!

On another occasion, I was taxiing with a student to a local FBO's ramp as a Global Express on the same ramp called for taxi. Ground told him to wait and pass behind us, but I didn't like how that was going to unfold: We'd end up parked right where his jet blast was going to be as he powered up to taxi out. So I suggested to ground that we hold our position on the taxiway a hundred or so yards away and let the bigger guy taxi out, which worked out to be a much better solution for everyone.

Approach Briefing

When you brief your approach to an airport, don't forget to think about where you're going to head once you're clear of the runway. This is a good time to get your airport diagram ready and review what your desired taxi route will be. Don't forget to consider any NOTAMs included on the ATIS you recorded. You did listen to the entire ATIS, right?

Post-Flight & Good Night

You can make your ground operations safer by developing your own SOPs, writing down your taxi clearances, having the appropriate charts available, and thinking ahead. And if something doesn't look right, speak up. You just might prevent some bent metal, cracked composite, or worse.

Going Mod

2009-07-24T07:50:00.000-07:00

After using my newly converted Modbook quite a bit, there is some news to report. Overall I think the Electronic Flight Bag (EFB) paradigm is definitely where things are headed, especially considering the plans NACO has in store for their system for distributing aeronautical charts. Until Garmin and others wake up and realize that $500 (not $3000) is a reasonable price point for an EFB and $500 per year for chart subscriptions ain't gonna fly with many pilots, it's up to us to roll our own EFB solution. The Modbook is just one possible solution. So let me expatiate on the good, the non-so-good, and the ugly aspects of using one in the cockpit.

The Good

First off, the Modbook just works, pretty much as advertised. With a little practice I've found the pen interface to be workable and, in some cases, even preferable to using a keyboard. I haven't taken any cockpit notes on paper since I got the Modbook. I'm happy to report that I haven't had any serious problems using the Modbook in flight. While the Modbook has become my EFB, it also continues to function as my primary desktop machine, using a bluetooth keyboard, mouse, along with a document stand to hold it in a normal screen-like position. So I haven't really lost any function by going Mod.

I find the screen readable in most lighting situations (the photos don't do it justice), though there are some light conditions where I have to change its orientation. Then again, I have to do the same thing with paper charts in bright sunlight, too. I had the opportunity to compare the Modbook with a Lenovo tablet and the screen readability was about the same. The Modbook screen might be a bit brighter, but it was essentially a tie.

ReadyProcs™ works really well for downloading and displaying terminal procedures. You can queue up needed procedures in advance, in the desired sequence, or you can locate them on the fly. My beef with the tap-to-enlarge feature doing undesirable things when I am just tapping to wake my machine up from a sleep has been fixed in the latest release. The new release also provides support for displaying Airport/Facility Directory information, but just for airports that have instrument procedures. The bottom line for me is that when trying to locate a procedure, ReadyProcs on the Modbook beats finding a paper chart in a Jepp binder or NACO book every time.

Using Acrobat Reader to access the Airport/Facility directory in PDF format (downloadable for free from either PDFPlates or NACOmatic) is also quite usable. Acrobat Reader is not really optimized for a pen-based environment, but it works and the price is certainly right. And my complaints about the bookmark layout for terminal procedures from NACOmatic have been addressed in the lastest release of procedure volumes (but not yet in the by-state packages).

MacGPSPro works well for viewing VFR sectionals and terminal area charts and offers some cool features. Last night I asked a commercial pilot candidate to plan a diversion to a nearby airport and while he skillfully juggled control of the aircraft with a plotter, pencil, and sectional, I just selected the distance measuring tool and drew a line between our current position and said airport. Voila! In about three seconds had the distance and the true course for the diversion (note that I enhanced the course line to make it stand out).

During use the Modbook gets hot, but then again, so did the Lenovo tablet computer I mentioned earlier. And if something is generating heat, it's using power and the Modbook is no exception. Without an external power source, a fully charged battery seems to last about 2.5 hours of continuous use.

Apple introduced a good feature with the Macbook - the Magsafe™ power cord connection, but they did a not-so-convenient thing by not licensing this to third-party manufacturers. But you can buy an auto-style power adapter at a reasonable price from Mikegyver. Apparently they have gotten around the licensing issue by recycling Magsafe connectors rather than by trying to manufacture them. Below are two photos of the Mikegyver unit and a close up of the Magsafe connector.

The Not-So-Good

Given that the Modbook gets hot during use, it can become a bit uncomfortable without an empty right seat on which to set the computer.

