AircraftOwner Online

  OK, so you want to buy an airplane. How are you going to title it? Particularly, how are you going to title it if more than one person is involved in the ownership of the airplane? These are questions that confuse most people.

    Of course, the easiest way to title the aircraft is to put it in one, individual name: “John Q. Pilot”, for example. Alternatively, an existing business might want to title its aircraft in company name: “Widget Manufacturers, Inc.” would be an example of “corporate ownership”. If Widget Manufacturers, Inc. is incorporated in one of the states of the United States, and if the President, 2/3rds of the other members of the Board of Directors, and 75% of the shareholders are all United States Citizens, then the Widget Manufacturers, Inc. would qualify as a “Corporation” on the Application for Registration. If the corporation does not meet these requirements, then the corporation would not be eligible to register the aircraft in the United States unless the ownership structure met three other specific criteria, and the box on the Application for Registration would have to be checked as a “Non-citizen corporation”.

    Many people, including a lot of lawyers, tend to shy away from titling assets in the name of an individual or a company that has other business, preferring instead to create a “single purpose entity” for the purpose of holding title to the aircraft. This method is generally used to “compartmentalize potential liability” such that an uninsured loss attributable to the aircraft does not affect the assets of the main corporation. As I pointed out in one of my first articles, aviation is one area where this tactic can become a trap for the unwary. The FAA does not favor single purpose entities. In fact, when you register an aircraft to a corporation or an LLC that has no other business purpose except the ownership of the aircraft, the FAA considers the aircraft to be commercially used because the only purpose of the single purpose entity is to provide transportation by air. In order for an artificial entity to own and register an aircraft, the ownership of the aircraft must be “incidental” to the business of the corporation. A real estate company can own an aircraft in its name and use the aircraft to show properties or to transport is agents around the state to take listings and make sales. But XYZ Company, Inc. cannot take real estate agents around the state for these purposes without being considered a commercial operation, which would require XYZ Company, Inc. to have a 135 certificate. It doesn’t make a lot of sense, but that’s the way it is. 

The Application for Registration form does not contain a section for Limited Liability Companies. In general, these are treated like Partnerships, and you may check that box. You will be required to provide an LLC statement to the FAA showing that all the members of the LLC are United States citizens and providing some additional information. Obviously, a formal partnership would check the “Partnership” box as well.

When more than one person or entity owns an aircraft, the FAA considers the aircraft to be “co-owned”. So Jack and Jill Pilot, husband and wife would register their aircraft as “co-owner” on the Application for Registration. “Fractional Ownership” is a specific type of co-ownership. Fractional Ownership, as used by Subpart K of Part 91 of the FARs, requires at least two aircraft to be involved in an FAA-approved program which blends parts of the requirements of Part 135 with the requirements for Part 91. It involves a lot of paperwork.

    Where a bunch of friends simply want to share the ownership of one aircraft, the proper name for the type of ownership to be placed on the Application for Registration is co-owner”. Different types of individuals and entities can co-own an aircraft. For instance, John Q. Pilot and XYZ Pilots, Inc. could co-own an aircraft. Technically, you may have as many co-owners of one aircraft as you want, but the FAA starts to look a little askance at the transaction when there are more than five co-owners of a particular aircraft. Under such circumstances, you may find that the ownership is more likely a flying club or a fractional ownership program, each of which has different paperwork and compliance requirements.

    There are specific requirements for documentation that must be submitted to the FAA when an entity other than an individual wants to register an aircraft on the US Civil Aircraft Registry. Make sure that you follow the instructions on the forms for the Bill of Sale and the Application for Registration. If you have questions, or if the FAA kicks back your attempt to register your aircraft, call an aviation attorney for assistance. Remember, it is both a crime and a violation of the FARs to fly an unregistered aircraft. If you own an aircraft, and you are not completely sure of how that aircraft is titled, you may wish to look on the FAAs website and do an N-number search to see what the FAA records reflect. If the information doesn’t look like what you think it is supposed to look like, that is a big clue that you need to call somebody to get the situation fixed.

In the early nineties I flew for a commuter airline called Great Lakes. Most of my flying was to destinations with no control tower. To name a few, we flew into MTO, DNV,OTM,SPW,FOD,MCW, CIU,IMT,BRL,UIN…the list goes on. While operating at these types of airports is taught in the most basic of aviation courses, they can pose a threat to even the most experienced pilots. Communications and proper procedure at uncontrolled fields is critical to operational safety. This month’s article will offer a basic review of uncontrolled field communications. For a review of uncontrolled field operational procedures, a list of resources is provided at the conclusion.

I can remember the day like it was yesterday. At the time I was a regional manager and Captain on a Beech 1900 for Great Lakes Airlines. It was early evening when I received a call from our chief pilot that there had been an accident. One of our 1900s had collided with a King Air at the intersection of runway 4/22 and 13/31 at Quincy Illinois, an uncontrolled field. The Quincy pilot base was one of six bases that were under my jurisdiction so I was immediately on my way to the scene.

