AircraftOwner Online

It's a beautiful day here and I think I will head out for the last flight of they year!  Then, tomorrow (afternoon) I plan to take off for the first flight of the New Year.  

That sets the stage for 2010 being a big flying year.  I really look forward to that.

Have a Great New Year!

If you missed Brent Blue's article about airport access in the December issue take a look at it now. This is becoming a very hot topic.

Based on the number of questions I get on the subject, there is a lot of confusion among pilots concerning the flow rates for oxygen.

    The FAA rules are simple—1 lpm (liter per minute) of oxygen for every 10,000 feet MSL. Most certified aircraft with built in systems have their flow rate set for the service ceiling of the aircraft. For instance, if your aircraft has a service ceiling of 25,000 feet, when you plug in your oxygen connector, you will receive 2.5 lpm even if you are at 15,000 feet. This empties your oxygen tank quickly!

    Some aircraft with built in systems (mainly Beechcraft) have an altitude compensation valve which uses barometric pressure to mechanically adjust the oxygen flow rate. These systems work with variable success and are found inconsistently even within the same model line.

    Why save oxygen? The main reasons are cost and hassles. Officially, built in oxygen systems are “supposed” to be filled or signed off by A&Ps. This makes dirt cheap oxygen absurdly expensive. Portable systems are easier to fill at most compressed gas stores (albeit some erroneously require prescriptions—if they do, write me an Email—I will send you a RX for those bozos) and usually the charge is minimal but it still takes your time.

    Many aircraft owners have started filling their own aircraft renting a couple of H cylinders and keeping them in the hangar. The fill procedure is relatively simple and requires a onetime purchase of hoses so the system can be filled sequentially. The first H cylinder is used to fill the system and the second to “top it off.” The sequential filling is similar to the technique used by scuba shops. It is not a difficult process but “officially” is supposed to be signed off.

    Can you use too much oxygen? No--except if you have a running out problem. Can you use too little? Absolutely! That is where people can get into trouble especially when no oxygen is used at all.

    Although pilots consider themselves “above average,” they still tend to underestimate the need for oxygen especially since the pilot population tends to be of a more “mature” age. In informal studies, we have seen that some pilots will need oxygen much lower than the 12,500/14,000 feet MSL FAA requirements while others do not drop their oxygen saturations till higher levels. Factors which contribute to needing oxygen at lower altitudes include underlying lung disease, upper respiratory infections (e.g. colds), allergies, obesity (a big gut tends to keep the pilot from taking deep breaths particularly in a sitting position), heart problems, anemia, and of course, smoking.

    About 25 years or so ago, Nelson started marketing an adjustable oxygen valve which could be placed in line with the oxygen tubing for both build in and portable systems. The Nelson valves were marked by altitude (e.g. 1,000s of feet MSL) which eliminated the simple 1 lpm/10,000 feet math and saved a considerable amount of oxygen. Now there are several flow meters on the market which are “in line” or part of the regulator at the tank.

    One of the neatest devices to come out for saving oxygen is the Oxymizer cannula. This is a patented product made by Chad and sold by several aviation oxygen shops as well as medical stores. The basic principal is the Oxymizer saves oxygen that is flowing during the exhalation and pause portions of the respiratory cycle. This savings allows for a 50 to 70% in the oxygen flow depending on the users oxygen needs and their respiratory rate. Oxymizers are cheap—about $27—and although disposable, they can be reused for years if protected from high heat (like the cockpit in open sun).

    There are also mechanical conserving devices which essentially open up the flow of oxygen sensing the negative pressure generated by the inspiration of the user. The amount of oxygen delivered when the valve opens is adjustable. There are also electronic versions. Personally, I think these devices are ridiculously expensive ($400 to $700 per user) since the amount you may save over the Oxymizer is minimal.

    The most important point to remember from this column is the only way to know how much oxygen to use is by using a device call a pulse oximeter. The best is made by Nonin which is a finger tip device, the size of a cigarette pack cut in half, which shows how much oxygen is in the blood in real time. Using anything less than an oximeter means you are purely guessing whether you need oxygen and how much oxygen to use if you do. It is 21st century technology and anyone who flies above 12,500 feet needs one.

 Don’t bother looking in the FARs for a definition of “airworthy”. The term is not defined there. You could correctly assume that the word means “safe for flight”, but the FAA adds a second prong. In addition to being safe, every aircraft must “comply with its Type Certificate.”

    For the purposes of this article, a “Type Certificate” is the document the FAA approved from the aircraft manufacturer detailing exactly what components and materials would be used, and how exactly they were all put together, to make the certified aircraft. The Type Certificate may only be amended by an FAA: a Supplemental Type Certificate (STC), a major alteration form (Form 337), a “field approval”, or, in some cases, a logbook entry (for instance compliance with an Airworthiness Directive). All of these forms have one thing in common: they all represent some form of FAA “approval” of what has been done. Even if the aircraft is perfectly safe, without the FAA’s approval, the FAA believes that it does not comply with its Type Certificate.