MacGPSPro is not really optimized for aviation use: The current position indicator needs to be bigger (or better yet, configurable), the scrolling interface is clumsy, and the buttons and icons need to be bigger (or configurable). And at the risk of starting a debate, I wish I could select a view other than North Up.

PFD viewing with Acrobat Reader is okay, but Reader is really not optimized for pen-based users and bookmarks are a clumsy way to access data. Trying to use the search feature to located airport data is both ambiguous and abysmally slow, so fagetaboutit!

The Ugly

At just over 5 pounds, the Modbook is heavy. The only time I notice the weight is when I have to lift my backpack. And because I use the Lightspeed Mach1 headset, I don't have the added weight of a normal headset or the weight of my flight bag would be even heavier. Most of the time I don't mind the Modbook sitting in my lap, but I recently did my flight review with an instructor friend of mine and during instrument approaches I did notice that approaching decision height with a landing being imminent, I felt a bit uncomfortable. This was made better by switching the Modbook from a portrait position to a landscape orientation.

Modbook won't fit under the seat of Cessnas or Pipers: The seat rails are just too close together or is the Modbook too big?

There are some glitches with the Modbook's WAAS GPS receiver and MacGPSPro. Once you turn off the the GPS receiver and turn it back on, MacGPSPro is unable to initialize the interface and the only fix I've found is to reboot Mac OS.

And the really bad news is that NACO has pretty much crippled the downloadable versions of IFR low altitude en route charts by releasing them only in non-georeferenced format as PDFs. This makes them pretty much useless. A real same, that.

Mod Conclusions

Overall, the good outweighs the not-so-good and the ugly for me. While I look forward to a possible tablet machine release from Apple or someone else that will really fit the bill, I've gone paperless and I don't plan on going back.

Details, Details, Details ...

2009-07-14T10:20:00.000-07:00

The National Aeronautical Charting Office recently announced planned changes to their business model that will affect smaller retailers who sell charts to pilots. The new plan requires yearly sales of US$5000 for a retailer to be an authorized chart agent and if smaller agents can't meet the new projected annual sales figure by October 1, 2009, they'll have to buy their charts from a bigger authorized chart agent. AOPA, for their part, says that they were involved in this decision and claims that we shouldn't worry because pilots will continue to be able to buy charts. Some say that AOPA is more concerned with their Jet-A burning contingent than the average private pilot or flight instructor, so let's investigate some of the history of aeronautical charting, what's behind the change in chart distribution, and why I think these changes may be a greater concern for GA pilots than AOPA and others are leading us to believe.

Charting History

According to NACO's web site, the US charting process had its start in the early 1800s, surveying and producing charts for marine navigation. These early charts were available to governmental agencies for free and to the public for a nominal cost, which helped recoup some of the production costs. The number of charts produced gradually increased from 10,000 or so per year in the mid-1800s to 330,000 in 1916, which was made possible by the adoption of copper and then aluminum printing plates. For the fiscal year 2007, over 10 million charts were produced.

The first aeronautical charts were produced by the Aeronautical Branch of the Department of Commerce in 1926 with the stated goal of promoting air commerce. The name was later changed to the Bureau of Air Commerce, then the Civil Aeronautics Administration, and finally to the Federal Aviation Administration that we all know and love. The first series of sectional charts were completed in 1937, they were smaller than today's VFR sectionals, and sold for 40 cents - equivalent to US$5.27 in today's dollars. Today's sectionals sell for just under US$10.

Who's Charts Are They Anyway?

Here are some fascinating facts about NACO products: Members of the US Congress are entitled to 100 free chart products a year. I wonder if they have to pay shipping or if we taxpayers foot the bill for that, too? The main consumers for the NACO chart products are, in order of greatest to least percentage:

Department of Defense - 50.7%
Authorized Chart Agent Sales to Public - 27.9%
NACO Direct Sales to the Public - 11.5%
FAA - 6.9%
Other Government Agencies - 3.0%

Who Pays?

NACO does not allow their charts to be sold below the published retail prices, with some exceptions. You and I pay full price, but the DoD (the largest consumer of chart products) receives a weighted-average discount of 86% off retail. Authorized chart agents get a 40% discount and the FAA gets all their charts for free.

The New Course

There are currently around 2,000 authorized NACO aeronautical chart agents and about 500 nautical chart agents. That number will certainly go down under the new chart retailer policy because $5000 worth of chart sales per year is a lot of charts - about 500 sectionals or about 1000 terminal area charts or 1000 terminal procedures books or 1000 low-altitude en route IFR charts or 1000 Airport/Facility Directories, or some combination of the above.