The following are inserts from the NTSB summary:

“On November 19, 1996, at 1701 central standard time, United Express flight 5925, a Beechcraft 1900C, N87GL, collided with a Beechcraft King Air A90, N1127D, at Quincy Municipal Airport, near Quincy, Illinois. Flight 5925 was completing its landing roll on runway 13, and the King Air was in its takeoff roll on runway 04. The collision occurred at the intersection of the two runways…The probable cause of this accident was the failure of the pilots in the King Air A90 to effectively monitor the common traffic advisory frequency or to properly scan for traffic, resulting in their commencing a takeoff roll when the Beech 1900C (United Express flight 5925) was landing on an intersecting runway…Although he had been sitting on runway four for about one minute, the King Air pilot began the takeoff without making a takeoff announcement over the CTAF… Contributing to the cause of the accident was a Cherokee pilot’s interrupted radio transmission, which led to the Beech 1900C pilots’ misunderstanding of the transmission as an indication from the King Air that it would not take off until after flight 5925 had cleared the runway.”

For the entire NTSB report, go to: www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/1997/AAR9704.pdf

From the above accident report we can learn how proper communication is a must while operating in an uncontrolled field environment. The following is a compilation of both FAA recommendations and techniques drawn from professionals throughout the industry. It is important to note that there may be some operating without a radio or simply not adhering to proper procedures. You must remain constantly vigilant and avoid complacency even during the most benign conditions.

Approaching the uncontrolled field:

‣ When approaching an uncontrolled field, if possible, monitor the common traffic advisory frequency ten miles prior to the airport. You can locate this frequency in the Airport Facilities Directory, sectionals, and instrument approach charts just to name a few.

‣ Ten miles prior to the uncontrolled field report aircraft type, aircraft identification, location relative to the airport, state your intensions, and obtain an airport advisory (if applicable).

‣ If overflying the top of the airport, report over the top and your planned intentions. “Matoon traffic, King Air 13FC over the top, will be entering a right midfield downwind for one-one Matoon.” Remember that in the pattern most aircraft will be at 1000’AGL. Plan to overfly the airport at least 500’ above pattern altitude. Most turbine aircraft will be flying a pattern of at least 1500’agl so plan accordingly.

‣ Report turning downwind, base, final, and leaving the runway.

‣ Report the turn to final for a particular runway and then report again when on a short final (1/4 mile or so) for your landing runway. “Matoon traffic, King Air 13FC ¼ mile final for runway two-nine Matoon.”

Departing the uncontrolled field:

‣ When departing an uncontrolled field, monitor and communicate on the traffic advisory frequency from prior to taxi to ten miles from the airport (unless you need to switch frequencies to speak with ATC).

‣ Report taxiing to a particular runway.

‣ Report crossing a runway.

‣ Report departing a runway.

‣ With your departure call remember to state your intentions. “Matoon traffic, King Air 13FC departing runway two-nine, to the northwest, Matoon.” Or “remaining in the pattern, Matoon.”

Points to consider:

Remember to use the airport name at the beginning and end of each transmission: This is extremely important for two reasons. Airports within radio range may share the same frequency or another aircraft may have just tuned in midway through your transmission.

In your communications include the direction of traffic that you will be entering: “Matoon traffic, King Air 13FC entering right midfield downwind for runway 11, full stop, Matoon.” Although right traffic is the published direction, this simply adds clarity for others in the area.

Instrument approach to an uncontrolled field: It is important to remember that not all pilots have an instrument rating. Simply reporting the “outer marker” or “procedure turn inbound on the ILS 29,” may mean nothing to the VFR only pilot. While flying an instrument approach, your traffic advisory should include position relative to the field.

Preflight Preparation: We have all heard about the 7 Ps. Proper prior planning preventing a certain type of poor performance. A check of the notams and Airport Facilities Directory are

a valuable stop in your preflight preparation. The AFD is a wonderful resource that, in the FAA’s own words, “includes data that cannot be readily depicted in graphic form: e.g., airport hours of operation, types of fuel available, runway data, lighting codes, etc.” With a check of the AFD you can obtain runway specific traffic pattern information, CTAF/Unicom frequencies, approach and center frequencies, weather data sources, airport remarks, and much more.

Be especially vigilant during calm wind conditions: Another pilot may have chosen another runway.

If executing a straight in approach: It must be executed so as not to disrupt the flow of arriving and departing traffic. Pilots in the pattern should be alert at all times to aircraft executing a straight in approach.

