AircraftOwner Online

It’s not only major companies like Air Canada and Air France (who both reported losses last quarter), that are suffering, pretty much every company in the aviation industry is feeling the pinch. Airlines are having to up the costs of many amenities like: checked bags, in-flight drinks and blankets to try and make up for the lack of people taking to the air.

Smaller operations are also experiencing difficulties because of a lack of funding for the necessary personnel to perform the jobs that are crucial to flight preparation. Without the proper equipment to align the planes on the runway for take off or to store planes in the hanger upon arrival, the job becomes both exceedingly difficult and quite a bit more expensive to perform.

Outdated machines are cumbersome much more difficult to operate and use up gallon after gallon of costly fuel during operation. Running aircraft tugs that aren’t easy to operate or economical has a very large effect on a company’s budget and can quickly turn a profitable part of your business into a financial liability.

Aircraft tugs from Lindbergh are energy efficient, easy to use and run quietly enough for the operator to remain mindful of his or her surroundings while using them. Lindbergh tugs are also ergonomically correct, making them some of the safest tugs for your employees to use.

One of the best ways to bring down costs in the aviation industry is to useequipment that is efficient, reliable and safe for anyone on your staff to use. You’ll know longer waste man hours by having several members of your staff occupied by the work that could be handled by one with the proper tool for the job. Lindbergh tugs can handle aircraft up to 35,000 lbs quickly and easily at a cost of much less to operate than older gas powered tugs.

How far are you willing to go against your fellow citizens in the name of national security?

 By now, many of us who fly out of air carrier airports have have gone through the Transportation Security Administration's (TSA's) latest training program in an effort to prevent terrorists from using GA aircraft to wreak havoc.  In the wake of IRS foe Joseph Stack's kamakazi act on a Texas IRS office recently,  Texas Congressman Mike McCaul was quick to label the crash--which left two people on the ground, one dead and one critically injured; Stack died in the crash--a terrorist act.

One wonders why previous attacks against government installations haven't also been labeled terrorism, but you can bet your bottom gallon of avgas that when politicians use such language, they're going somewhere; there's an agenda. McCaul's party, the GOP, is normally known as foes of big government and freedom-quencing security scrutiny of private citizens, but this time, McCaul is breaking ranks with fellow Republicans most likely to demand a crackdown on General Aviation security.  Even in his zeal, McCaul recognizes no security measures could have prevented Joseph Stack from flying straight into the IRS without an appointment, short of climbing into his head and observing his thought processes. Stack owned the aircraft, presumably had restricted airport access to it, and had no history that would have led us to believe he was headed out on a mission of vengeance.

Which brings up my mixed feelings on the TSA's de-facto deputization of us as pilots, mechanics, and others with legitimate reasons to have access to an aiport. During our security access training, shaped and mandated by the TSA, we're supposed to challenge people we meet to produce an access card, or we report them or detain them. If that doesn't creep you out the way it does to me, you probably don't see the parallels in history. My father fought Nazis in WWII, sunk a U-boat and shot at retreating Germans on Normandy Beach, so this is close to home. In the presence of a culture that had become so terrifyingly vicious... all in the name of safety, order and economic prosperity...that they built the world's largest network of secret police.  National Socialists commandeered Germany's pre war representative democracy, and "encouraged" citizens to report people they deemed disloyal.

So here's my dilemma: If one of us who have been trained and unofficially deputized by the TSA to challenge and confront possible security risks had been present when Joseph Stack approached his airplane, we might have seen enough telltale emotional or personality symptoms to have prevented his attack. But, would you have done it?

While recently renewing my CFII certificate, I had to answer such a question. I got it wrong because I picked the obviously wrong answer, and wrote a note to Gleim, the flight instructor renewal course provider. What I told them is that I am not comfortable with being asked to exercise semi-police powers when I have not had law enforcement training to recognize problems and protect myself, all without a weapon.  I have a wife and children, for gosh sakes. The people at Gleim were more than sympathetic, and agreed that I should be able to opt out of the TSA's demi-cop program, for safety's sake.  But getting back to Stack; I might have prevented his flight, but I might have been hurt or killed by trying to prevent it, and that's the dilemma.

