AircraftOwner Online

I am one of six directors of the Recreational Aviation Foundation (RAF), a national, public charity organization. The RAF has financial supporters in forty-nine states. The RAF's vision is "Preserving the legacy and promoting the enjoyment of aviation in the backcountry of America". The RAF is involved in both terrestial and water landing site issues. 

From a personal perspective, I live on a large lake (Flathead). I do not have a boat, but many others do and the noise can be irritating at times. However, as I get older (72 years as of today), I become more tolerant of other people's activities. All users of Ross Lake should have the same attitude.

I have a seaplane that I use for personal transportation to reach many destinations for recreational activities. Once I land and tie up to the dock, the plane does not move until I leave to go somewhere else. The noise signature is minimal compared to the long periods of engine noise from boats. Unless you have a detailed environmental analysis as to why seaplanes are more of an environmental concern that other methods of water access, I suggest you not limit seaplane access to Ross Lake. It appears that seaplanes are a perceived social issue, not environmental.

 The RAF supports the balanced use of our public lands by various means of access as long as those access means do not cause irreversible environmental degradation. We believe that seaplanes are a compatible use of the waters of Ross Lake. Other seaplane users will undoubtedly provide more reasons to support seaplanes and I will not repeat them here.

 In conclusion, it appears that there is no logical reason to ban seaplanes from the majority of Ross Lake. Dispersed recreational use is preferred to concentrated use. The RAF supports the continued, unrestricted use of seaplanes on the entirety of Ross Lake.

My comments as submitted: There should be no changes made to seaplane access in the Ross Lake National Recreation Area. Seaplane access in completely within the definition of what National Recreation Areas are intended to be.  

According to the FEDERAL EXECUTIVE BRANCH POLICY GOVERNING THE SELECTION, ESTABLISHMENT, AND ADMINISTRATION OF NATIONAL RECREATION AREAS BY THE RECREATION ADVISORY COUNCIL, the criteria for becoming a National Recreation Area include the following requirements:

1. National Recreation Areas should be spacious areas…  

2. National Recreation Areas should be located and designed to achieve a comparatively high recreation carrying capacity, in relation to type of recreation primarily to be served…  

3. National Recreation Areas should provide recreation opportunities significant enough to assure interstate patronage within the region of service, and to a limited extent should attract patronage from outside of the normal service region.  

4. The scale of investment, development, and operational responsibility should be sufficiently high to require either direct Federal involvement, or substantial Federal participation to assure optimum public benefit.  

5. Although nonurban in character, National Recreation Areas should nevertheless be strategically located within easy driving distance, i.e., not more than 250 miles from urban population centers which are to be served. Such areas should be readily accessible at all times, for all-purpose recreational use.  

6. Within National Recreation Areas, outdoor recreation shall be recognized as the dominant or primary resource management purpose. If additional natural resource utilization is carried on, such additional use shall be compatible with fulfilling the recreation mission, and none will be carried on that is significantly detrimental to it.  

To restrict seaplane access is clearly opposite of the stated intent of National Recreation Areas in general, and specifically as defined in NRA Criteria #5 above which states that any NRA "should be readily accessible at all times, for all-purpose recreational use."  

Seaplanes provide visitors a perspective which engenders a deep respect for the natural appearance of area. They require little infrastructure and are an integral and well accepted part of the region's transportation tradition and history.  

To suggest that seaplanes are some how less desirable than motor boats, jet-skis, ski boats and the like is preposterous. Seaplane operations are limited in duration, and only the hulls of the floats make contact with the lake. All other motorized vehicles on the lake are in constant contact with the water, and require physical intake and outflow of lake water to remain operational. They are frequently refueled lakeside, or on the lake. It is not at all unusual to see telltale evidence of fuel and oil spills found adjacent to them. This is not the case with seaplanes.  

As well, seaplane operations are, by their very nature, limited in duration. Motorized watercraft, on the other hand are operating their motors when ever they are in motion.  

Then there is the question of alcohol and alcohol related accidents and incidents. Pilots are required by law not to consume any alcohol within eight hours of operating their aircraft. Boaters are not so constrained. Unfortunately and by contrast, Washington State holds the unenviable state ranking of #12 in the category of "Number of Alcohol Related Injuries in Recreational Boating Accidents" and is #15 in the per capita rankings.
Seaplanes should be allowed full and unfettered access to any and all areas of the Ross Lake National Recreation Area, consistent with access provided to motorized watercraft. Ross Lake is not a Wilderness Area – it is a National Recreation Area. It should continue to be treated as such in accordance to the original intentions of its designation.

Bob Kay's comments:
Here's a copy of the text Bob Kay sent to that website:  
I applaud National Park Service efforts to collaborate with interested individuals to formulate plans concerning the future of seaplane access at Ross Lake.  

I personally support leaving the existing access for seaplanes at Ross Lake as is.  The existing access has worked since inception and no data exists to suggest this might change.  Here are some reasons I am against placing additional restrictions on seaplane access:  

• Few, if any, noise complaints have been raised by visitors or anyone else. It is unlikely this will change as seaplane rated pilots are decreasing in number and Ross Lake remains a relatively remote location.
• Seaplane use of the area has never been excessive and no information appears to suggest this will change.  Excessive use was a concern when the existing plan was originally adopted in the 1980’s and has not since materialized.
• The new proposals do not provide adequate and secure/safe campsites to seaplane visitors.  There are only a limited number of campsites (north facing with a dock) which are well suited for float planes.  It would be unfair to eliminate access for seaplanes to preferred campsites and facilities.
• When viewed in aggregate, seaplanes make less noise than outboard engines.  It has been estimated that less than a dozen seaplanes use the lake in a season.  Seaplanes only make a sizable noise print during the takeoff phase of flight; for about 30 to 60 seconds.  The total time of noise (in excess of that of an outboard motor) is no greater than 10 to 12 minutes per year. 
• Any concerns about noise or excessive use could be readily addressed through the implementation of a standard noise abatement policies and published guidelines for seaplane access.
• A permit system limiting seaplane access is unnecessary and may be costly and difficult to administer.
• Seaplanes are often mentioned in the same “motorized usage” sentence as jet-skis and motorboats; however, they differ vastly in use, pollution levels, and overall noise output.  Seaplanes are a mode of transportation used to access recreational opportunities on the lake.  Conversely, motorboats are used as primary recreational vehicles after accessing the lake. 
• If access is accorded motorboats and water taxis throughout the lake, then it is unfair and unjust to limit or eliminate seaplane access.
• Seaplane pilots are responsible, conscientious, and formally trained wilderness visitors.  They are federally licensed, legally bound to not consume alcohol while flying, and required to complete airplane recurrent training every two years.  Few other Ross Lake guests are held to such rigorous conduct and training standards.    Seaplanes provide a means of access for the elderly and the handicapped unable to readily access the lake by other methods.
• Seaplanes have historical significance in the northwest and should continue to remain part of the overall Ross Lake experience.

  Thoughts for your submission:

The National Park Service is creating a management plan for Ross Lake National Recreation Area in Washington state which would affect a wide variety of activities and, as proposed, would severely restrict seaplane operations on the lake.  Washington Seaplane Pilot’s Association www.wa-spa.org (WSPA) is leading the effort along with the RAF, WPA, AOPA and the Seaplane Pilots Association to ensure that seaplanes will still have full access to the lake and are calling on individual pilots to register their feedback.