FAR 91.113: “Aircraft while on final approach to land or while landing, have the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight or operating on the surface…”

By following the FAA’s recommended procedures for uncontrolled field operations, we can significantly reduce the potential hazards. The problem exists when a small minority blatantly disregards those procedures thus raising the threat level for all of those involved. If your operation takes you to an uncontrolled field and it has been awhile, further operational and communication review can be found at:

- Advisory Circular 90-42F

- Advisory Circular 90-66A

- Aeronautical Information Manual: Chapter 4 sections 1 and 3

- Airport Facilities Directory

- FAR 91.113: Right of way rules

- FAR 91.126 (b): Direction of turns

- FAR 91.127 (b): Comply with established traffic pattern

By Jeff Miller

FAQ#1 - I have customers come to my booth at Sun-n-Fun and Oshkosh and complain to me that their 406ELT battery from brand X only lasted 18 to 24 months before replacement was required.  How can this be when it was advertised as a five year battery? 
 

Answer - SARSAT requires the ELT’s to transmit on 406Mhz frequency for a minimum of 24hours on 406Mhz and 48 hours on 121.5Mhz.  If the battery doesn't have enough power to meet this minimum requirement it is considered depleted.

In fact some manufacturers shut down the 406 transmitter after 24 hours of crash activation just to make sure the 121.5 transmitter can make it to 48 hours.  This "meets" certification but you can see how fragile it is.

The owners’ problems come into affect when performing self tests.  Every test draws energy from the ELT battery and an internal counter gives the owner a “failed” indication after the predetermined number of tests. This is to ensure that the ELT can still meet the specifications during an accident. Perform too many tests and the ELT battery fails well before it’s time and if the owner/operator loses track of the number of tests performed or simply didn’t know of this short fall, they fall victim and have to change their battery prematurely.

How do you avoid buying products with these shortfalls?

Ask some questions that will reveal the battery potential:

Does your product require aircraft power for the remote switch?

Does your product need batteries in the remote switch?

How long does the 406Mhz transmitter run in an emergency?

All of these symptoms tell you that the ELT battery cannot handle the load by itself and needs assistance.  This costs you more money in mulitple replacement batteries.
Is there a product out there that does not have this weakness?  Absolutely yes.
If you want a 406ELT that won't break the bank and will give you years of service without hidden weaknesses. Check out the Kannad AF Compact.

    Helicopter aeromedical transport began in Vietnam and was transitioned to the public section in the late 1970’s. The services quickly became flying billboards for competitive hospitals in urban areas even though the most important location for their use is in rural areas where transport times can be significantly reduced.

    However, accident experience over the past couple of decades has not been good with even a higher rate the past few years. The number of accidents has stimulated congressional investigations and numerous lawsuits. In addition, helicopter transport is more expensive than fix wing and astronomically more expensive than ground transport.

    But do they shorten the time of transport and improve the outcomes of patients? The studies do not support significantly decreased transport times except in rural areas where they are rarely located. Even more important: studies do not show that patient outcomes are improved with helicopter transports.

    When the University of Texas-Galveston discontinued it helicopter service, they found there was no difference in transport time and no increase in mortality for trauma patients. In Los Angeles, a study showed that 85% of pediatric trauma patients transported by helicopter were considered to have minor injuries and of the 189 patients transported, 33% were discharged from the emergency room without even being admitted to the hospital. In Pennsylvania in a very large study of over 160,000 patients, researchers did not find helicopter transport affected the odds of survival.

    Layer these statistics on top of the cost of aeromedical helicopter transport and one has to ponder the costs vs. benefits of many of the flights being taken. And all this is before we get to accident issues.

    Weather, darkness, pilot experience, crew fatigue, lack of knowledge of the landing sites, and varying terrain makes medical helicopter transport a risk taking operation. Add the emotion of a potentially critically ill or injured patient into the mix and chances appear to be taken that should not be. Unfortunately, this mix has been proven to be hazardous by the accident statistics on file.

    I worked with a physician assistant who ran an air ambulance operation and he insisted on calling the pilots “ambulance drivers.” He would tell his “drivers” the location of a patient, when the run was to occur and ask “Is it safe?” without telling them the severity of the situation. In this way, the pilots could truly judge the safety of the mission without the emotional overlay of the patient’s condition.

    This procedure maintained safety. Nothing can be worse than losing an aeromedical transport crew because of an unsafe operational decision. Isolation of the mission safety from the patient situation is critical for preventing accidents.

    Another issue is to avoid flying to produce numbers to justify an aeromedical transport systems existence. Many helicopter transfers between medical centers have no justification except for producing usage numbers. When the door to door time difference between an elective transfer by ground ambulance and a helicopter is measured in minutes, it is extremely hard to justify—especially when weather or darkness may be factors.

    The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) may have the medical transport system down the best. During a visit of their command center recently, I observed an integrated dispatch system which controlled both ground and air ambulances. This way, expertly trained personnel made rational decisions on the proper transport vehicles for patients for most of western Pennsylvania.

    UPMC’s safety record is superb and their billboards are bolted to the ground--which is the way helicopter aeromedical transport sytems should be.

   Although each of us knows that he or she is the world’s best pilot, sooner or later, most of us will have some sort of incident or accident that needs to be reported. The first questions that need to be asked is, “Does this have to be reported to anyone?” “To whom do I report this?” “When do I have to report this?” And, “What, exactly, must be in the report?”