Sadly there's another dilemma, too; the morality of tattling on fellow aviators, reporting them to the TSA, police or FAA.  What is your political belief, religion or philosophy? What is your ethnic background or gender? If the day comes when you happen to be one of those society deems a threat or a danger, today's security rules could become tomorrow's portal to persecution. The reason we agreed to open the door was safety, an altar at which most Americans bow today--just look at the cottage industry of liability lawyers and the companies that make safety equipment mandated on new cars--but when the law is abused and the government is too powerful, the reason for starting it all is lost in the fog.

Every time the TSA or Congress want to saddle us with a new security rule, I suggest we scrutinize them carefully, rejecting the ones that restrict our civil rights, fail to make flying safer, and especially those that turn our neighbors into quasi cops and informants. Yes, that means letters, phone calls to media and government, but aren't those part of our normal responsibilities as American citizens and voters, anyway?

There are plenty of issues we face everyday in the airline industry, this weekend gave of a perfect example of constraints put on our jobs that are completely out of our control. The East Coast (particularly the Mid-Atlantic region) was pounded with an outrageous storm that dropped anywhere from six up to more than twenty four inches of snow in certain locations. Areas around Washington DC, Philadelphia and the entire State of Delaware where punished particularly hard, making conditions completely impossible to fly in – thousands and thousands of flights in the Mid-Atlantic region were cancelled, leaving travelers stranded and unable to get to their intended destinations.

Mother Nature is responsible for many of the things that make this line of work particularly difficult; snow, rain, ice and clouds can make both the actual flying and all of the prep work to get the planes up into the air dangerous or impossible tasks. This is, unfortunately something that is out of our control, but it doesn’t mean that every facet of our jobs has to be difficult.

Using the proper equipment to get your planes in position on the runway or properly placed in tight hangers once the flight is done makes that part of the job much easier. Using ergonomically correct and reliable airplane tugs reduces both the stress on the body and the mind and makes your crew much happier and more efficient. Once runways have been cleaned and the skies have been cleared for flight you want to ensure that the rest of the process, that part that you and your crew control goes as smoothly and easily as possible and the best possible way to do so is to use the best equipment for the job. We at Lindbergh offer the most versatile, reliable and easy to use equipment for moving aircraft of up to 35,000 lbs. You may not be able to control Mother Nature, but if you’ve got a tug from Lindbergh you’ll have no trouble controlling your plane when it’s time to fly.

As a bush pilot servicing hunters, fishermen and explorers in wildernesses, ranging from Alaska to the Amazon you have a pretty tough job. Not only do you have to deal with flying in adverse weather conditions, you need to land on really rough terrains, from icy plateaus to swampy lagoons and everything else in between. Also, you need to be an expert mechanics as you often will need to repair your aircraft far from a service center.

Additionally, you need to learn first-aid and wilderness survival for emergency situations.  Of course, living the life of a pilot is not without its reward. Being close to nature and taking in some of the most beautiful views is something most folks only dream about.  But it’s totally understandable that you want to find ways to make things easier and better. Why work hard when you can “work smart”!

When you are back home and your aircraft needs servicing or transporting, theLindbergh Aircraft Company provides great solutions for moving your plane in and out of the hangar. Even if your FBO is unpaved, LINDY’S AIRCRAFTCADDY 4K will make moving your plane on gravel, ice or snow as easy as gliding thru clear blue skies.  This battery-powered tug can pull or push aircrafts weighing up to 4,000 lbs and works quietly without all the noise of a typical combustion-engine airplane mover.