Please read the following introduction and then send in your feedback so the National Park Service will have evidence that we are a large constituency and it is important for us to maintain access.  Please let us know if you will be able to submit input so we have our own record.  (email: Stephen@ratzlaff.co).  The official deadline for submissions is September 30^th.  We believe early submissions have greater impact so we are asking that pilots submit their comments by August 31^st.

Ross Lake provides a unique experience for seaplane pilots as an extraordinary beautiful lake in a remote environment including campsites (with docks) all maintained by the National Park Service.  It is ideal for seaplane camping and we need to do everything we can to preserve our current access.

Ross Lake was created by the damming of the Skagit River and is in the recreation area of the North Cascades National Park.  Besides seaplanes, the lake may be accessed through the Ross Lake Resort which is situated in a line of twelve individual cabins and three bunkhouses built on log floats.  The Resort maintains boats with outboard motors for traversing the lake.   There are two ways to get to Ross Lake via land; either from the south by foot or ferry, or from the north via Canada and a 30 mile gravel road.  For those pilots on wheels, the nearest airports are Concrete(3W5) and Darrington (1S2).  Given the sensitivity to airplanes at this time, we highly suggest limiting flyovers at this time.

Many concerned pilots recently attended a series of meetings in Washington hosted by the National Park Service for seaplane pilots and others to discuss the draft general management plan and environmental impact statement.  The park service has created four alternative plans for managing the area, and each would have a different impact on the level of seaplane access.  Their preferred option would limit the seaplanes to the north and south ends of the lake, and prevent access to nearly all acceptable seaplane campsites – their proposal would essentially eliminate seaplane access.

The pilots attending the meetings presented our case in a professional and polite manner.  They reminded the National Park Service that it had already determined that seaplane operations only numbered one or two dozen a year at the lake and there was no history of complaints about seaplanes.  Pilots in attendance explained that limiting operations to certain areas of the lake wouldn’t be feasible because the aircraft often need to land near the center of the lake for wind conditions, water depth, obstructions, and docking facilities.

The NPS officials appeared to understand that the current proposal was not feasible nor was it fair to seaplane pilots.  Furthermore they saw the level of support for maintaining access for floatplanes.  

The next stage in the process is for those concerned to submit formal comments regarding the proposed plan to the NPS.  The deadline for submission is September 30^th, 2010.  If you are a seaplane pilot now or hope to be in the future, and wish to maintain access to this wonderful location, please submit your comments to the National Park Service.

These should be provided electronically at the following location: http://parkplanning.nps.gov/commentForm.cfm?parkID=337&projectID=16940&documentId=35271

Suggested comments:

·         I support leaving current access for seaplanes as it is today.  It has worked since inception and there is no data to suggest this might change.

·         Few, if any, noise complaints have been raised by visitors or anyone else.  It is unlikely this will increase as seaplane rated pilots are decreasing in number and Ross remains a relatively remote location.

·         The proposal does not provide adequate and secure/safe campsites to seaplane visitors.  Only north facing campsites provide sufficient protection from the southerly swell.

·         Any concerns about noise or excessive use could be readily addressed through the implementation of a standard noise abatement policy and guidelines for seaplane access.

·         A permit system limiting seaplane access is unnecessary and is not supported.

Additional comments may include:

·         Seaplane use of the park has never been excessive and there is no data to suggest that will changes.  This was also a concern when the prior plan was developed in the 1980’s and excessive use has not since materialized.

·         Seaplanes make less noise then outboard engines in aggregate.  It has been estimated that there are probably less than a dozen seaplanes in a season.  Seaplanes only make sizable noise when taking off which only lasts 30 to 60 seconds.  The total time of noise (in excess of an outboard motor) is no greater than 10 to 12 minutes a year.

·         Seaplanes have historical significance to the northwest and should remain a part of Ross Lake.

·         If access is still provided to motorboats throughout the lake, then it is unfair and unjustified to limit seaplanes access.

·         There are only a limited number of campsites (north facing with a dock) which are well suited for float planes.

·         Seaplanes provide access to the elderly and handicapped, who cannot readily access Ross Lake.

·         It is unfair to eliminate access for seaplanes to the preferred campsites.

·         Seaplanes are a classic part of the history of the northwest.

·         Seaplanes are a mode of transportation, unlike jet-skis and ski boats.  They are generally used to access the lake and then leave.  Seaplanes are often used in the same sentence with jet-skis yet they are vastly different in use and noise output.

·         Seaplanes pollute less than any motor boats.  Engine exhaust does not enter the water.

·         Seaplane pilots must be licensed by the federal government and are required to complete recurrent training.  (They are legally bound to not consume alcohol and fly.)  The pilot community is also very effective at policing themselves.  This is one reason few problems occur with those in the seaplane community.

·         Limiting seaplane access to the proposed areas reduces safety by artificially

If you would like to get detailed information about the process and the proposals, you may download the latest Newsletter from: http://parkplanning.nps.gov/showFile.cfm?projectId=16940&docType=public&MIMEType=application%252Fpdf&filename=ROLA%5FAlts%5FNewsletter%5F060210b%5Flores%2Epdf&clientFilename=ROLA%5FAlts%5FNewsletter%5F060210b%5Flores%2Epdf

For more information, please contact Stephen Ratzlaff, WSPA board member at stephen@ratzlaff.co

A few months ago, Judge Pope retired after a long and distinguished career of public service, including a stint working for the Department of Justice attempting to safeguard the Federal Witness Protection Program.  Since then, the Southeast has not had a dedicated Administrative Law Judge, and the other three ALJ’s have been covering cases arising out of this part of the country.  That changed yesterday when the Chair of the NTSB, Deborah Hersman, appointed Alfonso J. Montano to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Pope.

Judge Montano is a licensed private pilot.  According to the FAA Website, Judge Montano holds a third-class Medical Certificate, and was issued his private pilot certificate in September of 2006.  This stands in stark contrast to Judges Pope and Fowler, neither of whom had obtained a pilot’s certificate of any kind (although Judge Pope did have some instruction in a Cessna during the Vietnam War).  Judge Geraghty is a long-time pilot, as is Judge Mullins).  To me, the experience of obtaining a medical certificate and a private pilot’s certificate is a tremendous benefit to my clientele of airmen who find themselves accused of a violation by the FAA.  At least we know that Judge Montano is familiar with the terminology, and with the sensations (along with the responsibilities) of flying solo as pilot-in-command; and knows what it is like to try to make important decisions in a three-dimensional environment moving at 100 knots plus.

We have also been informed that Judge Montano is married with two adult children, and that he lives in Prince William County, Virginia.  He began his career after attending New Mexico Highlands University and the San Francisco School of Law, working for the United States Department of Justice as a Trial Attorney.  He has spent the last 15 years working as an Administrative Law Judge for the Department of Health and Human Services and the Social Security Administration.  The Administrative Law practice for the NTSB is a little different from the practice as conducted for those other agencies, and there will probably be a minor learning curve that Judge Montano will have to master, but we can reasonably expect that he will be up to speed very quickly.

Judge Montano is being introduced to the other ALJ’s of the NTSB in September in Washington, D.C., and I am hoping to able to attend the conference where he is formally introduced as a representative (one of several, I am sure) from the Southern Region.  All of us in the FAA enforcement defense field are looking forward to getting to know Judge Montano and to finding out what kind of an ALJ he will be.