    The legal answers to all of these questions can be found in NTSB Part 830. For aircraft less than 12,500 pounds maximum certificated takeoff weight, the ONLY times that a report must be filed are when:

1. There is an aircraft ACCIDENT (more on this later)

2. Any required FLIGHT CREW member is unable to perform normal flight duties as a result of injury or illness

3. A flight control system malfunctions or fails

4. A structural component of a TURBINE engine (OTHER THAN the compressor, turbine blades or vanes) fails

5. In-flight fire

6. Aircraft collide in flight

7. There is damage to property (OTHER THAN THE AIRCRAFT ITSELF) estimated to exceed $25,000.00 for repair (including materials and labor) or fair market value in the event of total loss, whichever is more.

 If what happened to you doesn’t fall within these 7 areas, you are NOT legally required to report the event to the NTSB (there may, however, be requirements to cooperate with local law enforcement which may vary from state to state, or to fill out a report with the local airport authority).

    For NTSB purposes, an “ACCIDENT” means an “occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft, BETWEEN THE TIME ANY PERSON BOARDS THE AIRCRAFT WITH THE INTENTION OF FLIGHT, AND ALL SUCH PERSONS HAVE DISEMBARKED, and in which any person suffers DEATH or SERIOUS INJURY, or in which the aircraft receives SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE.”

    The term “DEATH” includes injuries which result in death within 30 days after the accident.

    The term “SERIOUS INJURY” means an injury which: 1) requires hospitalization for more than 48 hours, commencing within 7 days from the date of the injury; 2) results in fractures of any bone (except simple fractures of fingers, toes or nose); 3) causes severe hemorrhages, nerve, muscle, or tendon damage; 4) involves any internal organ; or 5) involves second or third-degree burns, or any burns affecting more than 5 percent of the body surface.

    The term, “SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE” means “damage or failure which would normally require MAJOR repair or replacement of the affected component. But, TAKE NOTE, “engine failure limited to an engine if only one engine fails or is damaged, bent fairings or cowling, dented skin, small punctured holes in the skin or fabric, ground damage to rotor or propeller blades and damage to landing gear, wheels, tires, flaps, engine accessories, brakes or wingtips” are NOT considered “substantial damage” for the purpose of the reporting requirements.

    Most gear-up landings are NOT reportable, even though there is usually damage to flaps, the belly skin and the prop(s). Even an engine failure resulting in a forced off-airport landing with minor skin damage need not be reported.

    The NTSB form itself requires only that you tell the NTSB very basic information, as well as “a description of any explosives, radioactive materials, or other dangerous articles carried.” Most of the information required by the form itself is not incriminating or likely to result in civil liability. Nevertheless, it is generally good advice to be as brief and factual as you can, without any additional, unrequested explanations, while still answering the questions truthfully.

    The “OPERATOR” of the aircraft is the individual required to make the report. The report is to be made on the specified form (NTSB Form 6120.1), and must be made to the field office of the NTSB nearest to the site of the occurrence. One section of the rule requires that the report be made IMMEDIATELY, and by the most expeditious means available.” Another section of the rule says that the report must be filed “within 10 days after an accident.”

    As a required attachment to the report, “each crewmember, if physically able at the time the report is submitted, shall attach a statement setting forth the facts, conditions, and circumstances relating to the accident or incident as they appear to him. If the crewmember is incapacitated, he shall submit the statement as soon as he is physically able.”

    Many aircraft accidents which result in injuries become the subject of FAA enforcement actions and lawsuits. Therefore, IT IS IMPORTANT NOT TO MAKE A CREWMEMBER STATEMENT UNTIL YOU ARE THINKING CLEARLY. Immediately after a reportable event, you are going to be in shock, either due to emotional stress, physical injury, or both. Once all passengers and crew are accounted for and provided with aid; all cargo that could cause a hazard has been secured; any valuables have been secured; and the wreckage placed in the hands of the first responders, the crew should take advantage of the “physically able” language to decline to give comments until they are no longer in shock.

    Pilots tend to be our own worst enemies. When something goes wrong, we tend to blame ourselves, even if we were not at fault. We all know that, as Pilot-In-Command, we are ultimately responsible for the safe operation of the aircraft. Simply because we may ultimately have to be responsible, does NOT mean that we did something wrong to cause the accident. If you are involved in an accident, have a friend call an aviation attorney for you. The attorney will probably ask you to collect your thoughts in writing as best you can. Those thoughts will be privileged and need not be disclosed to anyone other than the attorney. If you give your first thoughts to the FAA or the NTSB while you are still in shock, there is no privilege which will prevent your statement from being used against you in the future.

