AircraftOwner Online

While an inoperative landing light or flap failure can certainly add anxiety to your flight, a primary flight display (PFD) or multi-function display (MFD) screen that suddenly goes blank can be even more distressing. While these systems are much more reliable than the mechani­cal instruments they replace, as more aircraft migrate to glass-cockpit integra­tion (some condensing nearly the entire instrument panel into a single display), pilots and mechanics will need to maintain a keen awareness of how to recognize and troubleshoot avionics component failures.

Here is the good news. Today’s display systems are designed to gracefully degrade when a failure occurs. If one display fails, the remain­ing display will revert to a mode that combines critical information from both displays on a single screen. This helps prevent the system from dis­playing hazardous or misleading information to the pilot. However, for mechanics to successfully troubleshoot these failures it is critical that they understand the system design as well as the role the individual components have in the overall system. For example, an air-data computer malfunc­tion could result in the display’s failure to present airspeed, altitude, vertical speed, outside air tem­perature, and true airspeed.

In some systems, a loss of information will be communicated to the pilot through a large red “X” over the inoperative indicator. In more advanced systems, a central maintenance system can provide detailed failure information that pinpoints the prob­lem to a specific component or, in some cases, to an individual wiring problem. A component built-in test, known as “bite” capability, has become a highly reliable troubleshooting tool. However, don’t let these advances fool you into thinking that avionics troubleshooting is now as simple as pushing a but­ton. Knowledge of system operation and integration is essential, especially when there is a system prob­lem and no associated component faults are found.

Because today’s display systems are designed to eliminate hazardous or misleading information, some display problems may occur not as a result of a component failure, but because a system input is unavailable or invalid. For example, some systems may use valid GPS data as a critical input for the display of attitude, moving map, own-ship posi­tion, and heading. If the GPS input is not valid, the system will not display this information. Many situ­ations external to the aircraft could cause the GPS signal to be invalid. These could range from planned GPS outages (typically covered by a NOTAM) to electromagnetic interference or sunspot activity.

Avionics display systems have evolved to provide more detailed information than ever, and much of it is crucial if we are to realize the improve­ments envisioned in the Next Generation Air Transportation System. Today’s avionics mechanics have access to excellent troubleshooting tools that are integrated into the aircraft’s avionics suite. This can provide quick and accurate problem identifica­tion. However futuristic and easy these systems are when they function properly, it is understanding the overall system operation, architecture, and integra­tion that is the key to properly address advanced avionics problems.

Tim Shaver is Avionics Maintenance Branch Manager in the FAA’s Aircraft Maintenance Division. He is a commercial pilot and holds an A&P certificate.

When the General Aviation Congressional Caucus was created in 2009 who would have thought it would grow to one of the largest caucus’ in the Congress?  Just a year later they now have more than 100 members.  Boy, does GA ever need them!  

This past month Rep. Vern Ehlers (R-Mich.) announced that with his retirement from the Congress he was handing the Republican co-chairmanship over to Sam Graves (R-Mo.). I have only met Rep. Ehlers a couple of times but I have had the great pleasure to know Sam Graves for several years.  

Sam is one of us. He is a concerned pilot, who flys among other things, a 650 Stearman, Citabria, Husky and he is restoring a WWII Beech AT-10.  In addition to being on the Caucus, Rep. Graves serves on the Subcommittee on Aviation (part of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure). He is also ranking member on the Small Business Committee and serves on the Agricultural committee. We are very fortunate to have a guy like Sam on GA’s side.  

This coming year will be very important to GA. I personally am very concerned about what I see as an insidious regulatory creep on the part of the FAA. I am not sure how calculated it is but there have been a number of regulations promulgated which will slowly and surely begin to restrict our General Aviaiton freedoms.  

These include the issues of local GA airport access for those living on or near airports which receive federal funding (through-the-fence). The FAA is trying to restrict access and dictate to local communities who, how and when their airports can be accessed by users. Then the FAA just recently put an NPRM out which would essentially revoke the mechanic’s license of those who, despite being current in testing and knowledge, do not meet the FAA’s idea of an appropriate activity level (see my last blog).  

Then there is the matter of the FAA forcing a periodic renewal of aircraft N-numbers. It seems innocent enough as a way to keep the data base clean, until you discover that it is not all that well thought out. This will ultimately preclude you from finding and returning to Certificated service that forgotten “airplane in a barn” or anywhere else for that matter. If the registration has not been constantly renewed, it is nothing more than a pile of parts.  

When I asked the FAA about the impact of an expired registration on the airworthiness of an aircraft it appears they had forgotten that minor detail. What happens if an aircraft slips out of the renewal window and the n-number put back in the pool and is reassigned? Airworthiness certificates have the n-number on them and the regulations require the registration be valid.  If an aircraft n-number has been reassigned because someone forgot to renew it, then the airworthiness would be invalid also.  

This is the kind of thing I’m talking about. And there are more examples. But suffice it to say, I am glad we have a GA Caucus. We are certainly going to need it.

No, that is not a typo. Teamwork in the form of crew resource management (CRM) is certainly important for both preventing and handling abnormal and emergency situations, but so is the concept of threat and error management (TEM).

