AircraftOwner Online

On a crisp, cool New Mexico morning, brilliant shades of orange and indigo sky paint an endless backdrop for the lone operator at Las Cruces International Airport (KLRU). After taxiing to Runway 4, the aircraft carefully positions itself on the centerline before its engine roars to life. The pilot slowly increases back pressure on the control stick until the small, but remarkably nimble aircraft accelerates into the morning sky.

 

Another routine takeoff at KLRU, right? Perhaps. What might not be routine, however, is the pilot in this scenario never left the ground. The takeoff is part of a growing number of test flights to gain a better understanding of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), the core component of a burgeoning industry ripe with opportunities and seemingly destined for success on a much larger scale. Thanks partly to frequent appearances in movies, TV, and even video games, UAS awareness has “skyrocketed” over the last few years. Headlines boasting of UAS success in military operations are hard to miss. Additionally, the unique advantages of UAS continue to create a buzz among government and private sector businesses as they

ponder potential uses that seem to increase every day.

 

Yet, despite the numerous environmental, economic, and safety benefits of UAS, there remains an underlying, and understandable, apprehension of how these “flying robots” will perform alongside manned aircraft, especially during an unexpected event or emergency. Crucial to the success of this new aviation endeavor are well-planned policies and regulations, along with leveraging the technology of the very system—NextGen—that holds the key to safety and efficiency for future civil aviation operations.

 

In a November 2009 speech, FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt extolled the merits of UAS and said, “The technology has shown amazing potential and it’s provided an astonishing value in use for what they’re intended.”

 

However, likening the effect of UAS to the advent of the jet engine, Babbitt also recognized the level of technical maturity is not where it needs to be for full operation in the National Airspace System (NAS). “We’re talking about an exponential leap in capability,” said Babbitt, referring to the development of sense-and-avoid technology, considered by many as the backbone for a successful UAS integration plan. “We have to make sure sense-and-avoid is more than a given —it must be a guarantee.”

 

Back to the Future

A fundamental aviation tenet—collision avoidance—is traditionally a pilot responsibility. Removing the human element from where it was originally based (in the cockpit) and putting it on the ground presents its own challenges and can change our understanding of aviation.

 

“What we’ve experienced with UAS is almost a retrograde action in terms of trying to understand aviation,” says FAA UAS Program Policy and Regulatory Lead Stephen Glowacki. “In many ways, we’re forced to re-evaluate the same things we thought we understood.” Glowacki offers this example: The need to rethink the concept of a cockpit, and, subsequently, the cockpit door. Will a UAS pilot, seated at a ground-operation station, be required to have the same door-security system as  those installed on commercial aircraft? Will seatbelt requirements apply to UAS operators? The answers to these and many other questions, says Glowacki, will require the FAA to dig deep into its experience of being a regulator and service provider to come up with an understanding of aviation that remains consistent with UAS integration.

 

Among the more pressing questions is how to tackle the complexity of collision avoidance. NextGen technologies, such as ADS-B, as well as digital-data communication and performance-based navigation systems, will no doubt be key to integrating UAS into the NAS. However, the sheer variety of unmanned aircraft—which range in size from a Boeing 737 to the size of a cell phone—make an across-the-board installation difficult at best. There’s also the issue of differing performance characteristics among unmanned aircraft, not to mention the differences from their manned brethren. This makes speed and climb/turn rates difficult to predict and incorporate into standard procedures, especially when considering critical evasive maneuvers.

 

RTCA Special Committee 203 is helping to close knowledge gaps caused by operational variations. FAA asked the committee to provide recommendations to establish minimum performance standards for UAS. The committee’s guidance will help serve as a foundation to assure safe, efficient, and compatible UAS operations with other vehicles operating in the NAS. As part of these standards, the committee plans to recommend standards and procedures for UAS sense-and-avoid systems that will provide a safety level equivalent to that of manned aircraft. The standards are scheduled to be completed in late 2013, according

to the committee’s most recent plenary session, and once established, will allow the FAA to begin a more detailed approach towards certifying and regulating specific components and systems.