            I’ve been a flight instructor for a long time. Some aspects of flying are easy to teach because the student is keenly interested in the subject material while others are not. Next to judgment, weather is perhaps the hardest subject to teach. When you start talking about Radar Summary Charts and Center Weather Advisories, you can literally watch the students eyes glaze over. Back in the day, (this is going to date me), you could walk into a Flight Service Station with your student and a weather briefer would pull out the actual chart and explain to the fledging aviator how it worked and why it mattered. But that is all ancient history.  In fact, the only place you can actually see a Radar Summary Chart these days is on a written exam.

You are basically left to self briefing from information derived from a source like DUAT or talking with a Flight Service representative who is likely not a meteorologist. This reality left me searching for a better way to teach weather briefings.

            Then I came across this book. Preflight Weather Analysis Made Easy, by Jerry Miller. The only place you can get it is from Find-it Fast Books in Montoursville,, PA. Go to /www.finditfastbooks.com

            The secret to this book is the format. What Jerry did was take all the complexities of weather forecasting and broke it down into segments. He created a page format that is as similar as possible that explains each type of chart or weather report. He diagrams each type of chart like you might diagram an approach plate.  He even addresses the most commonly made mistakes and highlights the “gotcha ya’s” that

most of us learned by accident.

            There is an extensive section on WSR-88D Doppler weather radar, which is a commonly used tool. He explains how it works, and what the difference is between base reflectivity and composite reflectivity is as well as the limitation of the system.  

            The section on Terminal Aerodrome Forecasts, commonly called TAF’s and Aviation Routine weather reports, which we call METARS is very detailed. To illustrate the common mistake, he discusses the METAR code “TSNO”. This code is commonly mistaken to mean no thunderstorms, but actually means thunderstorm information not available.

            If this book wasn’t good enough, he also publishes a separate book on METARS and TAF’s and another on NOTAM’s, Notices to Airmen. Jerry sent these to me as well. Ever wonder what FZRANO means in a metar? How about DRDU?  Well, they are in there, along with hundreds of other little snippets of information that will separate you from the pack when it comes to reading encoded weather.

            If you are the self taught type, then you will love these books. You don’t need an instructor to explain it to you. If you are an instructor, you want this book because it makes a difficult job easier.

            If you do read it, let me know what you think.

    The Naval Air Station Wildwood Aviation Museum in  Rio Grande, NJ, boasts an impressive collection of some 19 classic flying machines in its historic 1943 hangar. There’s the Boeing-Stearman PT-17 Kaydet, one of the most widely used basic trainers during World War II.

    Also, housed in the museum’s 92,000 square-foot, all-wooden hangar is the “Huey” helicopter, which first appeared during the Vietnam War. Perhaps, the museum’s most prized possession is the TBM-3E Avenger, a World War II torpedo bomber -- one of just seven aircraft in the country to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

    But what seems to be getting the payload of attention lately, is the museum’s newest attraction that sits directly behind the impressive shiny black Avenger.

    A Wii game.

    “The whole idea is to spark an interest in the science of flight at a young age,” says museum educator Bruce Fournier, who had the game installed last month as an interactive educational tool for kids of all ages. “So far, the game’s has been a big hit.”

    Wii, of course, is the latest rave in video game technology that enable players to interact with the on screen action through a combination of hand motions and by pressing buttons on a remote control. Any number of game themes can be plugged into the Wii.

    Presently, the aviation museum’s Wii is offering a WWII dogfight contest that pits the might of the Allied air forces against the powerful German Luftwaffe. Players can either play each other or challenge the Wii computer.

    “Awesome” and “Cool” were among the responses from a group of Sandman Elementary School fifth graders recently as they flew their fighters, bombers and fighter bombers, engaging in air combat with one another.

    “They key is to find something that kids are familiar with, something they can relate to,” says Fournier. “I had asked that group school kids at the start of the tour if they had ever heard of Wii. They all raised their hands. Then I asked if they had ever played Wii and 99 percent of them raised their hands.”

    But the Wii game is just the latest in an array of interactive gadgets at the aviation museum designed to educate the public on the fundamentals of flight. The museum, which first opened in 1975 and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, also offers instructive visuals and displays that demonstrate basic flight-related scientific laws, like aero dynamics.

    Originally, the Naval Air Station Wildwood was commissioned on April 1, 1943 as an active dive-bomber squadron training facility from 1943 to 1945. During WW II, 42 airmen lost their lives while training at the station. Today, that property is divided up between the aviation museum and the adjacent Cape May Airport, an uncontrolled airport.

   
Fournier says the museum takes it cue from the federal government which encourages educational facilities such as the museum to promote the learning of science, technology, engineering and math -- the keys to successful aviation.

    In keeping with its hope to educate and reach out to America’s aviation future, the (NAS) Wildwood Aviation Museum has two new exhibits planned for early 2010. A single-engine Cessna recently donated will be restored in full measure and offered as a hands-on exhibit.

    “You’ll actually be able to get into the cockpit and operate the controls and see how they work,” said Fournier. Also, the museum plans to unveil this spring a restored flight control with tower.