You can read about forces driving this change in this whitepaper but let me save you some time: It's about money. You see, NACO wants to become an HPO (High-Performing Organization). Translation? They want to cut their operational funding by 20 to 28% while increasing the quality of their products and services. This reminds me of an advertising agency I read about years ago in Communication Arts that had an elaborate plaque on the wall of their reception area that read:

Price,
Quality,
Schedule. Pick two.

I guess it all depends on how you define "performance." Still, the whitepaper does contain some laudable goals, namely to move from expensive negative-to-plate printing process to a computer-to-plate process that should reduce production costs. And there are some very reasonable organizational changes as well as some very intelligent changes to charting design processes and procedures.

Known Charting

In our current culture of perjury and PR bafflegab it can be hard to read between the lines, but I'll go out on a limb here: It seems clear that fewer chart retailers means that pilots will have fewer options for purchasing charts, especially on short notice. The best option seems to be to have a subscription with one of the big on-line ChartMart retailers. It's great to have your charts shipped to you in advance, but what about when you lose a chart or need to buy charts for an area that you are just visiting? Well you may, could - oh let's just get it over with - you're screwed.

On the bright side, if the FAA can't make charts readily available perhaps it could be argued that even without current charts a pilot could still claim compliance under the wording of 14 CFR 91.103 "Preflight Action: Each pilot in command shall, before beginning a flight, become familiar with all available information concerning that flight." If charts aren't available locally, they aren't available and perhaps that implies that having current charts will become a concept similar to "known icing conditions."

Digital Charts

Another option is to use electronic charts (a topic near and dear to my heart lately). Many of the products I've mentioned in recent posts provide real value to the average pilot in a way that NACO seems unable or unwilling to undertake. Many of those products are available at no cost, unless you consider the time it takes to download the data, yet the NACO white paper has some interesting things to say about possible goals for the digital charting products (emphasis mine).

If NACO were to expand its digital product offering, without copyright protection, to meet changing technology and customer needs, it is possible that NACO would experience a decline in retained receipts as revenue from the sale of digital products may not compensate NACO for the decrease in the sale of paper products. If NACO is not able to secure copyright protection, other strategies for maintaining this revenue stream will have to be examined. If NACO is not able to maintain this revenue stream, it will experience a decrease in retained receipts and become more dependent on operations funding.

Moving NACO charts from the public domain to copyright status, if that's what's being implied, would really stifle independent and cost-effective EFB development. This is the most vague part of the white paper, which is fascinating because digital charting is the wave of the future. If NACO is planning on copywriting their products, I'd like to see some proposals on how licensing fees would be handled.

Skeptical Conclusion

The NACO white paper has precious little to say about how a big agent will sell to smaller retailers who cannot meet the US$5000 per year minimum sales, but still want to offer charts. It doesn't take much imagination to see the inefficiencies in such a system, what with the additional time and cost of shipping charts from the big agent to the small agent. It's not at all clear how or even if this will work. Without some sort of oversight, it's unclear what the small retailer might be charged by the big agent (who is getting charts at a 40% discount off retail price).

So the next time you need a replacement chart or a chart on short notice, be forewarned that you will probably be out of luck. And that is what the new, High Performing Organization known as NACO will be offering us. AOPA doesn't seem to have any problem with arrangement, but as with all grand schemes, the devil is in the details.

The Future is Here

2009-07-12T12:37:00.000-07:00

I enjoy experimenting and playing with new approaches, which probably explains how the idea of converting my 2-year old Macbook to a Modbook took ahold of me. The Modbook conversion was developed by Axiotron and was first announced about a year ago. This meant there were several reviews I could read and even a few on-line videos I could watch. After some creative financing, some scrimping and saving, I was able to take the leap. And it really is a leap because once you go Modbook, you can't really go back - literally and figuratively - as you'll see below. Now that I've fallen down the rabbit hole and come back, here are my observations on just how mod the Modbook really is.

I'd had my Intel Macbook for over two years and had used it for 4 or more hours a day easily, everyday. That's a lot of use and while the machine did (and still does) run fine, the track pad and some of the keys were starting to occasionally act up. This was my first rationalization for going Modbook: I was faced with replacing the keyboard and the trackpad soon anyway, why not go whole hog? Some other rationalizations I came up with include the fact that I use my Macbook for giving PowerPoint presentations to pilots during ground instruction and I sometimes need to draw pictures when teaching concepts like holding pattern entries and the like. So why not have a tablt computer I could draw on? Lastly, I use Photoshop and Illustrator for my writing work and trying to do some tasks with a mouse is not ideal. All of these factors, combined with my EFB dreams, pushed me over the edge.