 

Although technological barriers abound for UAS, they do have an important out-of-the-box advantage over manned aircraft. Starting off with an inherent network-like infrastructure, UAS can easily upload critical operational performance and flight-control-systems data quickly, and wherever needed. “From a system-engineering perspective,” says Glowacki, “UAS have robust data-sharing capabilities as part of their design, unlike manned aircraft that function more as independent entities in comparison.” This same advantage is what may help UAS platforms be considered as proof-of-concept test beds for manned aircraft operations in the future NextGen environment.

 

Testing One, Two, Three

Recognizing there is still much knowledge and experience that must be acquired with UAS, FAA is working towards getting smarter on UAS. The New Mexico Flight Test Center is a prime example of the efforts to better understand UAS impact on the environment, which until now, remains fairly speculative. This 12,000 square-mile facility, administered and co-located within the wide-open confines of New Mexico State University (NMSU), is the country’s first FAAapproved UAS Flight Test Center.

 

Through a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement with the FAA, NMSU can conduct UAS research and development in a controlled testing environment and, in return, provide FAA with useful data for developing future standards and regulations. While the NMSU Test Center remains the only one of its kind in the United States, FAA recognizes the importance of enabling further testing and evaluating of new products to expand this developing technology and welcomes expanding these types of facilities, provided they meet guidelines and present no negative impact on other NAS users.

 

The FAA also conducts in-house UAS testing at the William J. Hughes Technical Center in New Jersey, including the use of a Shadow and a Predator B simulator. FAA Aerospace Engineer Kerin Olson, who works with Technical Center test engineers to collect data, knows firsthand how these UAS flight demonstrations are changing the way we think about unmanned flight. “By observing simulated operations of UAS flights, we’re getting a better picture of the system’s overall performance, including the intricacies of aircraft commands and communications,” she says. From a human factors standpoint, these same tests also help the FAA gain better insight into UAS flight-crew dynamics, providing much needed data on flight-crew roles and responsibilities, minimum crewmember requirements, as well as which types of data-display systems work best. Studying these interactions will play an important role in determining future policy and regulation.

 

Soon to be added to the Technical Center’s UAS test arsenal will be a full-scale Scan Eagle platform provided by Insitu, Inc. With more than 300,000 flight hours, the Scan Eagle is a veteran UAS design that can perform long-range operations—24 hours on a gallon and a half of gas—and with a variety of payloads. The Scan Eagle is also completely runway-independent and uses a pneumatic catapult launching system and a patented recovery system that catches the aircraft with a suspended rope.

 

Insitu Business Development Executive Paul McDuffee is optimistic this testing agreement will move the industry closer to a sense-and-avoid solution. “While we don’t have a pair of eyeballs on the aircraft,” says McDuffee, “there are several feasible alternatives that need to be tested and evaluated.” Existing test data show current ground-based radar and TCAS systems are able to pick up nearly any vehicle within 12 to 15 miles of a UAS. “By working with the FAA,” adds McDuffee, “we’re seeking to obtain the safety ‘street’ credit for these systems, along with rules that permit reasonable access.”

 

One Small Step for UAS…

Currently, UAS operations for civilian commercial purposes are largely prohibited, limited to mainly research and development, product demonstration, or crew training with an experimental certification. Public-use applicants for UAS must obtain a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA) which is processed by the FAA’s Air Traffic Organization and reviewed by the FAA’s Unmanned Aircraft Program Office, FAA’s primary point of contact for unmanned operations. The application is reviewed to ensure the operation is safe and appropriate safety mitigations are imposed. If there are any questions about the safety of the operation, safety studies are required for those situations where a proponent wants to do something that is outside the bounds of the interim operational guidance material. FAA grants COAs on a case-bycase basis and only when it is clear that operations can be conducted safely.

 

Despite the multitude of restrictions, applications have increased nearly tenfold in the last six years. Realizing the rapid expansion of this billion-dollar industry, the FAA is taking steps toward allowing small unmanned aircraft (under 55 pounds) to operate commercially in the NAS— under low-risk conditions—in the near future. As part of the rulemaking process, the FAA formed an Aviation Rulemaking Committee to develop recommendations for consideration. The FAA expects to have a published Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) by mid-2011, with a final rule expected in late 2012.