    As for the Wii game, Fournier hopes the interest will only grow and that he’ll be able to add to that exhibit soon. After all, it seems to be what the kids want.

            “Kids want hands on all the time,” said Fournier with a smile. “They want all their senses working at the same time. Apparently, this is how they learn these days.” ~ Kevin McKinney

    You might expect that a report concerning General Aviation in the Huffington Post would necessarily be negative to GA. After all, it’s a left-leaning Internet blog. But instead, the recent article about Bob Hope Airport in Burbank California was, in fact, very positive coverage describing the airport as having “the world’s most sustainable airport hangar.” Rooftop solar panels, electric vehicles, sustainable landscaping, polished concrete floors and natural daylighting were a few of the highlights. 

    In the same way that a single aviation incident will attract negative media attention while thousands of uneventful landings are never mentioned, any green improvement to a GA airport could attract positive media attention. Instead of “Airplane Lands in Cornfield” in our local papers, we could read “Local Airport Goes Green”.

    Billy Dobitsch considered this when he bought Seamans Field (9N3) in North East Pennsylvania. The airport, arguably in one of the prettiest parts of the United States, is home to a nearly-completed community development that takes advantage of many of the environmentally friendly building ideas currently available. Living on an airport, with very pretty surroundings, in an energy efficient house should sell homes even in a down economy.

    Seamans is also a great place to base because it is home to one of the nation’s best known A&P shops, O&N Aircraft Modifications. Many in aviation know O&N as the designers of the advanced panel, pressurized Cessna P 210 N, powered by a modified Rolls-Royce (Allison) 450 hp Gas Turbine Engine. And now, O&N has a twin in the works as well.

    Dobitsch has spent the last few years learning the best practices available to building greener communities. His idea is that building green saves money and saves the environment. 

    “Photovoltaic, solar powered hot water and small wind pays for itself in the energy saved”, explains Dobitsch, whose own house on the airport is a prototype for the carbon-clean community he is building.

    And just as Dobitsch hoped, going green has started to catch on with other pilots on the field.

    “Before Billy bought the airport a few years ago, nobody really thought about green. I think he’s made us all really more aware of it. It’s a good idea” says airplane owner Glen Mikolaczyk, whose Cessna 172 is based at Seamans field.

    For as long as most pilots can remember, General Aviation has been under siege. Airports closing to community developments, noise abatements, environmental concerns and security restrictions afflict those of us afflicted with a passion for flying. Every pilot reading this publication would likely agree that modern General Aviation is often presented by the press unfairly. The media’s negative presentation of GA and the public’s aversion to GA are, of course, not mutually exclusive.

    And, although AOPA and EAA have done a good job in Washington and in our communities they will continue to fight an uphill battle as long as the non-flying public perceives their local general aviation airport as a threat to their well-being.

    Therefore, it is time for an entirely new strategy to attract positive press: building GA airports as friendly stewards of the environment. It’s not just “greenwashing”. Building facilities actually use 48% of US energy whereas the transportation sector consumes about 25%. Yet transportation has a worse reputation in the media as an energy hog.

    For airports at least, this perception could be changed. Consider that the highest rating a building can receive from U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) - the organization responsible for rating how green a building is - is “LEED Platinum”. The Burbank airport hangar reported in the Huffington Post is one of only a handful of US buildings to receive this award.

    The statement by Rick Fedrizzi, President and founding chairman of USGBC is reveling. It describes his negative perception of airports but also how we can overcome that perception. Fedrizzi  says, “People may ask, ‘How could the USGBC give its highest rating to an airport facility for private aircraft? Isn’t that oxymoronic when you’re thinking of climate change and the opportunities in front of us?’ And I have to tell you that we are so proud to award the LEED Platinum plaque to this facility”. His statement, and more like them, will make it more complicated for a community to close an airport.

    Where will the money come from to build greener airports? Certainly new construction can justify build costs against maintenance and energy savings. But retrofits and building repairs are also the right time to consider green.

    One easy building improvement that went into the LEED Platinum hanger reported in the blog was the polished concrete floor. If you’ve ever seen a hanger floor so clean and shinny that the aircraft seems to be sitting on a mirror, it’s likely to be polished concrete. The sustainable floor doesn’t absorb hydraulic fluid and oil making oil and gas spills easier to clean up and less slippery than conventional hangar floors. 

    According to QuestMark Flooring (www.questmarkflooring.com), the nation’s leading flooring company, instead of repairing older floors, major retail chain stores are now replacing their floors with polished concrete.

    When QuestMark first developed the idea of a polished concrete floor for the retail industry the challenge was in getting folks to do things differently. But once the commercial retail sector discovered that the maintenance was substantially lessened and also that the floor’s look improved sales, many major retail stores signed on. It’s a green technology airport hangers could benefit from today. 

    Rooftops receive a lot of sun, making them perfect for photovoltaic power. But an even more efficient and cost effective use of flat roofs may be in something just as important as electrical power; daylight.