You can connect Lindy’s airplane tug to your aircraft effortlessly as you slide the easy-on roller cradle under the nose wheel. You can then easily maneuver your plane with the ability to make 180 degree turns without adjusting the aircraft wheels or steering mechanism. Acceleration and braking is all perfectly controlled, allowing for smooth handling. Unloading the aircraft after you move it is just as easy as you release the locking lever on the handle of the tug.

Take off today knowing that with Lindy’s Aircraft Caddy your job just got easier!

Ice Belongs in Drinks

- Meredith Saini

 

Any pilot who’s spent a drab winter day hangar flying at the airport over a pot of hot coffee with friends has probably heard stories like these before. There was the time when Joe took his Bonanza up to Boston to see a Celtics game and picked up a bunch of ice during the descent into Logan. He needed almost full power just to stay on the glide slope. Or when Bill’s Warrior looked like a hockey rink after crossing the Appalachians on his way home from Thanksgiving dinner with the inlaws last year. His wife hasn’t flown with him since.

 

These stories are often told with a touch of bravado, the pilot feeling a sense of accomplishment for having survived an ice encounter. “I got through it that time, so I’ll probably be all right next time, too.”

 

Nothing could be further from the truth for airplanes not certificated for flight in icing conditions, because the moment ice begins to accumulate on an airplane wing, that wing’s shape morphs into some new, untested airfoil design. At that moment, you become the test pilot of a new airframe, with no guarantee that the wings will keep flying as long as they’re covered with ice.

 

What Is Airframe Icing?

The Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) describes the various types of airframe icing, the conditions under which it can form, and the negative effects it can have on airplane performance. It also offers guidance to pilots on how to give a pilot report (PIREP) on in-flight icing conditions. Depending on where the icing conditions are encountered and at what temperature and altitude, ice can form as clear ice, rime ice (cloudy appearance), or some combination of the two. Ice can form quickly, often

in just a few minutes—the time it takes to climb or descend a few thousand feet through a layer of juicy clouds. Unless the aircraft is equipped with some kind of anti-icing or de-icing system, ice can accumulate rapidly on the leading edges of the wings, the horizontal and vertical stabilizers, propeller, and windscreen.

 

The effects of ice on an aircraft are cumulative, and it doesn’t take much at all to severely reduce performance—as little as one-half inch of ice on an airfoil can reduce the lift it produces by up to 50 percent. Even a light coating of frost on the wings is enough to negatively affect the takeoff performance of most light airplanes.

 

Under what atmospheric conditions can a pilot expect ice to appear? As with many things in life, the answer is, it depends. There are many good tools on the Internet for making educated guesses about where ice is likely to be found, but there are no guarantees. AIM paragraph 7-2-21 says that a pilot can expect icing when flying in visible precipitation, such as rain or cloud droplets, and the outside air temperature is between +2 degrees and -10 degrees C. However, water can remain “super cooled” at temperatures as low as -40 degrees. Water can remain liquid at below-freezing temperatures until it contacts a solid surface like your airplane. Supercooled large droplets, or SLD (which include freezing drizzle or freezing raindrops within or below clouds), are particularly dangerous because they can coat large areas of the wing and tail very quickly.

 

What Is “Known Icing?”

In 2003, the FAA defined “known icing conditions” as “atmospheric conditions in which the formation of ice is observed or detected in flight.” This definition appears in paragraph 7-1-22 of the AIM. However, based in part on information provided by the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), the FAA determined that this definition was not sufficiently broad enough to reflect the agency’s current policy. The FAA issued an interpretation addressing known icing conditions and other aspects of flight in icing conditions on January 16, 2009.

 

In this interpretation the agency noted that “the formation of structural ice requires two elements: 1) the presence of visible moisture, and 2) an aircraft surface temperature at or below zero degrees Celsius. The FAA does not necessarily consider the mere presence of clouds (which may only contain ice crystals) or other forms of visible moisture at temperatures at or below freezing to be conducive to the formation of known ice or to constitute known icing conditions.”