 

The purpose of this SFAR is threefold:

• Educate

• Promote controlled safe development of UAS technology

• Gather data for future rulemaking efforts

 

Among the SFAR team members is Flight Standards Aviation Safety Analyst Silas Still, who is helping develop UAS pilot qualification and training requirements. “The Small UAS rulemaking will still only allow limited access to the NAS,” says Still, “but it is an important step towards tackling some of the challenges of this industry, and will help us integrate future waves of UAS.”

 

…One Giant Leap for Aviation

While there are still many obstacles and unknowns to overcome before full UAS integration, it’s important to keep in mind the many benefits UAS missions can offer: search and rescue, weather mapping, security surveillance, and wildlife preservation, to name a few. The possibilities for uses are endless, but there’s no denying the significant element of both procedural and cultural change involved with embracing UAS.

 

“We still have a long way to go, and there are no easy answers,” says Glowacki. “By utilizing NextGen technologies, working together with industry, and adopting an incremental approach towards ensuring harmony and safety between manned and unmanned operations in the NAS, the FAA will be poised to meet this challenge.”

 

Tom Hoffmann is associate editor of FAA Safety Briefing. He is a commercial pilot and holds an A&P certificate.

John Travoltas next door neighbor in Jumbolair Aviation Estates is moving and is selling thier house. John is looking for a new neighbor to move in.
Jumbolair is an aviation community located in ocala florida. It has the longest private runway in the country at 7550'x210'. If you own a 707 jet you can fly in and taxi to your door. Each house in this community has a seperate taxi so the planes and cars are not on the same roads. The house is a 5 bedroom 4.5 bath 3 car garge 2 story 5,000 sq ft house with a screened in pool and water fall. It is wired with a camera security system,has mahogany cabinets, a seperate office,theatre room, and game room. Large master with a luxurious master bathroom. The taxes on this house is only $12,000 a year and the association fees are only $4,000 a year. The houses in the area have between 3.5 million and 10 million invested. House does not have a hanger and can be built for $200,000. The price on this house is only $1.95 Million which is a great price for this neighborhood. If you are interested in this property contact Dieter Gwin At 352-361-5623 or go to Dieter Gwin.com to see more pictures and a virtual tour.

Not long after I checked out in my flying club’s Cessna 182 Skylane, I almost became a maneuvering flight statistic.

 

It was the classic case of having all the holes in the Swiss cheese line up in a way that could have led to an airplane-sized hole in the ground. First, the airplane was heavier than usual because, instead of flying solo, I had two passengers aboard. Second, the winds that day were westerly, which gave me a tailwind on the base leg and a much faster ground speed than

I had anticipated.

 

You can probably see where this is going. Because I didn’t account for the strong tailwind on base leg, I overshot the base-to-final turn. I should have executed an immediate go-around, but I’m ashamed to say that I reacted instead the way a lot of accident pilots do. I slightly steepened

the turn but, mindful of my first instructor’s command to avoid steep turns in the pattern, I didn’t go much beyond a 30-degree bank. Since that clearly wasn’t enough to correct my overshoot, I quite unconsciously applied “bottom” rudder to help slew the nose around to the runway heading.

 

Fortunately for my passengers, my airplane, and me, the stall horn did its job. That high-pitched beeeeeeeeeeeep that I had previously heard only in the training environment yanked my brain away from its single-minded intent to make this landing work, and cued up the well-drilled stall recovery procedure that my instructor had made me practice so much (thanks, Warren). I relaxed back pressure on the yoke,

pushed the throttle forward and, once that annoying but lifesaving beeeeeeeeeeping noise had been silenced, I executed the go-around that I should have made in the first place.

 

Who, Me? Maneuver?

The numbers are as ugly as the accident I almost had that day. According to statistics kept by the AOPA Air Safety Foundation, nearly one-third of all fatal accidents in the last 10 years occurred from loss of control during maneuvering flight. And, although I hadn’t previously thought of pattern work as “maneuvering flight,” it most assuredly qualifies. Along with aerobatics, aerial work, steep turns, stall/spin activity, formation flight, and (the big no-no) “buzzing,” maneuvering flight also includes normal flight operations, such as traffic-pattern flying, that take place close to the ground.