    We all love to fly but do you remember how your passion first came about? My guess is that is was not sitting in the prisoner seat crammed in the back of some big silver elephant. More than likely you really became interested in flying after visiting a local airport. What got you there in the first place could be any of a number of things, but the local GA airport is probably where the spark hit the tinder. And that, my friend, continues to be the most important place to introduce people to the passion of flying. We need to keep people coming to see — and participate in — general aviation activities at our airports. That’s the key.

    In 2003 as part of the Centennial of Flight celebration, I organized the re-creation of the 1925 – 1931 National Air Tours. The National Air Tours were originally conducted in large part to do just what I’m talking about – to introduce people to aviation, right in their own home towns. The 2003 National Air Tour covered more than 4,000 over a three week period, visiting 26 cities across the Untied States (see: www.NationalAirTour.org). Hundreds of thousands of people came out to be a part of the fun.

    Today we continue we have events that bring people to the airport. There are fly-ins, airshows, Young Eagle rides, airport open houses and museums. While we have these things, we need even more of them. And, it would be helpful if we got a bit more creative in recognizing the opportunity we have to get new recruits into General Aviation. More and more the EAA is doing this with the young people who take Young Eagle rides. This is good and there is much more we can do, particularly when it comes time to “sell” aviation to visiting would-be pilots.

    One idea is to create more Air Tours. Along with the original National Air Tour, there also used to be state air tours. As I recall there may still be one or two of them happening – we just need more! Another great event was started after the 2003 National Air Tour. It’s called the American Barnstormers Tour and is operated and participated in by several original NAT participants (see: www.AmericanBarnstormersTour.com).

    The third biannual Barnstormers Tour was just conducted in the upper Midwest. It is a great idea headed up by NAT participant Clay Adams. Clay gets a group of barnstormers together, sets up and promotes a route and gets local airports and communities to help support each stop. There, about half-a-dozen vintage ride planes operate carrying passengers for hire while another dozen of so vintage ships provide background color and a static museum of sorts at each stop. It’s fabulous. People love it and the local participation is hands down fantastic.

    At each stop there is music playing, Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, high school boosters and other local organizations selling food, snacks and other things in support their community activities. People are happy just to be there. They watch the goings-on with enthusiasm, even if they don’t take a ride. All the activities are centered on aviation at their local airport. That, my fellow pilots, is a wonderful thing!

    So let’s get creative. Let’s make coming to the airport a fun thing. Smiling faces, happy people and a real enthusiasm for aviation that’s waiting to be released. It’s there. I have seen it.

    Prognosticators predicted that Apple’s iPad could make a dandy Electronic Flight Bag (EFB) before it was even released, and they were right. With hundreds of thousands of these devices now in circulation, the iPad has proven, with a few caveats, to be a reliable, lightweight device with over eight hours of battery life and reasonable screen readability. Paired with ForeFlight Mobile HD, the iPad becomes a powerful and flexible EFB. Here’s how the iPad stacks up against a stack of paper, along with some things to consider before you make the jump to using an EFB.

Does the FAA Approve?

    The very first question pilots ask after they see an iPad EFB in action is “Is it legal?” The simple answer for most GA pilots operating under 14 CFR 91 is a qualified “Yes.” The gory details can be found in the FAA advisory circular AC 120-76A: Guidelines for the Certification, Airworthiness, and Operational Approval of Electronic Flight Bag Computing Devices. For most Part 91 operations (except for multi-engine turbine aircraft and fractional operators) an EFB does not require FAA approval as long as the device isn’t replacing any equipment required by 14 CFR 91.205.

    AC 120-76A distinguishes between an Electronic Chart Display (ECD) and an EFB, the difference being that an EFB does more than just display charts. As you’ll soon see, the iPad with ForeFlight Mobile HD is more that just an ECD.

Plan B & Proficiency

    Like anything electronic, EFBs may go Tango Uniform at inopportune times and a good backup plan would be to carry a second EFB device or at least a minimal number of paper charts. In particular, the iPad has tendency to overheat and shutdown in hot weather. I’ve witnessed this with other iPad users who purchased Apple’s iPad Case, which seems to make the device run hotter than my aftermarket hard case that doesn’t fully enclose the iPad. You can reduce the likelihood of overheating by keeping the iPad out of direct sunlight and turning off the display when you’re not using it. Remember, too, that Apple specifies a 10,000 foot MSL altitude limit on the iPad. If you fly a non-pressurized aircraft you may be able to operate your iPad at high altitudes without a hitch, then again you may not. I did mention the importance of having a plan B, right?

    Launching into the clouds should not be the first time you use your EFB. Learn to use the device while on the ground, in a simulator, or with a safety pilot on board. And be sure to keep your electronic charts up-to-date, just as you would with paper charts.

Good EFB Software

    ForeFlight has been a leader in software solutions since the introduction of ForeFlight Mobile for the iPhone back in 2007, so it wasn’t surprising when they announced an iPad-based solution. What was surprising was that they had ForeFlight Mobile available the first day that the iPad became available. An added bonus was that the iPad version was available at no extra charge for subscribers of the iPhone version of ForeFlight: Quite a bargain considering you can use ForeFlight Mobile HD for most every phase of flight including preflight weather briefings, route planning, filing flight plans, and viewing VFR or IFR charts in flight.

Route Planning, Wx Briefing, and Filing

    To get a quick view of the weather for an airport, tap on the search field and enter the ICAO or FAA identifier using the iPad’s pop-up touchscreen keyboard. The airport display shows information on most anything you’d like to know, including surface weather reports, terminal forecast, winds aloft, approach and departure plates, FBOs, frequencies and NOTAMs. About the only thing missing is nearby pilot reports.

    To get a route briefing, simply enter a pair of airport identifiers in the search field. Include the route, true airspeed, fuel consumption and altitude if you like, otherwise ForeFlight computes a direct routing and displays the course on most any type of map you choose, including a VFR chart, an IFR chart, even a NEXRAD radar display.

    Once you’ve entered your route, tap on the navigation log icon to reveal the flight time, obtain recent ATC-assigned routings, file a flight plan, and get a weather briefing. ForeFlight uses DUATS to obtain your preflight briefing and then breaks the briefing down in a way that makes it faster to read.

    If you’re like most pilots, you hate wading through obscure NOTAMs as you try to read the important ones. ForeFlight categorizes NOTAMs in an intuitive way and then translates them to plain English so you can quickly separate the wheat from the chaff.

    When it’s time to file a flight plan, ForeFlight makes it easy by automatically filling in information about you and your aircraft. You’ll also receive an email containing your
flight plan and the text of the DUATS weather briefing for your route.

    One feature missing from the first release iPad of ForeFlight Mobile HD was animated weather radar and satellite images, but version 3.5 has rectified that with high-definition NEXRAD Radar and Satellite maps that include icons for lightning, hail, and mesocyclone activity. You can view these in portrait or landscape mode by simply rotating the iPad. And you can zoom in to practically the street level. The clarity and detail of these maps can be described in one word: Excellent.