 

The letter to AOPA went on to say: “Most flight manuals and other related documents use the term ‘known icing conditions’ rather than ‘known ice,’ a similar concept that has a different regulatory effect. ‘Known ice’ involves the situation where ice formation is actually detected or observed. ‘Known icing conditions’ involve instead circumstances where a reasonable pilot would expect a substantial likelihood of ice formation on the aircraft based upon all information available to that pilot.”

 

The letter acknowledged the challenge to pilots in deciphering the many possible weather scenarios that could lead to an icing encounter, but urged pilots to dig deeper than the area forecast to determine whether icing conditions might exist. The letter specifically advised pilots to obtain the latest surface observations, temperatures aloft, terminal area forecasts, AIRMETs, SIGMETs, and PIREPs.

 

The letter also stated that pilots should incorporate new technology, as it becomes available, into their decision making. The letter further noted that, “If the composite information indicates to a reasonable and prudent pilot that he or she will be operating the aircraft under conditions that will cause ice to adhere to the aircraft along the proposed route and altitude of flight, then known icing conditions likely exist.”

 

Airplanes that meet certain design criteria can be certificated in the normal, utility, acrobatic, or commuter categories under Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations part 23 for “flight into known icing conditions.” These aircraft are equipped with systems that not only prevent ice from forming on critical surfaces like the wings, tail, and propeller, but can shed ice that’s already formed—within certain limitations. Such systems (often called Flight Into Known Ice, or FIKI, systems) typically use pneumatic boots that expand and push the ice off, heating elements, a solution that is mechanically distributed over the surfaces, or some combination of these systems. Aircraft that do not meet these regulatory criteria can still be equipped with ice-protection systems (such as the TKS™ system that comes standard on the Cirrus SR22) but they are not legal to fly into known icing conditions.

 

Find Ice, Then Avoid It

There are several really good tools available on the Internet for sleuthing the potential for inflight icing. NOAA’s Aviation Digital Data Service has a fabulous Web site that pilots can use to supplement the official Flight Service preflight briefing. From the home page, click on the Icing tab to view graphical depictions of the latest icing advisories, pilot reports of icing, and forecast freezing levels.

 

Click on the Supplementary Icing Information link to see plots of where icing is predicted to be severe, including the forecast location and altitude where you are likely to encounter SLD. The Current Icing Product (CIP) uses input from weather sensors to produce an hourly snapshot of where ice is likely to be found right now. The Forecast Icing Potential (FIP) is an automatically- generated forecast of icing potential. FIP examines numerical weather prediction model output (from the Rapid Update Cycle, or RUC) to calculate the potential for in-flight aircraft icing conditions. This icing potential demonstrates the confidence that an atmospheric location, represented by a three-dimensional model grid box, will contain super-cooled liquid water that is likely to form ice on an aircraft. RUC diagrams (also known as SkewT diagrams) provide another way to evaluate where ice might be found. The diagrams offer an easy way to figure out where the clouds are (and thus the potential for icing) in a given location, if you know what to look for. Go to http://rucsoundings.noaa.gov and in the form, type in the three-letter identifier for an airport along your route. Then, click the button that says “Simple java plots.” If there are data available for that location, you will see a chart with a blue line (dew point) and a red line (temperature). The numbers on the right-hand vertical axis show pressure altitude in thousands of feet. The altitudes at which the blue and red lines come together are where you are most likely to find clouds—and if the temperature is below freezing at that altitude, there is a potential for ice to form. (You can find a NOAA article on RUC diagrams at: http://aviationweather.gov/general/pubs/front/docs/feb-04.pdf.)

 

You’re in Ice...Now, Get Out!

If you are flying an airplane that is not certificated for flight into known icing, you need to get out of the clouds at the very first sign of ice. Don’t hesitate to tell ATC that you are picking up ice and need to exit the icing condition immediately. Declare an emergency if you are not able to maintain altitude. Above all else, don’t rely on the autopilot. Fly the airplane!