 

We can all understand how those “bad” pilots get in trouble with buzzing and other bad behaviors, but c’mon, how can good, conscientious, and safe pilots like you and me come to grief with the gardenvariety traffic-pattern operations that we have been flying since lesson one? And, more importantly, how do we stay safe? We can avoid aerobatics and ban buzzing, but there’s no practical way to avoid maneuvering in the airport-traffic pattern.

 

It’s All about the Stall

Loss-of-control accidents in the traffic pattern—our focus in this article—usually involve an aerodynamic stall. It stands to reason, then, that the main antidote to maneuvering flight accidents in the pattern is to develop a thorough awareness and understanding of stall/spin aerodynamics. It is not possible to earn a pilot certificate without ground and flight training in these topics, so most of us think we have that angle covered already. As my nearstatistical experience showed me, though, being able to accurately recite all the right words and phrases from the textbook did not mean that I had a practical understanding of how, or why, it is true that (as the books say) it is possible to stall an aircraft in any flight attitude and at any airspeed.

 

Having both thought about it and taught about it pretty extensively since then, I suspect that some of the confusion arises from the apparent contradiction that puzzled me the most when I sat in a private pilot ground-school course all those years ago. Specifically, if it is true that the pilot can stall an aircraft in any flight attitude and at any airspeed, why do we talk about “stall speed?” Doesn’t that suggest that I can prevent an aerodynamic stall merely by ensuring that I avoid the nose-high attitude I saw so much in the training world and keep my airspeed above the published “stall speed?” The answer is yes…and no. Let’s take a closer look.

 

Back to Basics

First, we need a review of the basics. Maintaining control of an airplane during flight requires managing lift. Lift is produced by the dynamic effect of air acting on the airfoil, or wing. The pilot controls lift by controlling the angle of attack (AOA), which is the acute angle formed between the wing’s chord line and the relative wind (that is, the direction of the air striking the wing). All other things being equal, increasing the AOA increases lift until the wing reaches the maximum, or “critical,” AOA. Increasing AOA beyond this point results in a large loss of lift and an increase in drag. A wing in this condition is said to be “stalled.” We pilots tend to associate lift and loss of lift (stalls) primarily with airspeed for several reasons.

 

- First, there is a clear relationship between lift and velocity (speed). Lift is proportional to the square of the aircraft’s velocity, so doubling the speed will quadruple the lift.

 

- Second, for every AOA, there is a corresponding airspeed required to maintain altitude in steady, unaccelerated flight. An aircraft flying at a higher airspeed can maintain level flight with a lower AOA, while an aircraft flying at a slower airspeed must have a higher AOA to generate enough lift for level flight.

 

- Third, maneuvers practiced in early flight training, such as demonstration of the effect of airspeed changes and stalls entered from a wings-level attitude, tend to emphasize the relationship between AOA and airspeed.

 

- Finally, the term “stall speed,” which refers to the speed at which the wing reaches critical AOA in a wings level unaccelerated (1g) condition, further reinforces this association. It is important to understand, however, that airspeed is not the only consideration. Because lift must equal weight, an airplane that is heavier because of physical or aerodynamic loading must generate more lift in order to maintain level flight. For any given airspeed, then, an aircraft with a greater load must be flown at a higher angle of attack

in order to generate sufficient lift for level flight.

 

Since an airfoil always stalls at the same AOA, an aircraft loaded by additional physical weight (e.g., passengers, fuel, baggage) or aerodynamic “weight” (e.g., g-force from turning flight) flies at an AOA

closer to the critical AOA. That was clearly the issue in my maneuvering flight mistake. Because I was operating the airplane with three passengers, and thus at a heavier physical weight, I had to fly at a higher angle of attack in order to produce the lift required to offset that weight and maintain altitude even in straightahead flying. That alone put my airplane’s wing closer to the critical AOA.