My first step in tumbling down the rabbit hole was to locate an Axiotron-authorized service center to do the work. I chose TechRestore in nearby Concord, CA. TechRestore offers overnight Modbook service and they mean overnight. After calling and verifying I could drop-off and pick-up the unit myself, I purchased the conversion on their web site. Then I drove to Concord (I had some errands to run there anyway) and found my way to their shop, just off CA HWY 4 about midway between Buchanan Field and the Concord VOR. Here's a time-lapse video of a Modbook conversion put together by TechRestore.

I dropped my unit off around noon on a Monday and by 9:30am the next morning I received a call saying I could pick it up. Once I opened the box and saw my transformed Modbook, I knew I wasn't in Kansas anymore. I heartily recommend TechRestore if you are considering this service. They do excellent and fast work.

My first task was to test out the bluetooth keyboard and mouse that I planned to use when sitting at my desk. You can use a VESA style monitor mount to hold the Modbook, but my simple, low-cost solution was to use a document stand I had purchased quite a while back from Anthro. It works great. The Apple wireless keyboard and mouse were given to me by a friend a few months back who no longer used or needed them and they also work just fine. In fact, the keyboard is a big improvement over the tired Macbook keyboard I had grown accustomed to.

Next, I spent some time playing with the pen configuration and the various electronic ink features. When performing input on the screen surface, you have to use the pen that comes with the unit. The pen is stored in a slot at the bottom edge of the Modbook and when not in use is held is place by a small magnet. It comes with several different nibs and I will probably buy a second pen to keep in my pocket. The pen has a nib on one end and a virtual eraser on the other. It also has a two position switch that you can configure using one of the two new system preferences; Pen Tablet and Ink. You use the Pen Tablet preference to set the pen options, calibrate the screen, and customize the pop-up menu pen options.

The Ink preferences let you specify options for how your handwriting will be recognized and whether or not you want to "write" input into any application. I found my handwriting was too sloppy and inconsistent for handwriting recognition to be useful in the cockpit. Instead, I decided on using the write anywhere feature for taking notes and writing down ATC clearances. More on that later.

There's a menu bar item called Axiotron QuickClicks that lets you configure how and when a pop-up keyboard will appear for you to tap on to provide pen input to applications. This pop-up keyboard is activated using the upper button on the pen. Axiotron did a great job implementing the pop-up keyboard because it will mimic whatever keyboard layout and language you have chosen. Rather than the standard QWERTY layout, I happen to use a Dvorak keyboard layout. Did I mention I like to try new things? I think I did ...

Before long I was itching to try ReadyProcs™ and let me tell you it works great. In fact, I came up with a set up that involves rotating the chart view 90 degrees counter-clockwise, resizing the window to about 70% of the screen, and using the Ink window in the remaining space to take notes and write clearances. I hold the Modbook in my lap in "portrait" mode and it looks something like this.

ReadyProcs does not yet provide Airport/Facility Directory support, so I'm using Adobe Reader to access a PDF version that I download from the excellent Nacomatic site.

Last, but not least, I wanted to try out NACO raster sectional charts displayed with MacGPSPro using the built-in WAAS GPS receiver that comes with the Modbook conversion. That's right, a WAAS GPS receiver is included in the conversion. MacGPSPro will import VFR sectionals and Terminal Area Charts without a hitch and it also recognized the new, built-in WAAS GPS receiver. In the short flights I've done so far, the GPS satellite reception and positional accuracy seems to be quite good. Here's what the screen displayed during a recent flight (the little red circle on the screen is the aircraft's current position).

To manage the display of all these applications in flight, I decided to take advantage of the Spaces feature in Mac OS. I defined four spaces; one space for general use, another for ReadyProcs, another for Acrobat Reader displaying the A/FD, and the last one for MacGPSPro. I can quickly access any of these spaces by tapping the pen on the Spaces icon on the menu bar.

I plan to post another, more in-depth report of how it is to use the Modbook in flight, but so far it seems to work fairly well. There are some disadvantages and issues, which I'll cover then. Overall, I'm extremely pleased with the setup.

If you prefer Windows, I'm sure a similar approach could be taken with one of the new, mini Tablet PCs.

The bottom line is that we often resist change, even though there's almost always something fascinating to learn from trying a new approach. Only once you have gone down the rabbit hole do you realize that change is what life is all about.