    This matter was recently taken to a ridiculous extreme by the FAA. A Cessna 182 had a taxiing incident with a larger aircraft. The thin aluminum light guard that prevents the wingtip strobe from flashing in the pilot’s and passengers’ eyes was bent. There was no other damage to the 182. The pilot inspected the wing for damage, and bent the guard back into its original position. He took off without getting FAA approval for what he had done. The FAA violated him, and the violation was upheld by the NTSB. The reasoning boils down to the pilot, not having been certified and approved by the FAA as an A & P mechanic, could not be trusted to know that the bent light guard was not a sign of more serious damage. Even though there was no dispute that the aircraft was “safe”, the FAA said that the aircraft had not been certificated with a bent light guard, and the “fix” used by the pilot had not been approved by the FAA; so the pilot should have either gotten a ferry permit from the FAA, or should have had an A & P mechanic at least return the aircraft to service with a log entry.

    The FARs require that every component of an aircraft be operating prior to every flight – light bulbs, upholstery clips, lavatory sinks, coffee pots, standby instruments, etc. If it is a part of the certificated aircraft, then it is supposed to work.

    In large aircraft operating under Part 135 or Part 121, it is common to have a Minimum Equipment List (MEL), which has been approved for each particular aircraft by the FAA, which states what items are real “no go” items, and other items for which repair may be delayed while the aircraft continues on its mission. Sometimes there are special requirements for inoperative components which provide that the aircraft can only be operated with an inoperative component if several other conditions have been met. Unless you have an FAA-approved MEL for your aircraft, however, you are not entitled to operate the aircraft with any missing or inoperative components. And, if a component is NOT included on the MEL, you may not operate the aircraft legally without an FAA issued ferry permit, even if other aircraft of the exact same type have an FAA approved MEL which tells their pilots under what conditions those identical aircraft can be operated with the same inoperative component.

    Non-turbine aircraft operating under Part 91 have two alternatives to getting a ferry permit when something is not exactly the way it was when it rolled out of the factory door: 1) make, and obtain approval for, an MEL; or 2) follow the procedure in FAR 91.213(d). 91.213(d) gives the pilot the ability to make a decision about the need for any particular component. The pilot must: make a “determination that the inoperative instrument or equipment does not constitute a hazard to the aircraft”; deactivate and placard the inoperative component as “INOPERATIVE” and; make an entry in both the airframe log and the pilot’s log noting the pilot’s determination and explaining what was done. (A properly-certificated mechanic can also do the same thing.) There are two exceptions to this procedure: the inoperative component cannot be 1) “required for the specific flight operation being conducted” and 2) cannot be “required to be operational by an airworthiness directive”. If you are going to use this procedure, follow the regulation to the letter, dotting the “I’s” and crossing the “T’s”.

    There is one great case for pilots which states that not every dent, scratch, or missing screw is a deviation from the type certificate. Unfortunately, the case does not tell us when a missing screw is important, or where or how deep a dent has to be, before it is an “airworthiness” issue. If you think that this should just be a “common sense” issue, remember two things: 1) you are dealing with the FAA, and 2) it is amazing how uncommon “common sense” is. The object of this article is NOT to tell you how you can spend $20,000.00 in legal fees defending your position to the FAA and to the NTSB and maybe win if they agree with you. The object is to warn you about a trap in the regulations and to give you some tools to help you avoid becoming a victim.

Over the last few months, the FAA, especially in the Southwest United States, has been cracking down on what they consider to be the flying of un-airworthy aircraft. This appears to have become a “special emphasis area” for the local FSDOs. In order to avoid falling into this trap, you should remember what I wrote a few months back: the FAA considers ANY deviation from the original type certificate which is not covered by a 337 or an STC, to mean that an aircraft is not airworthy and cannot be flown until it is either brought into compliance with appropriate documentation that the modifications to the aircraft have been inspected and approved by the FAA, or are being flown in a known un-airworthy condition under the FAA-issued provisions of a “Special Airworthiness Certificate”, more commonly known as a “Ferry Permit”.

    There seems to be a feeling among many pilots that Ferry Permits are hard to get. That is generally not true. In some cases, it can be as simple as faxing an application for a Special Airworthiness Certificate to the local FSDO, calling one of the inspectors, and getting a signed-off ferry permit by return fax. Of course, if your airplane has a problem that can’t be fixed on-site on an evening or a weekend, you may be stuck for a while (flying at night with an airplane that isn’t up-to-snuff isn’t a real good idea anyway).