In the Cockpit

    Whether you want VFR sectionals, VFR terminal area charts, low- or high-altitude en route charts, ForeFlight Mobile lets you download and store as many or as few charts as you need. The download settings let you specify which charts, approach plates, and airport diagrams you want to store on your iPad. Once you’ve downloaded the data you want, you can access it in flight without a WiFi or 3G data connection. Any time your charts or approach plates are about expire, ForeFlight Mobile will let you know it’s time to download the new versions. Think of it as an electronic chart subscription, but remember you’ll need a WiFi or 3G connection and sufficient time to download those charts.

    Displaying approach plates is easy once you’ve selected an airport. Tap on the Procedures tab and you’ll see plates conveniently grouped by Departure, Arrival, and Approach. Select approach procedures and you’ll see those are further group by ILS, VOR, RNAV, and so on. Once you’ve selected a procedure you can display it full size, which is comparable to a paper chart from the FAA, or you can zoom in using the now-familiar iPhone/iPod/iPad gestures.

    And if you really, truly want to minimize paper in the cockpit, you can use ForeFlight Mobile’s ScratchPad feature to draw or take notes. In draw mode just use your fingertip as a pen or select type mode and use the iPad’s pop-up keyboard. Once the page fills up, press the clear button to start over. Too bad there’s no way to store multiple pages of notes. Still, with a subscription price of about $75 per year and the ability to store a whole lot of data, ForeFlight on the iPad offers pilots pretty good bang-for-the buck.

Mostly Paperless

    The iPad promises to reduce workload in the cockpit and make your flight bag lighter, provided you use common sense and have a good back-up plan. Right now, it’s not so much a paperless cockpit as it is a cockpit with less paper. So when another pilot asks how you like your new toy, just explain that the iPad with ForeFlight Mobile HD is actually a powerful tool that enhances safety of flight. But be careful if you give them a demo: You may find it hard to pry your shiny new iPad out of their hands.

    Helicopters have a reputation for being high utility aircraft. Sure, we all think about their uses for search and rescue, firefighting, and emergency medial services (EMS). And some of us might think about electronic news gathering (ENG) and traffic watch. If you live in a metro area, you’ve likely seen police helicopters and if you vacation in scenic areas, you may have enjoyed a sightseeing flight.

    But helicopters are used for far more unusual endeavors: logging, seismic survey, Christmas tree harvest, bird control, crop spraying, frost control—the list goes on and on. Cherry drying is the unusual helicopter service I provide.

    Here’s how it works. During the last three weeks of so before picking, cherries are susceptible to water damage. When it rains, the cherries get wet—especially around where the stem attaches—and if left that way, they can rot or split. The packing houses won’t buy damaged cherries because the public won’t buy them.

    There are several things growers can do to get rainwater off the cherries. They have big fans in the orchards that blow air over the tree tops. They have blowers that they normally use to spread fertilizers, pollen, and other substances that, when empty, simply blow air. But neither of these methods are as quick or effective as having a helicopter hover over the treetops, using its downwash to blow the branches around, thus shaking and blowing the water off the ripening fruit.

    A handful of helicopter operators provides cherry drying hover service to cherry growers in Central Washington State. It’s a very short season—some pilots are lucky to get three weeks worth of work. On a dry year, an operator is lucky to break even. On a wet year, an operator can do pretty well. The flying is dangerous and tedious. The standby conditions can be unpleasant and mind-numbingly boring. But as I begin my third season doing this work, I’ve learned to enjoy it.

    I got my start in 2008, working as a subcontractor for another pilot. He, in turn, subcontracted out to another organization that hired pilots with their own helicopters for the work. So rather than work directly for the growers, I worked for one or two middle men.

    The summer of 2008 was unusually dry. I was on contract for three weeks without having to fly even once. Then I relocated for a 10-day contract that based me in Pateros, WA, right on Lake Pateros. I was living in a motel on the lake with the helicopter parked outside on a patch of grass. I’d expected to have that week off and my husband, Mike, had flown up from Arizona to spend the week with me. The 10-day contract was a pleasant surprise. It also turned out to provide the only two flying opportunities for me the whole summer. The first came on July 1.

    We were watching the weather radar on the Internet and saw what looked like a little “perfect storm” converging on the town of Brewster, just up the river from my motel in Pateros. Convective activity to the west, east, and south all moved toward each other, as if they were magnetically drawn together. But it was the thunderstorm cells from the southeast that actually hit the town, one after the other. The wind kicked up, lightning flared, and whitecaps appeared on the normally calm lake surface. Although not a drop fell on us eight miles downriver, we could clearly see that Brewster was getting dumped on.

    My boss called. “It’s raining like hell in Brewster,” he said. One of the growers had called him to report in. I was put on “active standby.” Since it was only around 6 PM, that meant there was a pretty good chance I’d fly.

    We waited, watching the storms move through. An Enstrom helicopter came upriver and slowly settled down over an orchard just south of the downpour, upriver from our position. Beyond him, the sky was dark gray and forked lightning bounced from cloud to cloud. He wasn’t there long. He departed to the southeast.

    My phone rang again at about 7 PM. “I’ve got some for you,” the boss said. “Got a pen?”

    He listed five orchards. I wrote down their names. They were all within 10 miles of each other, starting just upriver from my position. By that time, the wind had calmed. Although it looked as if it might still be raining in Brewster and beyond, it had apparently stopped over my orchards.

    “Okay,” I told him, “I’ll get started.”

    I changed into my flight suit and put on socks and sneakers. Then I went down to the helicopter with Mike. We pulled off my door and the tie-downs. The motel guests saw what we were doing. There were some kids and they started asking questions. Mike told them he’d answer all the questions when I was gone.

    I started up the helicopter and organized all my gear out on the passenger seat while I was warming up: my handheld GPS with coordinates for all the orchards and a loose-leaf binder with marked-up aerial photos of all the orchards. I plugged my cell phone into the device I’d bought to enable cell phone communication in flight. I tuned the radio into the frequency Mike would be monitoring on the handheld: 123.45. Then I finished my startup process, gave Mike a thumbs up, and took off.

    I was climbing through about 200 feet, heading upriver, when my phone rang. It was the boss. “C called and says its raining there,” he told me.

    C was the second orchard I’d be drying. (I won’t use real names here for various reasons.) It was across the river from the first and not far from where I’d seen the Enstrom do some drying at least 30 minutes before.

    I asked him what he wanted me to do. He responded that he was just letting me know. I ended the call. I was already arriving at the first orchard, M.

    M’s orchard was snuggled into a strip of land between a rocky bluff and a road. The rows stretched across the field at an angle that went downhill toward the river. I got down low and flew around two of the main block’s three sides to get a handle on how I’d tackle the job. At that time, I also looked for obstacles. The only power lines were on the other side of the road and were not a factor. Other than that, there were three tall PVC poles that stuck up about 5 feet above the tree tops in various locations and, of course, that rocky bluff.

    I settled into a hover five feet over the treetops on one end of the block and worked my way down the first row, from the rocks to the road. I pivoted with a pedal turn over the road, pleased that the wind wasn’t going to fight me. Then I worked my way up the next row. At the top, I sidestepped to the next row, made a 90° pedal turn, and began flying sideways down the row. When I was sure my tail would clear the rocky bluff, I completed my turn with another 90° pedal turn and continued down the row.