The TEM concept originated in the 1990s, when the University of Texas Human Factors Research Project and a major U.S. air carrier teamed up to evaluate CRM behavior in real-world operations. Through observations gained in these structured evaluations, called Line Operations Safety Audits (LOSA), the researchers became interested in threat and error management as an umbrella way of looking at human performance in the context of actual aviation operations.

The Elements of TEM

Although the principles and practices of Aeronautical Decision Making, CRM, and the myriad regulations, policies, and procedures pilots follow are designed to prevent errors to the greatest possible extent, a key part of the TEM concept is that human beings still make mistakes, and stuff happens notwithstanding our best efforts. Since these threats and errors can create undesired states that undermine safety, TEM posits that pilots must learn to manage them.

A formal paper by Ashleigh Merritt and James Klinect, two of the University of Texas researchers, formally defines the three TEM elements as follows:

Threats are events or errors that (a) occur outside the influence of the flight crew, i.e., not caused by the crew; (b) increase the operational complexity of a flight; and (c) require crew attention and management in order to maintain safety margins. Threats can include mechanical malfunctions, bad weather, high terrain, or mistakes made by others.

Errors are flight-crew actions or inactions that (a) lead to a deviation from crew or organizational intentions or expectations; (b) reduce safety margins; and (c) increase the probability of adverse operational events on the ground or during flight. The researchers note that flight crew errors generally fall into one of three categories: aircraft handling mistakes; procedural errors, e.g., deviation from regulations or standard operating procedures; and communication errors.

Undesired state refers to a position, speed, attitude, or configuration of an aircraft that results from flight crew error, actions, or inaction and clearly reduces safety margins. The researchers concluded that the crew’s ability to detect, identify, and manage (mitigate) the undesired state makes all the difference. On an unstable approach, for instance, a crew that recognizes the condition and takes prompt and proper corrective action can return the flight to a normal condition. If, however, the crew mismanages this condition, the undesired state could develop into an incident or accident.

Managing Threats and Errors

To manage threats and errors, the flight crew must constantly work to anticipate, recognize, and recover. Think of anticipation as Murphy’s Law: If something can go wrong, it will. Anticipation leads to vigilance, which contributes to recognizing threats, errors, and undesired states in time to take corrective action. Recovery, of course, is the process of efficiently eliminating the undesired state.

The authors of TEM describe it as both a philosophy of safety and a practical set of techniques. Used as such, it can make you a better—and safer—pilot.

Susan Parson is a Special Assistant in the FAA’s Flight Standards Service. She is an active general aviation pilot and flight instructor.

There was a time when aircraft accidents were most likely fatal. Though too many fatalities still occur, advances in aircraft technology have greatly increased survivability. Now, a crucial safety issue could be post-impact survival. As we saw in the Aug. 9, 2010, accident that killed former U.S. Senator Ted Stevens and four others, locating the wreckage and getting first responders on site took almost seven hours. Alaska has lots of remote terrain, but you don’t have to be very far from a major city in the lower 48 to find that weather, terrain, or a number of other factors could delay rescue and leave you to fend for yourself and your passengers until help arrives.

It’s All about Preparedness

What can you do? That’s where the Office of Aerospace Medicine’s Airman Education Program comes in with its specialized training and resources. A basic survival training course, conducted at the FAA’s Civil Aerospace Medical Institute (CAMI) in Oklahoma City, Okla., covers survival in desert, arctic, and water environments. CAMI instructors provide two perspectives: how to prepare before the flight and the skills needed to endure environmental extremes.

The one-day course includes discussion of the psychology of survival, aircraft egress, search-and-rescue operations, signaling devices, fire starting/ building, personal survival kits, rafts and accessories, and helicopter pickup devices. Better still, there is a hands-on portion that, depending on availability of personnel/equipment, may include a fire-starting lab, signaling lab, thermal (cold) chamber, ditching tank, underwater egress trainer, and an aircraft emergency evacuation (smoke) simulator. In short, the course gives general aviation pilots and their passengers a thorough grounding in preparing for survival both before and after an aircraft accident.

Know Thyself

CAMI also offers a class on aerospace physiology. This one-day training session includes such topics as physics of the atmosphere, respiration and circulation, decompression, stress, hypoxia, and hyperventilation, among others. In addition to the basic academic contents, this course offers practical demonstrations of rapid decompression (8,000 to 18,000 feet AGL) and hypoxia (25,000 feet AGL) using an altitude chamber. It also includes a demonstration of vertigo, using a spatial disorientation demonstrator.

Each year, CAMI offers more than 170 classes to more than 2,000 people. In addition, the Airman Education Program staff members are working to launch online courses based on the training materials. In the future, this will enable everyone to have access to the courses on www.FAASafety.gov and pilots will be able to get credit in the WINGS pilot proficiency program.

If you cannot make it to Oklahoma, you can still benefit from the information. The FAA has an online library of videos on survival training, aerospace physiology, human factors, and more at: www.faa.gov/pilots/training/airman_education/.