 

The January 2009 interpretation reiterates that, “Pilots should not expose themselves or others to the risk associated with flying into conditions in which ice is likely to adhere to an aircraft. If ice is detected or observed along the route of flight, the pilot should have a viable exit strategy and immediately implement that strategy so that the flight may safely continue to its intended destination or terminate at an alternate landing facility. If icing is encountered by a pilot when operating an aircraft not approved or equipped for flight in known icing conditions, the FAA strongly encourages the submission of PIREPs and immediate requests to ATC for assistance.”

 

Engage whatever equipment you have available to keep the situation from getting worse. Turn on the pitot heat if it’s not on already. If you have an anti-icing system, such as TKS™, turn it on, too. Depending on how much ice has already accumulated, it might be too late for the fluid to have an effect. Be sure to note the time you turned on the system pump so you can keep track of fluid usage, as some systems only carry enough fluid for about a half an hour of continuous use. When flying at night in IMC in near-freezing conditions, carry a highpowered flashlight you can shine out onto the wings to check for ice accumulation.

 

Depending on where you are flying and your clearance from terrain and obstacles, descend to a lower altitude where temperatures might be above freezing. If you are picking up ice while skimming the tops of a cloud layer, climb a few hundred feet to get above the clouds, but only if you are positive there is clear air above and the airplane has climb capability.

 

If you are wrong, you could end up spending more time in the clouds and accumulating even more ice. Maintain airspeed with ice on your airplane, and don’t rely on your airplane’s stall warning system. When you do your preflight planning to avoid ice, you should also plan your exit strategies. Use all available resources to exit icing conditions as quickly and safely as you can. Ice belongs in drinks, not on airplanes.

"Questions and Answers About Commercial Spaceflight"
Dr. George C. Nield, Boulder, Colorado
February 18, 2010

This has been quite a month for commercial space transportation.

Two weeks ago, as you know, it was featured prominently in the President’s budget roll-out.

Last week, despite weather more suited to Colorado than to Washington, D.C, the FAA held its annual commercial space transportation conference. I think it’s fair to say that it was a real eye-opener, even for devoted fans of commercial space.

And earlier this week, I had a chance to speak to the FAA’s international office about what’s been going on in commercial spaceflight, and what it will mean for the country and for the rest of the world.

All of this comes on the heels of Masten Space Systems winning the Lunar Lander Challenge; the rollout of Virgin Galactic Space Ship Enterprise; a congressional hearing on commercial space transportation by the House Aviation Subcommittee; and congressional renewal of our liability risk-sharing regime, sometimes referred to as “indemnification.”

Talk about being under the spotlight!  It’s almost enough to make one want to start singing the “Neon Lights are Bright on Broadway.”

The fact is it’s been extremely encouraging to read and to hear the positive reaction to the more visible role being accorded commercial spaceflight.

On the other hand I have to candidly admit I’m a little troubled by another brand of reaction that is not only less enthusiastic, but also a whole lot more intense.

I’ve read some comments that express disappointment, indignation, disdain, and even ridicule about commercial space transportation. Now, I certainly respect the willingness of people to add their voices to the conversation regardless of the side they take. But although the critics seem small in number, their vehemence surprises me.

It’s a little like they are treating commercial spaceflight as the youngster who just got a learner’s permit and is assigned to drive the grandparents cross country.

The truth is we have been issuing licenses to commercial launch operators for a quarter of a century, with 200 licensed launches now on the books. Private industry has been a key player in the nation’s space program since the days of Jupiter C. Government and industry have always worked together on space, with specific roles and responsibilities figured out for each program. So I don’t see the value in bashing one of the partners, just because the relationship going forward may be a little different that it’s been in the past.

What we’re talking about here is not a rookie in the business or a Johnny-Come-Lately in the national policy. The Commercial Space Launch Act took effect in 1984. The Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act, which governs commercial human spaceflight, was approved back in 2004.

Commercial space transportation has already generated an extensive, successful, and impressive record.