    I repeated this process at the top and bottom of each row, noticing a few things as I flew:

    • There was enough wind to push the downwash I generated to the southeast side of the helicopter. So as I flew over one row, I was really drying the row next to it.

    • When I flew downhill, I flew higher and faster than when I flew uphill. Both made perfect sense, although the speed was sloppy flying. I had to fly higher on the way downhill to prevent my tail rotor from tangling in the trees uphill, behind me.

    • It was extremely difficult to see the rows of trees. They were big and bushy and, from the air, there wasn’t much space between them. I had to rely on occasional views of the reflective material on the ground to remain lined up.

    • I was generating a lot more downwash than I expected. I may have been flying a little low.

    I was about a third of the way through the field when it started to rain. Keeping in mind that it was my job to dry the cherries, it didn’t make much sense to dry them when it was still raining. So I decided to call it quits and work on the next block, Orchard C. I flew across the river. It was still raining there, but much lighter. As I did my reconnaissance around the field, the rain just about let up. I settled down over the first row of trees and started drying.

    This block was also on a slope, but a much gentler one. Its main obstacles included a tall fan in the middle of the field and a set of power lines that ran across the upriver side of the block. Down below were numerous white picking buckets like the 5-gallon plastic “cans” filled with paint that you might buy to paint your house. The helicopter’s downwash sent most of them flying—in fact, if anyone had been down there, he would have been in serious danger. There were also some ladders, most of which were lying on the ground. The ladders must have been sturdy because my downwash did not knock over any of the ones that had been left standing.

    I went up and down the rows, being careful to avoid the wires at the end of each row when I made my turn. When I got to the rows closest to the fan tower, I simply sidestepped around it, double-drying a set of trees a bit farther away and pretty much avoiding the ones closest to the tower. But I think that my altitude—ten or so feet off the top of the trees—spread the downwash around enough to get most of the trees. I wasn’t going to get fancy with the maneuvers I’d learned on my training flight in May—not on my first flight, anyway. I finished that field in about 20 minutes, then climbed and crossed the river. Then I restarted the first block, Orchard M.

    In the meantime, I could hear other pilots on the radio. There was a group working out of Brewster Airport. One of them was flying a JetRanger; another was flying a big Sikorsky. They were working together, somehow. I didn’t see them. Later, I did see a few Sikorskys hovering over fields in Brewster. They looked like big bugs hovering 50 feet off the trees.

    I finished the main block of Orchard M and repositioned over a tiny block of younger trees farther down the hill. The trees were smaller and I found that I could dry two rows with one pass. I finished them off quickly and pulled up, heading toward my next orchard. I’d finished 23 acres (including the re-do) in a little more than an hour. Not exactly fast, but with ferry time factored in, it wasn’t bad.

    My next orchard was full of surprises. Only 3 acres in size, it was shaped like a quarter circle. The rounded edge was lined with seven very large pine trees. Where the trees ended, a set of power lines completed the border of the field. There was a house on one side and another house not far away from the rounded edge. I soon realized that I’d have an audience for my flight as I saw folks gathering along the deck of the second house.

    As I approached the orchard and got ready to settle down to tree top level, I saw two areas where the tree branches were going wild, as if Big Foot were walking among them. It turned out to be ground blowers that the grower was using to get the drying process started. The first time I got into the wake of one of these blowers, I got pushed around quite a bit, but when the grower realized I was overhead, he repositioned to one end of the orchard and shut down.

    Meanwhile, I’d begun drying. In this particular orchard, due to the shape of the block and the size of the trees, it was impossible to see the rows. I’d fly down what I thought was one row, make a complex turn at the end to avoid a big pine tree, and get ready to start up the next row only to realize that I’d either already done that row or I’d missed a bunch. Fortunately, my downwash was covering more than just one row at a pass and I had to satisfy myself (and the grower) with that.

    Near the end of the block, while making a difficult turn to avoid a big pine, I heard a loud noise and felt the helicopter shudder. At first, I thought my tail rotor had struck the tree and I shot forward to clear it. But the helicopter seemed to fly fine and, as I continued flying, I figured I must have just overflown one of the bird cannons. Erik, who had hired me for the summer, had warned that it would “scare the crap out of you the first time you hear one.” He wasn’t kidding.

    As I neared the very last row of the block, I realized that it was uncomfortably close to the power lines I’d noticed there before. Still a little frazzled by the loud noise I’d heard only minutes earlier, I decided I’d done enough. I lifted up and started toward my next orchard.

    I climbed to about 250 feet to cruise to the next orchard and consulted my list of orchards to do. I knew I had only two left. That’s when I realized that I’d forgotten to do the one near to the quarter circle. The only problem I had was that although I had a photo of the block, I’d never actually seen it in person from the air. We’d skipped it during my preview flight and I didn’t have its coordinates. That meant I had to find it from the air while in flight, using the photo as my guide.

    It’s not as easy as it sounds. There were orchard blocks all over the place below me. I had to get down low to look at the fruit on the trees. Most of them seemed to be apples and pears. When I finally found a cherry block, I assumed I had the right one and settled in over it. It was a block of young trees in a very easy layout with no obstructions. Nice and calming after the previous block.

    I noticed my phone ringing and reached out to answer it. It was Jim, another pilot who is based in Chelan. “Dan’s on the phone with the grower. He says you’re drying the wrong block.”

    I found that hard to believe. How many cherry blocks were
out there?

    “He says to go closer to the gray house.” What followed were instructions relayed by phone to get me in the right place. It was a lot like the game kids play when they’ve hidden something and give instructions to find it. “You’re getting warmer, it’s to your right, now it’s behind you.” You get the idea. I finally homed in on it.

    The block was easy and went quickly. I was definitely able to dry two rows at once and that really sped things up. I was making up for my earlier slow flights. As I flew back and forth, I caught sight of the people on the gray house’s porch supervising. Then I was done and climbing out for my last orchard.

    I had the coordinates for that, as well as the photo. I should have followed the GPS until I got a bit closer before descending to look for the fruit on the trees. I was cruising over orchard blocks at about 50 feet when I saw a set of power lines crossing the road about 150 feet in front of me. I pulled pitch and brought the cyclic back smoothly. Two men walking on the road stared as I climbed almost straight up to clear the wires. Whew! Learned my lesson. I followed the GPS the remaining 3/4 mile to the field.

    This last block also had blowers going. It was a nice 6-acre block with no wires and just one fan tower. I settled down 10 feet over the space between two rows of relatively young trees and followed them to the end at about 10 knots. When I got near the end, I spotted the grower watching me from a seat on an ATV. He gave me a thumbs up.

    I can’t tell you how good that simple gesture made me feel. It was my first day on the job and I’d made someone—a man who had waited more than 90 minutes for me to arrive—happy. Maybe I’d saved his crop. Who knows? But it sure made me feel good as I cruised over every other row of trees, drying the whole block in about 15 minutes.

    By this time, it was nearing 9 PM. The sun would be setting shortly. The storm had cleared out and the setting sun was casting an orange light over the Columbia River and mountains on the east side. It was beautiful. I climbed up to 400 feet and pushed a few buttons. Soon I had the boss on the phone. I told him I was done and asked if there were any others. He couldn’t hear me. Not at all. He told me to do the one I’d just finished, but if the grower waved me off, I should forget about it. But the grower had given me a thumbs up. I was done. Since I couldn’t communicate, I hung up. I figured I’d call him from the ground.