    There are also times when the FAA Inspector will require a physical inspection of the aircraft before determining whether to issue the ferry permit at all, or under what conditions the permit will be issued. Sometimes, the FAA will even require the manufacturer or an engineer, or both, to provide data which shows that the aircraft will be safe to fly for the ferry flight. For example, if a fuel truck backs into the leading edge of a wing, the FAA may require a detailed inspection of the area of the “crunch” to make sure that the wing still has reasonable aerodynamic properties and structural properties, that it won’t leak fuel, that electrical wiring may not have been dislodged, etc. If a local A&P can’t render a competent opinion on these issues, the Inspector may call in the big guns. This can result in some expense and in some “downtime” for aircraft and crew; but, especially if YOU are the guy (or gal) that is going to be strapping that aircraft on for the flight to the eventual repair facility, you will appreciate the extra piece of mind that the review will give you.

    On the other hand, if you have a broken piece in a gear retraction mechanism, and you plan simply to fly the aircraft with the broken part removed or taped out of the way and the gear down, the FAA Inspector may not even need to see the aircraft. Similarly, if you buy an aircraft that has been out of annual for a few months, but checks out fine, the Inspector may just issue you the paperwork and let you be on your merry way to your home mechanic who will perform the new annual inspection.

     In general, the FAA treats ferry flights very conservatively. They are usually required to be conducted under day, VFR conditions only; with only minimum required crew aboard; only to a designated airport; and with such other safety provisions as may make sense under the circumstances.

     Some quick cautionary notes, however: If you go to the trouble to get the ferry permit, make sure that you read and understand it. Fly ONLY to the destination listed on the ferry permit. Do not deviate from the restrictions listed on the certificate. Make sure that you have the certificate on board when the aircraft is being operated. If you are going to leave the aircraft somewhere for repairs, remove the Standard Airworthiness Certificate from the aircraft and give it to the aircraft owner for safekeeping. Place the Ferry Permit in plain sight so that any other pilot that is asked to fly the aircraft is aware that flight is subject to specific limitations. Once the aircraft has been brought back into conformity with its type certificate, place the Airworthiness Certificate back in the aircraft. I have had too many cases of pilots who have been asked to fly an aircraft that they didn’t know was operating on a ferry permit and was otherwise un-airworthy.

~ Charles Morgenstein ~

Hope is on the horizon. The airline industry is starting to climb out of the recession, but it could be years before business travel returns to its pre-recession level, if it ever does. Pre-recession, business travel was the most important growth segment for passenger airlines. Unfortunately, the recession forced frequent corporate travelers to adopt less expensive telecommunication strategies. While a mild increase in business travel is anticipated as the recession eases, few analysts expect a return to "the glory days."

The decline of business travel is just one of many pressures forcing change in the airline industry. FBO managers report a decline in customer loyalty directly related to the recession. Cash-strapped aircraft operators shop around for FBOs willing to offer a better price. As reported in our October 19 post, some airlines are taking their maintenance and repair business to foreign FBOs to take advantage of cheap labor.

To survive FBOs will need to provide more services at a better value - do more with less. It's the same problem most U.S. businesses are struggling with these days. Lindy's versatile, ergonomically-designed aircraft tugs allow FBOs to maximize their use of employees while minimizing the number of employees needed to keep operations running smoothly.

Some interesting and creative solutions to improving airline industry revenues are popping up. In Columbus, Ohio, Port Columbus officials recently entered into a five-year pact with 10 airlines guaranteeing them a share of airport revenues in exchange for maintaining and improving services for Columbus travelers and shippers. The Columbus Regional Airport Authority agreed to hold down costs on rent, landing fees and other airline charges. Cooperative partnerships like this could be the wave of the future.

When new federal aviation cargo screening rules go into effect next August, the resulting chaos could ground thousands of tons of cargo (see our Dec. 2 post). Both the feds and the aviation industry are worried that there won't be enough trained screeners or certified screening facilities to handle the job. An expansion of the current law that requires the individual screening of passenger suitcases, the new regulations will exact the same screening standards for each and every parcel shipped on cargo or passenger airplanes. With 500,000 boxes flying the friendly U.S. skies each and every day, the potential for chaos is obvious.

Unless some smart Congressman gets on the ball soon, the new regs will mean that goods now typically shipped in huge lots on shrink-wrapped pallets will have to be broken down into individual packages for screening, then reassembled. Fortunately, the law allows certified facilities to scan cargo packages offsite, as long as secure delivery can be provided to the airplane. But pallets will still have to be broken down for individual scanning and goods transported to and from the scanner. Sounds like a lot of tedious, back-breaking work - unless you employergonomically-designed tugs like DJ Products CartCaddys.