Of course, some will argue, hold it, there, George, just a minute. The commercial spaceflight that’s helped to haul payloads and astronauts into orbit these past fifty years isn’t the same commercial space industry we’re talking about today.

Well, some of it is. And some of it’s new. Some operators have vast experience at building just what the government ordered. Some of the newcomers are doing that, too, while also offering their own brand of hardware and services in the open marketplace.

That’s a difference of sorts, and change can make people a little uneasy.

I understand that. We all do. But while it’s entirely legitimate to raise questions, it doesn’t do America’s future in space any good at all to raise fears in what might be interpreted as an effort to undermine an industry that has served the nation well and is now prepared to expand its contribution.

Let me go right to the center of it.

Some people are raising questions about safety.

That’s certainly a great subject to focus on. In fact, it’s the top priority of the office I head, the FAA’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation. Let me share with you just a little of what I said about safety before the House Aviation Subcommittee last December.

First, much as I wish it were, safety is not an absolute. Climbing aboard a rocket carries with it the potential for unfavorable results. So safety must override assumptions, shortcuts and the potentially false and dangerous sense that “what has always worked before is bound to work again.”  Safety is a mindset, a professional tension where all the people involved in providing a rocket trip are constantly on alert, determined to get it right this time, next time, all the time.

Second, even at that high order of readiness, safety does not, nor can it ever, immunize anyone against unforeseen harm. Misfortune will always be an uninvited possibility whenever a rocket launches. At the FAA, we never forget that. It is a compelling fact that reinforces our commitment to safety, and leads us to check and recheck, and if necessary, even re-think what we do and how we do it.

So there it is. Rockets are dangerous. The FAA knows it. The industry knows it. That’s why the people involved in commercial spaceflight are dedicated to doing everything possible to make spaceflight as safe as humans can make it.

That’s our promise. That’s our mission. And because it isn’t easy, here’s some history to remind you how tough the mission is.

Let’s start with the X-planes. NASA figures show that between 1946 and 1995, in experimental vehicles ranging from the X-1 to the X-31A, there were 2,110 flights. That’s roughly 43 flights a year, although some years had many and others had few. Those flights produced 27 accidents and four fatalities. It is a hard fact that you will not find perfection in work like this.

To underscore that fact, let me talk a minute about the famous century series. These are production military aircraft like the F-100 Super Sabre, the F-101 Voodoo, the F-102 Delta Dagger, the F-104 Starfighter, the F-105 Thunderchief, and the F-106 Delta Dart, all of which were built and flown extensively from the 1950s through the 1970s.

The F-100 suffered 471 accidents. The F-104 Starfighter had 196, and the F-102 Delta Dagger wasn’t far behind. In the 1960s, the German Luftwaffe had 917 Starfighters, of which 270 crashed, killing 110 pilots.

The vehicles that private citizens will fly on suborbital trips into space will not push the envelope the way these planes or the X-15 did. But the spacecraft designed for commercial human spaceflight will likely share a closer kinship with some of those temperamental high-performance vehicles than with a regional commercial jet.

Congress had both history and high performance in mind when it passed the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004. The legislation said right up front:  “Spaceflight is inherently risky and the future of the commercial human spaceflight industry will depend on its ability to continually improve its safety performance.”

So, yes, this is risky. Travel is risky. All of it. In 2007, in just that one year, more than 41,000 Americans died on our highways; over 800 died in rail mishaps; nearly 700 people lost their lives in boating accidents; and nearly 500 people died in general aviation accidents.

No one can say that the future of commercial space transportation will be without loss. It’s true that no one died onboard a Mercury or Gemini capsule. But Apollo had a fatal accident, as did the X-15. And there have been two fatal accidents on the Space Shuttle.

I suppose someone might say, George, it sounds like you’re trying to fend off criticism of this effort by telling us in advance that there will be some bad days. That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that we will do everything we can to minimize those days. At the same time, I’m not sure it’s helpful for people to forecast bad days as a way of casting shadows on the ability of commercial spaceflight to help advance the fortunes of America’s space program.