    I got Mike on the radio and told him I was coming in. He met me on the lawn beside the motel, holding my door. I shut down and we buttoned the whole thing up, adding fuel to top the tanks and putting on the tie-downs.

    That’s when I got a good look at the tail rotor. Although it was not damaged beyond a bit more paint worn off, it did have signs of something green on each blade. Maybe that loud noise wasn’t a bird cannon after all.

    I’d flown 2.1 hours. Although I probably should have done the work more quickly, this first flight taught me what to expect and how to get the job done more efficiently.

    I flew again two days later. When my ten-day contract ended, I went back to my base in Quincy and twiddled my thumbs for three weeks of beautiful, rain-free summer days. My total cherry drying flight time for the entire season was less than five hours.

    Afterwards, I headed home to Arizona, where I did aerial photo flights over Lake Powell for two months. By the middle of October, I was back in the Phoenix area, prepping for the winter season.

    Last year, the season was even drier—if that’s possible. If it weren’t for the standby pay, I would have had a very heavy loss.

    But this year is different. As I write this in early June, I’ve been on contract just four days and I’ve already flown twice. Growers who didn’t hire pilots have lost their crop, making the remaining cherries very valuable. This promises to be a profitable year for me and the growers with enough foresight to get cherry drying hover service protection.

    I now work directly for a handful of growers, providing them with better service while making a bit more money by being able to cut out the middleman. I take an active role with them in monitoring the weather and protecting their crop. When the picking is done I get more fresh-picked cherries than I can eat.

    Best of all, I’m away from the brutal heat of central Arizona’s summer.

Mandatory Re-registration And It’s Consequences

I have always had a great deal of respect for the FAA’s aircraft and pilot registration branch in Oklahoma City.  Perhaps it’s where they are located or the task they are assigned to do, but in my book those folks have always been very courteous and responsive.  However, the new aircraft registration rules may give us all a reason to fret.

It’s not the people working at the office I am concerned about, it’s the new aircraft “re-registration” rule they will soon be enforcing.  It basically requires that every aircraft be re-registered, every three years.  The reason is sound enough: To keep the registration data base up-to-date. It is the unintended consequences that I am most concerned about.

Re-Register – Or Else

As it is now, the FAA Registration Office sends out a triennial survey asking if there are any changes to the information on your aircraft record. If there are none, then you don’t have to do anything; if there are changes, you make them on the form and mail it back. In the new system, you MUST go on-line and confirm that the information is correct. If you don’t do that, in 90 days your n-number will be canceled. Canceled N-numbers will be put in a pool, held for five years then released for reassignment to another aircraft.

Your Newly Invalid Airworthiness “Is Not Our Problem”

There are several points of concern in this process. One is: When an aircraft registration is canceled, the Airworthiness becomes invalid [see: Title 14, Part 21, § 21.181, (3) (iv)].  If you re-instate the aircraft registration later, do you also re-instate the Airworthiness? Apparently not. What if the n-number is reassigned (remember the Airworthiness has the N-number on it)?  The attitude of the Registration Branch seems to be: “That’s your problem, not ours.”

Not Re-Registered? You Start From Scratch

Another issue: What happens to the proverbial “plane in a barn” (or anywhere else) whose owner has not re-registered?  For example: I am always on the lookout for vintage aircraft that have been parked in a barn for years. I have found and purchased just such aircraft in the past. I do what is necessary to return them to service, send in the Bill of Sale and change in Registration and I’m ready to fly. Under the new rules, I may well have to apply for a different n-number (changing n-numbers is something we cringe at doing) and apply for a completely new Airworthiness with the appropriate FSDO – not the Aircraft Registration Branch whose new rule led to the invalidation of my original Airworthiness to begin with.

Expired Registration?

Call me cynical but I believe that there is a sub-current in the FAA that does not really want vintage aircraft flying in the Standard Category. If you must apply for a new airworthiness, my bet is they will try to tell you to make the aircraft Experimental. This is just one more way to get older aircraft out of the Standard Category.

Then there is the issue of companies, or individuals, owning multiple aircraft. You would think that there would be a method to consolidate your fleet registrations so that you could renew all of them at once, but there is not.  It will be like Chinese Water Torture. Multiple aircraft owners will need to be filling out forms on the Internet as often as their aircraft come up for renewal. It would be far easier if those registrations could be consolidated into one time period.  The FAA’s argument against this is that there would be too many processing peaks in data being submitted.  But then again, they argue that the entire process has been simplified and sped up by the new all-electronic method.  Sure, some will need individual attention in special cases, but corporate and other multiple aircraft owners are more likely to have clean, easily processed data to begin.

To be sure, a good clean aircraft registration database is in everyone’s best interest. The problems are the unintended consequences, or perhaps convenient consequences furthering more subtle – and less desirable – agendas.  

We have reproduced the FAA brochure that was being handed out at Oshkosh explaining this program. Just click here to see it: FAA New Re-Registration and Renewal Procedures.

You do it at the movie theater, the supermarket, as well as your favorite coffee shop on the way to work: You line up and wait. And, after September 30, 2010, you may also be asked to do it at your local towered airport.

Designed to help simplify and standardize air traffic control (ATC) phraseology, as well as to comply with International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standards, U.S. controllers will use the term “line up and wait” in place of “position and hold” when instructing a pilot to taxi onto a departure runway and wait for takeoff clearance. Both current and future versions of the phrase are used when takeoff clearance cannot immediately be issued, either because of traffic or other reasons.

Why “line up and wait?” The phrase has actually been in use by a majority of ICAO contracting states for many years. It has proven useful with many non-native English speakers who can sometimes confuse “position and hold” with similar-sounding phrases like “position and roll,” “position at hold,” or “hold position.” Misinterpretation of this instruction can have serious

consequences. Using “line up and wait” helps avoid ambiguity and keeps the global aviation community accountable to the same standard.

Here’s an example of the phrase in use:

Tower: “Cessna 1234, Runway Three Four Left, line up and wait.”

Pilot: “XYZ Tower, Cessna 1234, Runway Three Four Left, line up and wait.”

This change is expected to take effect September 30, 2010. The specific date and additional details will be communicated via updates to the Aeronautical Informational Manual (AIM) and Pilot/Controller Glossary, both located under the Air Traffic section of www.faa.gov.

Other changes have also made their way into standard ATC lexicon. Effective June 30, 2010, air traffic controllers no longer use the term “taxi to” when authorizing an aircraft to taxi to an assigned takeoff runway. Now, controllers must issue explicit clearances to pilots crossing any runway (active/inactive or closed) along the taxi route. In addition, pilots crossing multiple runways must be past the first runway they are cleared to cross before controllers can issue the next runway-crossing clearance.

As you may recall, previous “taxi to” clearances authorized pilots to cross any runway along the assigned route. One exception to the new rule is at airports where taxi routes between runway centerlines are fewer than 1,000 feet apart. In this case, multiple runway crossings may be issued if approved by the FAA Terminal Services Director of Operations.

The elimination of the “taxi to” phrase will apply only to departing aircraft. Arriving aircraft will still hear the phrase “taxi to” when instructed to taxi to the gate or ramp. However, controllers in these situations still will be required to issue specific crossing instructions for each runway encountered on the taxi route.