Made by Lindbergh Aircraft Tug Co.'s parent company ;DJ Products, CartCaddys move cargo boxes the same way Lindy's Aircraft Tugs move airplanes - quickly and easily. Compact design and a unique 180-degree pivoting capability allow powered CartCaddys to maneuver in tight spaces. Ergonomic design means that like Lindy's aircraft tractors, DJ Products' electric carts and tugs take the burden off workers. With screeners handling thousands of packages a day, protecting their health and safety from potentially disabling musculoskeletal injury will be a major concern.

If you feel a logistical nightmare coming on, you've probably read about the new federal aviation cargo screening rules scheduled to go into effect in August 3, 2010. In just 8 short months all freight shipped aboard commercial airlines will have to be screened for bombs just like suitcases are screened now. Federal and aviation industry officials are becoming more than a little concerned that a lack of screeners will ground thousands of tons of cargo.

Sending an airplane into the sky is an expensive proposition. It's common practice to stuff airplane cargo holds as full as possible to maximize cost efficiency. There's no profit in flying empty space! As many as half a million boxes or 10 million pounds of cargo are shipped on U.S. passenger planes every day - almost none of it scrutinized by security. And therein lies the problem - and the risk.

Shipping cargo is an important revenue source for airlines, FOB operations and the entire network of companies that provide support services to the airline industry. Requiring that every item of cargo placed in an airplane be inspected by an as yet non-existent security force has the potential to be a huge problem. In cities across the country, shippers are currently meeting with federal transportation authorities to review certification requirements in the hopes of creating, training and implementing a security force, procedures and facilities before the August deadline.

The issue presenting the biggest problem is that federal law requires that each item be individually screened by a human, x-ray machine, explosive-detecting equipment or trained dogs. The law is an obvious mismatch for current shipping practices which prepackages freight on pallets. At least the law doesn't require cargo items to be screened at the airport as luggage is. The TSA is permitted to certify private firms to screen cargo at any point in the shipping process as long as secure delivery is provided to airlines.

Next time: CartCaddys to the rescue!

Last week's frightening failure to the FAA's National Airspace Data Interchange Network pointed highlighted just one more glaring problem faced by the beleaguered airline industry. Cascading flight delays annoyed and already irritated public fed up with perpetual delays, equipment failures, burgeoning ticket surcharges and the newest brouhaha over expiring frequent flyer miles. Man, airlines just can’t seem to catch a break these days.

Initially, the FAA communication failure that prevented automatic flight plan filing provoked fears of terrorist cyber attack. The real problem - the FAA's aging information technology system - should be no less frightening. The problem may not have captured the blogosphere like consumer complaints over the cancellation of frequent flyer miles, but its potential to disrupt the lives of frequent or even casual travelers is far greater.

Transportation experts have been warning for years that America has failed to keep up with her now aging transportation systems, whether it's highway pavements and traffic patterns or airline communication technology. Infrastructure issues have taken a back seat for too long on Congress and the White House's list of priorities. That lack of attention is catching up to us now.

Unfortunately, realization of the severity of the problem comes at a time when the country is beset by so many even more catastrophic problems that degrading airline technology systems barely have the opportunity to register on the national conscience. The danger is that the next FAA computer glitch might not be so tame. Instead of merely annoying passengers and ground crews with schedule delays, the next FAA computer failure could affect planes in the air, putting passengers and flight crews at serious risk.

In the November 23 issue of Time magazine, there was an interesting article by writer Lori Ioannou about a new aircraft company that has found a unique path out of the recession. According to the article, pilot and former high-tech exec Paul Schaller had spent the last five years launching his dream, manufacturing turboprops. Located in Sandpoint, Idaho, Schaller's Quest Aircraft Co. was just starting to take hold when the recession knocked the props out from under the fledgling firm. Refusing to give up, Schaller has found redemption in exploiting an unusual niche market - turboprops for missionary and humanitarian organizations that routinely fly into remote and dangerous areas.

With annual revenues of $300 million, humanitarian flight is a growing market ripe for innovation. The last real innovative effort in the field was de Haviland Canada's introduction of the Turbo-Beaver bush plane in the early 1960s. Certified by the FAA, Quest's rugged 10-seat Kodiak hauler is catching the attention of customers. Revenue is steady and Quest now employs 300 people in Sandpoint.

Naturally, as with any new enterprise, Schaller encountered his share of downdrafts on the way to success. "It's taken more than a wing and a lot of prayer to get to this point," he told Time. But get there he did. It’s an uplifting story, a bright spot in the otherwise gloomy cloud that shadows U.S. manufacturing. It's a story that points to the value of creative thinking to find new avenues for the products you sell. With the exceptional ability of Lindy’s Aircraft Tugs to navigate a wide variety of terrains, our aircraft tugs and tractors would be naturals at the rugged airstrips Schaller's clients are forced to fly in and out of. A Lindy aircraft tug at the end of the line could certainly make moving the aircraft a simple task for overworked missionaries. Just a thought.