    In fact, one of the finest displays of natural daylighting is also at an airport; Changi Airport in Singapore, in Terminal 3. Changi is the world’s 19th busiest airport. In 2008, using a new material called MIRO (www.alanod.com), that reflects nearly all the light it receives, the airport installed 919 skylights. Inside the building, the MIRO panels reflect both natural and artificial light. Daylighting is a relatively low-cost, green technology that pays for itself in energy saved. 

    Any green airport upgrade can garner affirmative local press. And working the press in favor of GA just makes good plane sense. The Eneref Group (www.eneref.org) collects and lists ideas to help facilities build green. 

    Let’s say your airport is next door to one that recently closed. Suddenly, 50 new airplanes are planning to base at your airport. That’s great news for the airport owner looking to sell fuel, but is just the kind of story that panics surrounding communities.

    In such a situation most of the newly arriving aircraft would likely be tie-downs, as hanger space would be unavailable. Aircraft parked on the lawn, far from the runway, would have no available lighting when parking at night.

    To add a positive light to an otherwise unfavorable story, the airport could install solar-powered outdoor light poles where the new arrivals would park. Since no ground wire trenching is required, lights could be installed quickly and easily. 

    Liberty Park in upstate NY received accolades in the local press after installing six outdoor light fixtures from SolarOne Solutions (www.solarone.net) to light up a pathway. The SolarOne fixtures are unique because they are computer controlled and designed to assure the lights stay bright enough even after a full week of the sun hiding behind IMC. 

    The stories in the press about the park reported that local residents remarked the park felt prettier and safer. More importantly, most also expressed pride that their park was using energy-free solar-powered LED lights.

    “Residents Express Pride in Local Airport” is a headline we could begin to read just by changing the way we build airport facilities. It’s time to promote general aviation airports as large green spaces protecting the environment from urban sprawl. ~ Seth Warren Rose

This is an important issue!

We all appreciate the FAA’s work in funding improvements to General Aviation airports. Their funneling of financial support makes our airports safer and more useful for all types of General Aviation operations. This is good. However, a dark side of this funding has recently come to light.

That is FAA Order 5190.6B, also known as “Compliance Guidance Letter 2009-1 – Through-the-Fence and On-Airport Residential Access to Federally Obligated Airports.”  This new policy forbids local airport authorities from entering into new “through-the-fence” agreements with surrounding land owners and requires that existing agreements not be renewed. Previously worded guidance used the word “discourage” while the new directive uses the word “prohibit.”

This FAA order, 5190.6B, is the guiding light used by FAA employees, state aviation officials, airport managers, and the pilots and tenants of airports around these United States. When the FAA announced an onerous series of new prohibitions in the Manual on September 30, 2009, they did so without any public input or comments. Regrettably, extreme airport access prohibitions appear to have been capriciously added by FAA staffers – with little or no input from anyone but the rule makers in their respective mirrors.

Prohibiting through-the-fence access at FAA funded airports flies in the face of a long history of Americans building their homes – and hangars – adjacent to public use airports. Aircraft access to these airports was never in question. Now it apparently is.

The logic the FAA is using is akin to prohibiting automobile access to federally funded highways for people who own homes with garages next to a highway. Does that make any sense? Of course not, and neither does prohibiting someone from “driving” their plane to an adjacent airport. If the FAA gets away with this new rule, I wonder what they will do when someone buys a new Terrafugia and drives it across the street to the airport and takes off? For that matter, what will they do when I drive my Taylor Aerocar to the airport and take off?

Prior to the September 30, 2009, amendment, the FAA policy on through-the-fence access read as follows: “As a general principle, FAA will recommend that airport owners refrain from entering into any agreement which grants access to the public landing area by an aircraft normally stored and serviced on adjacent property. Exceptions can be granted on a case-by-case basis where operating restrictions ensure safety and equitable compensation for use of the airport.”  This represents over 50 years of FAA support and approval of thoughtful through-the-fence access. Yet, the new FAA rule states: “there are no acceptable residential through-the-fence agreements.” In fact, it appears that the FAA is ordering any FAA-funded airports to cancel existing agreements that don’t have end dates.

This is clearly a wrong turn by the FAA at a time when General Aviation needs all the help it can get. My guess is that the policy makers who came up with this restrictive idea are not pilots and are not active in General Aviation. It’s a problem that has become epidemic in recent years; there are fewer and fewer aviators at the FAA. Certainly, this ridiculous rule-making shows a complete disconnect with the GA community.