Remember, if you’re unsure of any ATC instruction or clearance you’ve heard, contact ATC immediately. It’s always better to check and be certain. And, remember to “line up and wait.”

For More Information

Pilot/Controller Glossary

http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/PCG/pcg.pdf

Aeronautical Informational Manual (AIM)

http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/ATPubs/AIM/AIMbasic2-11-10.pdf

Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP)

http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/AIP/aip.pdf

One of the oldest aviation clichés holds that a pilot certificate or rating is primarily a “license to learn.” Nowhere is that saying more appropriate than it is for the newly rated instrument pilot. Like many pilots, I was eager to exercise my new privileges by getting the wings wet almost before the ink on my temporary certificate dried. Having passed the instrument rating practical test, I was confident of my ability to operate in the system, to shoot approaches, and even to enter and fly holding patterns. I had mastered the art of the scan and the rhythm of cross-check, interpret, and control. My knowledge of instrument flight rules (IFR) and procedures was solid. As I quickly learned, though, my understanding of weather— specifically, how to think about weather in terms of a given flight—was as patchy as the clouds I so proudly passed through on my first IFR flight.

The gaps in my knowledge became crystal clear on a very cloudy day a few months later when I launched into rapidly deteriorating weather that eventually forced a diversion and an instrument approach to near minimums. I’m not proud of the “go” decision I made that day, but the experience does have a silver lining. As you might imagine, it provided powerful motivation to become a dedicated and lifelong student of aviation weather. Eventually, it also led to discovering a simple, but very effective, framework for deciding whither and whether to fly in weather of all kinds.

As Simple as 1-2-3

It is important to get a detailed weather briefing and I was always very dutiful about obtaining and printing out weather information from Flight Service (FSS) or one of the online direct user access terminal (DUAT) providers. Even more critical, however, is knowing how to pull the most important pieces of information from piles of printer paper and apply them to the flight you’re about to make.

Easier said than done. There was a time when I stared at those faithfully acquired weather printouts with the same expression of earnest confusion my Cocker Spaniel displayed when I tried to explain the importance of a bath. She didn’t get that picture any more clearly than I got the flick on weather. The Spaniel never did understand the bath rationale, but the light-bulb moment for my understanding of aviation weather came courtesy of a simple concept in Robert Buck’s Weather Flying

book. As Buck explains, there are just three ways that weather affects an aviator:

1. Weather can create wind.

2. Weather can reduce ceiling and visibility.

3. Weather can affect aircraft performance.

Eureka! With this framework, I began to notice that data in aviation meteorological reports (METAR) and terminal aerodrome forecasts (TAF) is structured to provide information on each of these three weather conditions. I finally had not only the tools needed to mine the most critical pieces of information from the printout, but also the foundation for evaluating a specific day’s weather in terms of both the specific pilot—me—and the specific airplane I planned to fly.

When the Wind Blows

In both METARs and TAFs, the first item provides information on an airport’s wind direction and velocity. A key to wise weather decision making is to consider these numbers in relation to both the pilot and the plane.

With respect to the pilot, the primary issue is proficiency and comfort with a known or forecast crosswind. If you are not comfortable with the crosswind component at the departure airport, it’s a good day to stay on the ground or, better yet, hire a qualified instructor to help scrub the rust off your crosswind takeoff, approach, and landing skills. If it is the crosswind at the destination airport that gives you pause, the next step in the windy weather decision-making process is to determine whether the winds are more favorable at alternate airports within range. When crosswind comfort is an issue at either end of the flight, it also pays to check wind at airports along your route in the event that diversion becomes necessary.

Regarding the airplane, the primary issue is its maximum demonstrated crosswind component, which is usually in the range of 12-17 knots for light GA aircraft. Though it is not a legal limitation, a GA pilot is wise to regard this value as a personal limitation. Here’s why. Aircraft manufacturers develop aircraft performance data through rigorous flight tests. These activities are conducted by professional test pilots who are, as the phrase goes, “simulating average pilot skills.” However hard we try, non-commercial GA pilots still may not obtain the aircraft performance that a professional who is “simulating” an average pilot’s skill level can achieve.

Also, even if the true maximum crosswind component is higher than the published (demonstrated) value, there is inevitably a point at which full deflection of a given airplane’s rudder, in combination with aileron input, will not be sufficient to correct for the drift resulting from a stiff crosswind. Pilots refer to this condition as “running out of rudder.” I speak from experience when I report that it does get your attention. That particular teachable moment came for me on a gusty autumn day when I was first learning to fly from the right seat of a Cessna 150. Even with the right rudder pedal jammed all the way to the floorboard, the trusty little trainer was no match for the crosswind at that particular airport.

Bottom line: Regardless of pilot proficiency in crosswind flying, it is also critical to consider whether the airplane is up to the challenge. A crosswind that is perfectly manageable in the beefy twin-engine Piper Aztec may well be too much for a tiny two-seat trainer.

Flying Blind

The next component of METAR and TAF reports ceiling and visibility, conditions that are the primary reason for learning to fly by reference to instruments. For legal instrument flying, an aircraft must be properly equipped and certified for IFR. Since, regardless of equipment, the airplane itself is not affected by the presence of clouds and precipitation, weather decision making in this area most logically focuses on the pilot.

For legal operation in instrument meteorological conditions (IMC), a pilot must be

both instrument rated and instrument current in accordance with Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations section 61.57. For safe operation in IMC, though, the pilot must also be proficient in basic attitude flying, instrument operating rules and procedures, course intercepts and tracking, holding, approaches, and all other aspects of instrument flying.

The existence of the IFR currency requirement bespeaks the perishable nature of instrument flying skills. As many pilots have discovered, though, maintaining just the legal minimum requirement for currency may not be enough for proficiency and confidence. If you haven’t flown in IMC recently, or if you have any doubts about your proficiency level, it behooves you to get some practice with a safety pilot or, better yet, some dual instrument-refresher training with a qualified instrument instructor.

Let’s assume you are rated, current, and proficient. Is that enough? Another part of being proficient and safe in IMC is knowing and adhering to your individual personal minimums. One way to approach this important task is to consider—honestly—how comfortable and proficient you are in the basic weather categories for aviation. VFR, marginal VFR (MVFR), IFR, and low IFR (LIFR). Be sure to account for day versus night operations in each category. For instance, I am very comfortable flying in day MVFR in my home airspace, but night is a different story. My own personal minimums also prohibit intentional operation into LIFR conditions. The minimums I set for IFR vary according to how much recent time I have flying in IMC, and how recently I have practiced flying instrument approaches. (Note: For specific tips and techniques for developing your own personal minimums see “Getting the Maximum from Personal Minimums” in the May/June 2006 issue of FAA Aviation News.)

The Little Engine That Couldn’t

The third major way that weather affects aviators is through its impact on aircraft performance. The temperatures in METARs, TAFs, and winds and temperatures-aloft reports can give you a good indication of two weather phenomena that will undoubtedly sap your airplane’s operating capability: icing and high density altitude.

An airplane is a machine, and all machines have performance limits. Consequently, a vital part of deciding whether to fly in weather likely to include such performance-reducing elements as icing or high-density altitude is to have a rock-solid understanding of what your airplane can—and cannot—do. The best piloting skills in the world cannot overcome the airplane’s physical performance limitations. Think of it this way: Even if you are super pilot, there are hard limits on what you can expect when flying a Super Cub.