Ready for Prime Time

2009-07-09T00:21:00.000-07:00

Funny how the internet works. You're just surfing along, minding your own business, wishing for a convenient way to download and display approach charts when you suddenly discover a cool product like ReadyProcs™. If you've been following my series on Electronic Flight Bags then you already know there are several options for displaying terminal procedures on various computer platforms. I've been using ReadyProcs for several days now and have found many things to like and not much to complain about. What makes ReadyProcs stand out is that it not only displays terminal procedures, it also manages the downloading/updating process. All at an affordable price. Anyone looking for a paperless solution for terminal procedures should test drive ReadyProcs.

Cross-Platform ... Really!

Right out of the gate ReadyProcs does something that few chart readers can do - it runs on multiple platforms. ReadyProcs is implemented in Java and should run on any Mac or PC that supports Java Runtime Environment version 1.6. Note that not all Macs have JRE 1.6 support, most notably those with 32 bit processors and those running older versions of MacOS. Sadly, ReadyProcs won't (as of this writing) run on my hacked Dell Mini 9 due to the 32 bit Intel Atom N270 CPU. Mac users should check out this list to determine if ReadyProcs will work with their machine. I'm happy to say ReadyProcs runs just fine on my Macbook and this should be a wake-up call for NACO: If you're going to use Java then fer cryin' out loud make you product run on multiple platforms. Okay, I feel better now ...

Start by downloading the trial version version of ReadyProcs. Next, you'll need to enter some information about yourself and supply your email address to get a authorization code to activate the trial. The installation process on my Macbook was simple and fast, always a good sign when trying out a new piece of software.

Downloading and Managing Procedures

When you first launch ReadyProcs, you'll see it has two modes: Select Procedures and Manage Volumes. Click on the Manage Volumes button and you'll see all the available volumes of NACO terminal procedures. Simply highlight the volume or volumes you want to use in the list on the left and click on the arrow key to add the selected volume to your list of downloads. You download only those volumes you need.

To remove one or more volumes, select from the list on the right side and use the arrow key to remove. No fuss, no muss. My one suggestion would be to somehow implement a map-style graphic that intuitively shows which volume is associated with which geographic area, but the current set up works fine.

On the lower left side of the window is an option for optimizing the charts for downloading, which reduces the download time by reducing the size of the downloaded files. This also reduces the resolution and clarity of the charts, so you might want to turn this option off if your screen is small or if you want the best possible image. If you turn off this option, you'll need more disk space and the download process will take longer. In either case, you'll want a broadband internet connection.

Once you've downloaded the volumes you want to use, ReadyProcs makes updating your terminal procedures pretty darn easy. Since NACO provides the next cycle of procedures a week or so in advance of the effective date, you can download the next cycle when it becomes available and at your convenience. ReadyProcs will make the new charts available when they become effective and automatically delete the old charts. Simple and slick!

Chart Viewing

Once you've downloaded the volumes of terminal procedures you plan to use, click on the Select Procedures button to start viewing. You can select an airport by entering its 3-character identifier, by its 4-character ICAO identifier, or by a portion of the airport facility name or city name. If there is more than one match, just select the one you want from the list of possible choices.

At the bottom of the selection window are two nifty options that control the display of procedures related to arrival (STARs, CVFPs, and IAPs) or departure (SIDs and takeoff minima). These two options can really simplify your life when the airport you've selected has a ton of different procedures and you don't want to wade through them all.

Other selection options include a favorites list, a history list, and pop-up keyboard for tablet computer users who are using a pen to tap in their airport selection. To be more useful for pen-based computer users, the pop-up keyboard really needs bigger buttons with bigger letters. Maybe it could be resizable, too?

Viewing Procedures

To select a procedure for viewing from the list, simply click or tap on it. I like to rotate the view 90 degrees counter-clockwise to get more screen real estate and a larger image, so that's what I'll show here. To return to the selection screen, just click on the Select tab.

If you open more than one procedure, you'll see a tab for each one you've opened. This makes it easy to create a sequence of charts. Let's say you're departing San Jose for Santa Monica. Start by selecting KSJC and opening the airport diagram, then the San Jose Nine departure. Next. select KSMO and open the KIMO TWO arrival followed by the VOR or GPS-A approach and the airport diagram. Another way would be to add these charts to your list of favorites. All in all, it's a simple design that isn't cluttered and just works.

You can access some other useful options using the Tools-Options menu.

Bang for Buck

You can download the ReadyProcs trial and use it for free until the current chart cycle expires. If you want up-to-date procedures after the cycle expires, you can subscribe or US$6.95 per month or US$70 per year. You can use ReadyProcs on multiple computers and a subscription lets you download as many or as few volumes as you want. By comparison, NACO's d-TPP product costs significantly more, is only delivered on DVD, and is significantly less usable. All in all, I think ReadyProcs is a darn good deal and definitely ready for prime time.