Search Results for: general aviation inc

Out of the mouths of babes, seen through the eyes of a child; you’ve heard the clichés that describe the cut-to-the-heart-of-the-matter thought process of children. What, I wondered, would Oshkosh be like this year with a youngster in tow? Would a child’s needs slow me down or would a child’s view take me somewhere I’d […]

At this year’s EAA Airventure, there was just a whiff, or lack thereof, of change in the air, as a small bevy of electric airplanes made an appearance on the AirVenture stage. And there were a few such creatures flying at the show, including the first electric two-seater to go airborne at Oshkosh. The e-plane […]

A joint industry/government task force on NextGen implementation recently delivered its report, and at least one politician called it a “breakthrough.” One key element at issue is whether air traffic control would shift from its legacy “first-come, first-served” protocol to one of “best-equipped, best served.” General aviation leaders have spoken out on the complex issues […]

At about 8:25 A.M. on Sept. 3, 2007, Steve Fossett took off from a friend’s ranch, about 60 miles southeast of Reno, Nevada, in a borrowed 1980 Bellanca Super Decathlon. A few minutes later, about nine miles south of the airstrip, an employee of the ranch who knew the airplane well saw the Decathlon fly […]

While the economic downturn was devastating to aircraft manufacturers and their suppliers, there was one segment of the industry, shared ownership, that saw its business hold the line and even, in some cases, expand. Downturns often create business opportunities for companies that exist outside the core of an industry. And with shared ownership, the appeal […]

With typical Midwest pragmatism, Cessna addressed the clear problems it faces while also outlining its reasons for optimism. At his press conference during the NBAA convention, Cessna Chairman, President and CEO Jack Pelton acknowledged the grim reality of layoffs. The work force at Cessna has contracted to 10,000 employees from 18,000 at this time last […]

Alot has been said elsewhere about recent articles appearing in USA Today questioning federal, state and local investment in airports lacking scheduled service. The articles imply airline passengers are subsidizing general aviation airports and people traveling by air for worthwhile purposes only use the scheduled services provided by airlines; all other types of air transportation and airports lacking scheduled service are frivolous and unworthy of investment. The industrys alphabet soup has done an okay job of responding to these articles. I say “okay” because there is so much more to do, including going on offense, instead of once again adopting the defensive posture seen all too often. Its axiomatic that few people who read the initial articles saw the industrys response: Once something is “out there,” its out there. Of the many things omitted from McPapers attack on GA, heres another: The airlines themselves dont pay to use the infrastructure supplied by the federal government.

Go-arounds (sometimes called rejected landings) are something of a “forgotten maneuver” for most pilots. I think this is because the go-around is something were taught as a way to fly away from a botched landing. As we gain more experience and get better at landing, we find ourselves needing this escape route less frequently. The psychology of pilots is such that we try to “recover” from our mistakes, so we also tend to try to turn bad landings into good ones with a nudge of the throttle, a tap on the rudder pedal, or a twist of the controls instead of powering up and climbing away for another try. Instructors can fall into the same trap. Failing to see a reason for a go-around in their experienced students landings, they might not require demonstration of a go-around during a flight review or other recurrent training. If the pilot receiving instruction is instrument-rated, the CFI may consider flying a missed approach to be adequate to demonstrate go-around technique. I must admit for a time I was in that camp as well. When was the last time you practiced a go-around? With experience, ego and unenlightened instruction, it may have been a very long time. So what happens on the day something completely outside the span of your expert aircraft control requires you to call off the landing from a point very near (or even on) the ground?

Even the casual student of why aircraft accidents happen knows that in a large percentage of them, weather is a factor. (Its about 15 percent.) Thats not to say weather caused the accident, just it was implicated as one link in the chain of events that led to the typical accident. When we think “weather,” icing, thunderstorms, low visibility and turbulence come to mind, as well they should. But the NTSBs accident files reveal a particular subset of accidents in which pilots operating in flyable if challenging IMC prang perfectly good airplanes into terrain and obstacles for no apparent reason. The agency throws these into a grab bag category it blandly calls “improper IFR.” This catchall describes a narrow range of sins, but most of them relate to vertical rather than horizontal transgressions. We read enough accident reports to confess a certain discouragement at the level of skill-or lack thereof-of the typical pilot in the U.S. But theres good news: The number of incidents of NTSB-reported improper IFR have declined markedly in recent years. The NTSB reported no accidents in this category between 2006 and 2009, but there were 47 between 1989 and 2005.

The question comes up time and again in the FBOs pilot lounge and on aviation-related forums: Does a known fault make an airplane unairworthy? Time and again when faced with this question, I hear the response, “TOMATO FLAMES” for an aircraft in VFR-day conditions, a mnemonic referring to the items required under FAR 91.205 for day VFR. This is part of the answer, but it is neither the beginning nor the end of determining the airworthiness of an aircraft with a known fault. Instead of a simple, “one-size-fits-all” answer, exploring existing regulations, legal decisions and legal interpretations should guide a pilot or owner in determining whether or not an aircraft with known faults is airworthy. First, lets define “airworthy.” Somewhat surprisingly, “airworthy” isnt defined by the FAA, at least not in FAR Part 1, Definitions and Abbreviations. In 1994, Congress took it upon itself to describe an “airworthiness certificate” as something the FAA Administrator shall issue when he or she “finds that the aircraft conforms to its type certificate and, after inspection, is in condition for safe operation.” Very little additional guidance is available from the 350-plus pages of FAA Advisory Circular AC 8130.2F, Airworthiness Certification of Aircraft and Related Products. When attempting to define “airworthy,” the AC basically reaffirms what Congress said.