A word about performance calculations: If the ground school memory of doing triple interpolations to calculate a two-foot difference in takeoff distance has discouraged you from regular use of the performance charts for your aircraft, rest assured there is an easier way. Simply use the next highest numbers shown on the chart to get a “ballpark” estimate, and then add a 50–100 percent safety margin.

For the purists: Yes, precision is important, but only to a point. If you calculate a takeoff distance of 1,242 feet in high-density altitude conditions and the last two feet (or even the last 42 feet) really make a difference in whether you can operate or not, you should stop and consider whether it is wise to fly at all in those conditions. As the saying goes, there are no emergency takeoffs.

Learning after Landing

A final thought: When you complete a challenging flight in weather, you may want nothing more than to go home and unwind. The immediate post-flight period, however, is one of the best opportunities to increase the weather knowledge and understanding that will guide effective decision making. Make it a  point to learn something from every weather encounter. At the end of a flight involving weather, take a few minutes to mentally review the flight you just completed and reflect on what you learned from this experience.

Still another way to develop your weather experience and judgment is simply to observe and analyze the weather every day. When you look out the window or go outside, observe the clouds. What are they doing? Why are they shaped as they are? Why is their altitude changing? This simple habit will help you develop the ability to read clouds and understand how shape, color, thickness, and altitude can be valuable weather indicators. As your cloud-reading skill develops, start trying to correlate the temperature, dew point, humidity, and time of day to the types of clouds that have formed. Take note of the wind, and try to visualize how it wraps around a tree or whips around the corner of a building. This exercise will help you become more aware of wind at critical points in your flight.

Weather is a fact of life for pilots. Developing your weather knowledge and expertise is well worth the time and effort you put into it, because weather wisdom will help keep you—and your passengers—safe in the skies.

Susan Parson (susan.parson@faa.gov) is a Special Assistant in the FAA’s Flight Standards Service. She is  an active general aviation pilot and flight instructor.

    After a string of Opinions favorable to Airmen, the United States Circuit Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia Circuit issued an Opinion last month which deals a severe blow to airmen who are victimized by the FAA when those airmen attempt to recover some portion of their attorney’s fees from the FAA. In a shocking Opinion, the Court ruled that the FAA can refuse to settle or drop a case against an airman, and force the airman to prepare for Trial, travel to the location where the Trial is to be held, bring all of the airman’s witnesses and attorneys to the location where the Trial is to be held, arrange to put these individuals in hotels for one or more nights; and then, if the FAA withdraws its charges at the last minute, be totally exempt from any liability to the airman for any of his fees and costs at all.

    The system under which an airman can be awarded attorneys fees and costs when the FAA loses its case is already strongly biased against the airman to begin with. A certificate holder with a net worth in excess of Two Million Dollars cannot be awarded a recovery at all, no matter how egregious the FAA’s conduct might have been. Airmen who are not so wealthy can only be awarded fees if they can prove that the FAA did not even have a “prima fascia case” – just because the FAA loses, if they had a basis on which to have proceeded, the airman is not entitled to recover fees. If an airman passes these two tests, the fees he can recover are limited to $172.00 per hour, which is only around half of the average hourly rate charged by private aviation attorneys for their time in defending enforcement cases.

    The Federal Statute which establishes even these limited rights is called the Equal Access to Justice Act (abbreviated as EAJA – pronounced “EE- jah”). The DC Circuit took a very “strict constructionist” view of the EAJA language, and of the prior rulings concerning the Act, and determined that EAJA fees are only available if a party has prevailed, and that, to prevail, a hearing must have already started, and that the airman’s legal position must have changed to the benefit of the airman by the election of the FAA to withdraw its entire case. In non-emergency cases, the airman never loses his or her certificate and never has to stop exercising the privileges of his or her certificate while appealing the FAA’s case. When the FAA drops its case, therefore, the only change is that the airman is no longer required to fight with the FAA over the disputed claim. The DC Circuit did not feel that this amounted to a change in the legal status to the benefit of the airman.

   Unfortunately, in recent years, some FAA Regional Counsel’s offices have decided to “abuse” the enforcement system to run certificate holders out of business simply by dragging them through the process, even if the FAA does not ultimately have the facts to support its allegations. For instance, many part 135 operators, even some that are fairly large, operate on very small profit margins, and may only have a few qualified pilots. By forcing these individuals to spend a significant amount of time and money litigating with the FAA, the FAA can keep them from flying their aircraft – even if their certificates have not been suspended or revoked) – and to spend money that most of them don’t have, to attempt to show the FAA that there is simply no basis for the particular case that the FAA has filed against them.

    The enforcement process provides an opportunity for the accused airman to meet with an FAA attorney, either over the telephone, or in the Office of the Regional Counsel (which may be hundreds of miles away from the business location of the accused). Most competent advisors suggest that a telephone “informal conference” is not an effective way to attempt to resolve matters with FAA and that the extra expense and time of traveling to the Regional Counsel’s office will produce the best possible settlement offer from the FAA. However, the FAA is not REQUIRED to make a settlement offer of any kind, and the only types of settlements that can be agreed to by Regional Counsel, at the moment, do not include “administrative” remedies such as remedial training or letters of warning. So the Regional Counsel can either agree that the FAA Inspector did not have sufficient facts to justify a proposed suspension or revocation and dismiss the charges; offer to “only” suspend the airman’s certificate for a shorter period of time than originally proposed; or refuse to budge. Unless the airman is prepared to take some kind of suspension or revocation (which will require a cessation of flying activities and the attendant economic difficulties), the only choice the airman has is to appeal to the NTSB and go to a full-blown hearing before an Administrative Law Judge, with witnesses and exhibits.

    The procedures for such a hearing require the airman to file paperwork with the Judge prior to the hearing listing all of the intended witnesses, including expert witnesses (who are usually paid, in advance, to provide expert testimony regarding technical matters), who will testify at the hearing, and all documents that will be introduced into evidence. In order to do this, the airman will generally have to conduct some “discovery”, which involves taking depositions, requesting production of documents from parties, and making sure that you find out what the other side’s witnesses are going to say and what documents they intend to introduce. All of this costs money – lots of money, even if you don’t use an attorney – and a whole lot more money if you do use an attorney.

    To quantify this a little bit, you should know that one of the rulings that this case may affect is a recent EAJA award to an airman in the amount of approximately $123,000.00 (calculated at the reduced rates I described above).

    The net effect of this new ruling is that a “rogue” FAA inspector or attorney can force an airman to take a tremendous amount of time away from his or her business, spend over $200,000.00, inconvenience that airman’s witnesses who may be friends or business associates, and then, at the very last minute, withdraw their claim, without facing any potential penalty at all. I don’t know too many businesses or individuals who can remain in business through something like this. I certainly could not.

            There is a very slim possibility that this case will be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court, however, would not have any obligation to hear this case, even if an appeal were filed. In all likelihood, then, this is a final ruling on the point. The only way to put “equality” of any kind back in the Equal Access to Justice Act, is now for Congress to amend the Act to specify different standards than those that the DC Circuit ruled upon. If you are concerned about “rogue” inspectors or attorneys in the employ of the FAA, you may wish to contact your local Congressman and Senator concerning this case. Please feel free to call me for a copy of the case if you need it.