What I wanted to do this morning was to bring some perspective to commercial space transportation. Is it risky?  Yes it is. It’s been risky for more than 50 years. How about the new kinds of commercial space transportation, like suborbital space tourism and suborbital science flights, are they risky?  Yes they are. Congress knew that from the start and got ahead of the curve by directing the FAA to develop regulations for commercial human spaceflight, and we have done that.

The risk will be with us, as it has been from the start. And the determination to overcome it is with us … as it will be in the future.

This is a crucial time for commercial space transportation. Every policy maker, critic, and doubter, along with every enthusiast, supporter, and hopeful passenger, should ask every question they have, and raise every issue they are concerned about. But I would hope it could be done constructively, with the single objective of doing the best job we can with the best tools we have.

No question about it, times are changing. Many years ago, the longshoreman philosopher, Eric Hoffer, wrote a book about times like these, times in transition. The book was about shifting movements in society. And the book was called, The Ordeal of Change.

I suppose where we are right now in America’s space program is at a cross roads where we can decide to make change an ordeal, or we can make it a better deal.

For my part, I see this time as a time of opportunity, for the country to advance, to try new approaches, to give more people the ability to answer questions, fulfill ambitions, and experience new things.

I believe that America’s space program is on the way to recreating its original greatness and its power to inspire future generations.

So let’s get on with it!

Although they may be happy to have a job in the midst of a recession, American workers are increasingly unhappy with their jobs. A survey by the Conference Board research group found job satisfaction is at its lowest in 22 years. Only 45% of U.S. workers said they were satisfied with their jobs. This is not recession fallout; U.S. worker satisfaction has been decreasing steadily for the past two decades.

“It says something troubling about work in America,” admitted Linda Barrington, a Conference Board managing director. “It is not about the business cycle or one grumpy generation.”

Analysts are concerned that worker dissatisfaction is negatively impacting productivity and innovation, hindering America’s ability to compete (see our January 25 post). With the struggling airline industry unable to offer the salary increases, improved benefits or promotions traditionally used to reward workers, airlines and FBOs must pursue alternate motivational strategies.

Worker job satisfaction improves, experts say, when employers demonstrate that they care about and respect their employees.

• Keep your employees in the loop. Keeping workers informed reduces workplace anxiety, allowing greater job focus.
• Show employees you care. Utilizing ergonomically-designed aircraft tugs demonstrates concern for your employees’ health and safety while making their jobs less strenuous. Ergonomic aircraft tow equipment takes the pain and strain out of maneuvering aircraft around hangers, FBOs and airfields. Using ergonomic aircraft tugs to create a healthier, safer work environment improves worker morale and productivity.
• Share the load. Lindy’s aircraft tugs are so easy to use FBOs can implement customer self-service programs to decrease the strain on overworked staff. Because the ergonomic design of Lindy’s aircraft tugsallows workers of any shape and size to maneuver airplanes with ease, management and other staff can easily lend a hand. Nothing shows workers you care more than rolling up your sleeves and working in the trenches with them!

“Will they work with my wheel pants?” That’s one of the most asked questions we get when talking to customers about innovative Lindy’s aircraft tugs. And the answer is, YES. All three Lindy’s airplane tug models will work on planes both with and without wheel pants. All of our aircraft tugs also work equally well on planes with tricycle or tail-dragger design. Lindy’s aircraft tugs are the most versatile airplane tug on the market.

In designing Lindy’s aircraft tugs, our goal was to create a versatile airplane tug capable of handling any plane in each tug’s weight class. We recognized the need for a useful product that could adapt instantly to the wide variety of airplane configurations on the market. We strove to design and manufacture a superioraircraft tug that by virtue of its versatility would eliminate the need for multiple types of tug equipment. By creating a one-tug-does-it-all product, we help FBOs, ground service facilities, small air fields and corporate and private plane owners save money on equipment investment, maintenance and operation.