 

But, remember that I was also making the base-to-final turn in the traffic pattern. As you learned in the private pilot ground-school textbook, the forces that cause an airplane to turn impose an aerodynamic load, or “weight,” on the wings. Every pilot operating handbook (POH) includes a graph that displays the relationship between angle of bank and “g” load on the wing. In general, a 60-degree bank in a light general aviation aircraft imposes a 2g load, which means that the effective weight of the airplane and its contents doubles. Although I wasn’t close to a 60-degree bank in my Skylane that day, the turn I was making did impose a higher “g” load on the wings.

 

Connecting the Dots

Now, let’s connect the dots. My airplane was heavier because of the additional physical weight (passengers) and because of aerodynamic loading (turning flight). To maintain altitude I needed to generate more lift to offset (balance) that extra weight. I didn’t want to increase airspeed at a time when I was setting up to land, so I chose to increase AOA by increasing back pressure. Even though I was nowhere close to the published (1g) “stall speed” of the airplane, and even though I was nowhere near the nosehigh attitude that characterized my stall entry/recovery practice in the training environment, I was dangerously close to critical (stalling) angle of attack at a time when I was also dangerously close to the ground. This was not a happy (or safe) place to be.

 

The good news, though, is that the incident prompted me to learn what I should have understood to begin with about “stall speed” and the “accelerated” stall I almost performed in gardenvariety traffic pattern maneuvering flight. Once is enough—but I hope you learn from my experience, and let my “once” be enough for you as well.

 

Susan Parson is a special assistant in Flight Standards Service. She is an active general aviation pilot and flight instructor.

Pilot and controller fatigue has been making aviation headlines in recent years, punctuated by the February 2008 incident in which the crew of a regional jet fell asleep at the controls on the way to Hilo, Hawaii. Although it’s usually airliner mishaps that make front page news, general aviation pilots are subject to the same fatigue-related risks and potential for disaster.

 

Consider this example and ask yourself (honestly) if it seems familiar: After a full workday in a distant office, a pilot flies his/her aircraft home and shoots an instrument approach to minimums at night. Or, the flight instructor who agrees to take just one more student after a full day of flying, pushing the limits of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations section 61.195, which prohibits instructors from teaching more than eight hours in a given 24-hour period.

 

Fatigue is part of our workaholic American culture, which is known for too much of the wrong food, too little of the right exercise, and insufficient or poor quality sleep. Pilots are not immune to developing such bad habits. In its annual sleep survey for 2009, the National Sleep Foundation found that 20 percent of Americans sleep fewer than six hours and that only 28 percent sleep more than eight hours per night. We report more sleep than we actually get, so the data perhaps

underestimates the actual amount of sleep loss experienced by most Americans.

 

In the spirit of “know your enemy,” human factors research is making progress toward making us wiser in the wearying ways of fatigue. The FAA offers a brochure for pilots titled “Fatigue in Aviation,” which offers some useful tips on staying healthy and alert, but each pilot needs to be aware of his or her own unique habits and physiological limitations.

 

Avoid Becoming a Headline

As a pilot, one of the best ways to avoid becoming an NTSB accident statistic is to ask yourself, “If this flight goes badly, what would the NTSB report say about me? How would the headline read the next day? ‘Sleep-Deprived Pilot Avoids Fatigue Warning Signs and Crashes, Killing All.’” If it’s bad, maybe you should reconsider flying and take a nap.

 

When there is an accident, an incident, or a close call, trained investigators seek to determine the cause in an effort to prevent such events from happening again. The best investigations identify not just the obvious cause, but rather the numerous factors in the overall chain of events.

 

The following are a list of simple questions that investigators may ask during an incident or close-call investigation. Pilots can benefit from pondering these questions before they leave the ground, to assess whether they are suffering from fatigue that could lead to an embarrassing incident or a deadly accident.

 

Example of Investigative Fatigue Questions for Work Task Mishaps (adapted for GA operations)

- How long were you awake prior to the mishap?

- How long was your last “major” sleep period (more than two hours sleep) prior to the work

task mishap?

- How much additional sleep did you obtain through nap(s) since your last “major” sleep

period?

- How much did you sleep in the 24 hours prior to the work task mishap?

• How much did you sleep in the 72 hours prior to the work task mishap?

• How many hours did you work in the five days prior to the work task mishap?