What Can You Do To Help? One of our regular contributors, Dr. Brent Blue, has created a web site that’s a good place to start. It’s www.ThroughTheFence.org (you can also read Dr. Blue’s Opinion page in the December issue of AircraftOwner: http://aircraftowneronline.com/lg_display.cfm/page/20/catalog/57) . You have through March 31, 2010, to submit your comments on future changes to 5190.6B using the following instructions:
1. Go to: www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#home 
2. Type: FAA-2009-0924-0001 into the Keyword or ID search block, which will bring you to the FAA Order 5190.6B docket site
3. To the far right of the first line, click on the “submit a comment” link
4. This comment site will let you attach other documents to your comments.
To read the EAA and AOPA’s responses to the FAA, visit these links:
For the AOPA: www.aircraftownernews.com/AOPA_FAA_TTF_Letter.pdf
For the EAA: www.aircraftownernews.com/EAA_FAA_TTF_Letter.pdf

We you want to read the FAA document; visit this site. It’s the700 page manual which replaced a 60 page manual dated 1989. The particular through-the-fence material is in Chapter 20:  www.faa.gov/airports/resources/publications/orders/compliance_5190_6
 
Take That Coffee Pot and Couch Out of Your Hangar NOW!

We need to stop this sort of baseless regulation gone wild. It’s not out of the realm of possibility that you will not be allowed to have a couch or coffee pot in your hangar if it’s on an airport receiving federal funding. In fact, some reading this document suggest that is already the case.

Never Surrender As we go into the New Year, it is becoming clear that 2010 will be no different from recent years. We must continuously defend General Aviation at every turn. This issue is no exception. General Aviation increasingly seems like an island of sanity and we must defend it. So in the words of our great fellow pilot Winston Churchill:

“We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.”

By sticking together, and only by sticking together, we can continue to share and enjoy the benefits General Aviaiton brings to America. Fly safe in these coming months.

Carbon monoxide (CO) is a silent killer. We all know that and we have all heard that. Do pilots really understand the frequency and significance of CO in the cockpit?

    We introduced low level digital carbon monoxide detectors to general aviation in the late 1990s because of a rash of CO accidents in GA aircraft. This was in part due to the availability of new detector technology and concern over the lack of CO awareness in aviation. After the introduction of our detectors, we were engulfed by stories from our customers with near miss carbon monoxide problems.

    First, consider a bit of human physiology. Carbon monoxide is a tasteless, odorless gas emitted from the incomplete combustion of carbon fuels—particularly gasoline. The CO molecule binds the normally oxygen carrying hemoglobin molecule in red blood cells eight times stronger than oxygen so it displaces the oxygen. In simple terms, a person who has CO poisoning is suffocating on a cellular level in spite of breathing normally.

    Probably the most common first sign of carbon monoxide poisoning is headache and nausea. Cognitive disability is next followed by coma and death. Unfortunately, the aircraft environment makes this worse because the relative hypoxia (or low oxygen) associated with altitude has a synergistic ill effect on the occupants of the cabin.

    Probably the most interesting finding we have made from all the field reports from pilots who bought our CO detectors was the muffler cuff, which we suspected would be the most frequent source of CO, was the least likely culprit. Our guess is that this is because the mufflers are inspected once a year and cracks are found early. Other places on the firewall which might have cracks may not be checked as carefully.

Here are some examples of sources of CO reported to Aeromedix:

    Before his death, Scotty Crossfield reported that his 210 had high CO levels. He took another pilot up with him one day to try to find the source. The other pilot flew while Scotty crawled all over the aircraft with our detector to locate where the CO was coming from.

To his surprise, the levels were higher in the back seat than the front. Crossfield determined that the CO was being sucked into the cabin from the tail cone through the rear bulkhead. Part of this is due to the Venturi effect that creates a relative negative pressure in the cabin. He cured the problem by sealing the bulkhead.

    Normally, twin engine aircraft do not have much of a CO risk but listen to this story. A Beech 18 driver had one of our detectors on the floor of his aircraft in front of the co pilot’s seat. While he was waiting in line to take off, he heard the alarm. When he read the detector, it showed over a 100 ppm which can have debilitating effects in minutes. The source was determined to be exhaust which was being funneled into the fresh air source of the cabin due to the aircraft’s relationship to the wind while waiting in line to leave.

    In another situation, a friend who owned a Maule who had never had a CO problem was given a replacement detector for one that was lost. On his first flight with the detector, he started getting very high readings. After landing, he found that one of the inspection covers on the bottom of the fuselage had come off and the cabin was being filled with CO through the three inch hole.

    Two questions about CO detectors come up all the time. One is whether the chemical spot detectors sold by many pilot shops are any good. The short answer is no. These spots turn color so late in the exposure that by the time they change, the occupants are either incapacitated or dead.

       The problem with the hardware store type detectors is due to Underwriters Laboratory restrictions, these detectors cannot read below 35 ppm and cannot alarm below 50 ppm. This is due to too many false alarms complaints from fire departments. There is no such thing as a false alarm in an aircraft at 10,000 feet so that is why I recommend a low level detector. You do not want to just know when the levels are high. You want to know when they are low before they get high!

       Flying lean of peak also reduces the production of CO to almost zero so there is another reason to join the church of LOP. You can read an in depth article by Mike Bush about CO and CO detectors at Aeromedix.com.