While the considerable cost savings Lindy’s aircraft tugs provide draws customers, it’s the less obvious benefits of our innovative airplane tug design that keeps them coming back. A subsidiary of DJ Products, a world leader in the design and manufacture of ergonomically designed industrial and commercial carts and tugs,Lindbergh Aircraft Tug Co. was able to capitalize on the long history and experience of our parent company in creating ergonomic aircraft tug products. 

We applied the same principles of ergonomic design that have made DJ Products a material handling world leader to the design of Lindy’s aircraft tugs. The result is an aircraft tug product line that protects worker health and safety, can be used with equal ease by workers of any physical size and strength, offers superior maneuverability and compact storage. Visit our website to find our more about innovative Lindy’s aircraft tugs.

In America we tend to think that bigger is better. It’s a national philosophy that has worked for us for decades. Bigger cars, bigger houses, bigger banks, supersized fast food — we’ve built our society around the concept that anything worth doing is worth doing BIG!

Well look where that’s gotten us. Fuel-conscious consumers are buying smaller cars. Homeowners are dumping big, high-mortgage homes and looking for smaller, more reasonably priced homes. With obesity becoming the country’s No. 1 health issue, Americans are finally saying no to big portion sizes. And bigger banks? They’re on everyone’s hit list these days. Taking charge of the public lynch mob, President Obama yesterday proposed huge taxes on big banks telling them, “We want our money back!” Bigger is no longer better.

Detroit has caught on to the new American appreciation for small, practical, fuel efficient and affordable. Compacts stole the spotlight at this week’s North American International Auto Show in Detroit. Detroit’s new motto seems to be “Small Is Better.” It’s a philosophy that seems to be gaining ground as it spreads through American society. Airports, corporate air operations, commercial airlines and FBOs are certainly taking notice.

Behemoth gas-powered aircraft tugs that gulp down fuel, spew out air-fouling exhaust, jack up maintenance bills, require huge amounts of room to maneuver, and take up outsized amounts of space for storage are becoming the dinosaurs of the aviation industry. Smart, energy-conscious ground operations managers are turning to versatile, compact, fuel-efficient, low-maintenance Lindy aircraft tugs and tow tractors to maneuver aircraft safely and efficiently in less space with less hassle.

For more information on how Lindy’s ergonomically-designed aircraft tugs can benefit your ground operation, contact us today.

Television reality shows have chronicled the lives of 20-somethings trying to carve a dream out of the big city. They’ve provided a window into the daily, if sometimes bizare lives of everyone from mega-stars like Ozzy Osbourne to star wanna-bes like Kim Kardashian. Reality shows have made stars of tough bounty hunters, custom bike builders, people with scads of kids, bachelors looking for love and Atlanta housewives. Particularly when the series revolves around people who do a unique job like Ice Road  Truckers or Ax Men, the shows can be as informative as they are entertaining. But let’s face it; we really watch to see these folks implode under the spotlight of created fame. It’s one of life’s guilty pleasures.

Well, buckle up! It’s finally our turn.  The aviation industry is about to get its own “tell all” reality show. Fly Girls is scheduled to debut soon on CW. The reality series will follow the lives of five flight attendants working for Virgin America airlines. Virgin exec Richard Branson may even cadge a recurring guest star role.

Expect considerable melodrama as the Fly Girls — naturally, all young, beautiful 20-year-olds full of hopes and ambitions — hop in and out of their Los Angeles “crash pad” in between flights. The network promises plenty of jet-set dating and partying to keep viewers tuned in. Expect the usual gossip, infighting and cattiness that seem to be a reality show staple. Let’s hope there’s also at least a nod to the realities of life in the aviation industry.

Might be fun to create a scenario where the gals get a taste of the other arms of the industry: reservations, baggage handling and maintenance. With our Lindy motorized aircraft tugs, the Fly Girls could still wear their heels while maneuvering planes!