 

Squeezing in More Sleep

Avoiding fatigue is not rocket science, yet we as humans continue to challenge conventional sleep wisdom by drinking too much caffeine, consuming too much refined sugar, not getting enough exercise, and engaging in other sleep-preventing behaviors, all while working long hours often under great stress. Our jobs have reduced the requirement for extensive physical work, and child’s play is now more likely to involve a computer game than a ball field. This vicious cycle drives us to exercise less, eat more, and sleep less—and the cycle continues.

 

The solution is amazingly simple, yet often difficult to implement: Get more sleep. Humans need about eight hours of sleep in a 24-hour period. It takes about 15 minutes in bed to fall asleep, and your last 15 minutes of sleep is not healthy, restorative sleep. That means that you should spend eight and a half hours in bed, dedicated to sleeping, each night. Don’t allow television, radio, or food in bed. If you miss sleep one night then you must sleep extra the following night to catch up.

 

If you want to avoid fatigue, these simple rules are not negotiable. If you are uncertain of your sleep duration, then you should try keeping a sleep diary. This may be the first advice you would get from a clinical sleep professional. The FAA developed a chart (see previous page) that you can use to track your sleep patterns over a 14-day period. Do you need more sleep? Go to www.mxfatigue.com and find out. Numerous scientific studies have matched the performance of fatigued drivers to the performance of drunk drivers. The next time you are awake for 20 hours straight remind yourself that your performance level is equivalent to that of a legally drunk driver. Fatigue can affect not only your ability to drive the car, but your decision to drive in the first place. Should you be flying an airplane when you are in that condition? Write the next day’s page-one

headline in your head, and then lay it down on your pillow to sleep.

 

William B. Johnson, Ph.D., is FAA Chief Scientific and Technical Advisor for Human Factors in Aircraft Maintenance Systems. He joined FAA in 2004 after 30 years of private sector experience in academia, safety engineering consulting, and airline/MRO training. He is an Aviation MaintenanceTechnician and a 40-year pilot.

 

Katrina E. Avers, Ph.D., is a research scientist in the Human Factors Research Division at FAA’s Civil Aerospace Medical Institute. Her research focuses on organizational assessment, fatigue education, fatigue reporting systems, and fatigue risk management programs for flight crew, cabin crew, and maintenance technicians.

Pilots are taught to follow the “IMSAFE” checklist to evaluate their mental and physical fitness before each flight, but how do pilots get and stay fit? FAA offers a brochure titled “Fit for Flight” (http://www.faa.gov/pilots/safety/pilotsafetybrochures/media/FitFor_Flight.pdf) that provides some basic information for pilots on how to adopt and maintain a flying-friendly healthy lifestyle.

 

Get with a Program

While you don’t need the body of a professional athlete in order to fly, maintaining strength and flexibility is important. Muscles that aren’t used tend to atrophy and weaken—even that big one in your right leg that helps you keep the airplane on the centerline during takeoff. A healthy cardiovascular system helps you avoid potentially life-threatening conditions, such as heart disease and diabetes. One of the other important benefits of physical fitness is that your body is better prepared to cope with the various emotional and physical stressors that are encountered while flying.

 

Of course, we’d be remiss if we did not remind pilots to check with a physician before beginning any exercise program. If your FAA Aviation Medical Examiner (AME) is also your primary care physician, he or she may even be able to tailor a program to your specific needs and flying lifestyle.

 

Eat Right, Fly Smart

The “Fit for Flight” brochure suggests that pilots who want to improve their overall diet eat well-balanced meals that offer a combination of proteins, fats, and carbohydrates. Keep your energy up, but avoid eating a big nap-inducing meal right before a flight. While many studies have shown that moderate consumption of alcohol can be good for your heart and possibly reduce the risk of some types of cancer, pilots need to be mindful that the “eight-hour bottle-to-throttle” rule is the absolute minimum. Some individuals may require a longer period between drinking and flying depending on the amount of alcohol consumed and their personal metabolism.

 

Drinking enough water throughout the day is important for anyone, especially if you work out. Remember, dry air aloft can also make you thirsty, so always have bottled water available in the cockpit—and a good alternate in mind in case you or your passengers need a bathroom break.