Lastly, one of the best things about all this training, whether in person or online, is that it is free. Whether you come to CAMI in person or visit the Web site, there are resources available. Check it out. You will be glad you did.

Frederick E. Tilton, M.D., M.P.H., received both an M.S. and a M.D. degree from the University of New Mexico and an M.P.H. from the University of Texas. During a 26-year career with the U.S. Air Force, Dr. Tilton logged more than 4,000 hours as a command pilot and senior flight surgeon flying a variety of aircraft. He currently flies the Cessna Citation 560 XL.

One of the most pleasurable aviation activities I look forward to each year is flying on the “Backcountry Safari,” a group event put together by my good friend Rich Sugden. 

    Among other things, Rich owns and operates the FBO in Driggs, Idaho [DIJ]. There he runs one of the nicest operations in the Rocky Mountains. It’s just across the “hill” from Jackson Hole, Wyoming. Because the Jackson Hole airport [JAC] is so far north of town and to chagrin of many, seemingly run for the rich and corporate elites, many people in Jackson have chosen to base their aircraft in Driggs.

    Anyway, Rich’s Backcountry Safari started about ten years a ago. Several friends got together to fly their Huskys and other ships of that type, into the Forest Service strips of the rugged Bitterroot, Salmon River and Sawtooth mountains of Idaho. The invitation-only trip has become a modern legend with articles about it appearing in every major aviation publication. Besieged by people wanting to go, Rich has had to restrict it to veterans of earlier excursions and even then, divide it into two groups of one week each.

    Of course there is absolutely nothing from keeping anyone from making a similar trip and I highly recommend it. In fact, I enjoyed it so much I recruited two friends to make a second excursion last year. It is definitely comforting to be with a flight of at least two aircraft for safety and camaraderie (I do not suggest a multi-strip itinerary with one aircraft alone). This last September I was fortunate enough to get another invitation and jumped at the chance.

    The trip started out with a lunch hosted by Mr. & Mrs. Ray Dieckman who own a ranch near Darby MT, just south of Hamilton. Group 1 was on the way out of the backcountry and Group 2 was on the way in. We met at Ray’s and traded flying stories while dining on great BBQ, listening to a country singer Ray brought in for the occasion and just having a great time. We lingered for a while then took off for Johnson Creek near Yellow Pine, Idaho.

    Camping at the State of Idaho’s Johnson Creek airstrip is not quite roughing it. The State of Idaho has equipped the site complete with good outdoor toilets, showers, hot and cold running water and fire-ready camp stoves. Our food was provided by pooling our resources and hiring old friends Kif and Dawn Brown from Yellow Pine to cater our breakfast and supper. The menu was like that of a gourmet restaurant with the likes of “Chipotle Cherry Pork Ribs & Herbed Chicken, Grilled Pork Tenderloin with Wild Huckleberry Sauce, Wild Mushroom Risotto” and other such wilderness specialties. They even had an Idaho vintner sampling Idaho wines which were surprisingly good.

    On these trips, lunch is obtained “on the road” by flying into mountain communities with cafés or dropping into guest ranches that serve lunch. We simply land at the local airport and hike into town. It’s usually not far and after a couple of hours of backcountry flying, a walk feels good.

    As for the type of flying, the trip is what you make of it. We usually split into three flights of four of five aircraft and stick with that group for the week. In the morning before departure we review the five-to-ten strips we want to land at that day. Our base at Johnson Creek is an easy 3,400 feet long, 150’ wide, at an elevation of 4,933 feet. Pilots decide what level of difficulty they are interested in. If you are uncomfortable with a certain strip you simply orbit above while the othersland, turn around and go (we may briefly shut down at a few stops).

    On this trip, the shortest strip we landed on was Lower Loon, a rough 860’ x 75’ “runway” second only to the notorious “Mile High” mountain side strip of 560’ x 30’. I didn’t land at Mile High nor did any others in my flight. If you wonder why, here is a video I found on YouTube of a landing there. One trick is that there is about a 2,000 foot drop off at the end of the runway! Check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7-QbI9Qzeg&feature=related.  Another strip I did land at, and which is one of my favorites, is Soldier Bar. I found this video on YouTube of someone landing there: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90mqPLT1z4c&feature=related

    I also took some video of our trip, but my camera was in my hand and I was usually needing three hands for most landings, so it’s more scenic than nerve-wracking. We are posting some of that video and you can just Click Here to see it. By the way, you won’t find any shots of me landing at Mile High. Maybe next year, but I will definitely mount the camera first.

    If you have any interest in backcountry flying, plan a trip to Idaho. The State of Idaho is very pro-GA and the Aeronautics Branch does a fantastic job in helping take care of their many backcountry airstrips. Before you go, or even if you are not sure you are going, you will enjoy studying up just in case. You definitely will want to order the pilot’s guide book: “Fly Idaho” from www.PilotsGuide.com. I hope you do plan a trip for next year. You won’t be disappointed.

In September 2010, I spent a most-enjoyable 90 minutes with brand new Administrative Law Judge Alfonso J. Montaño. I was very pleased to have been the first “journalist”, either from the aviation community or from the legal community, to have been afforded the time to interview him. He was introduced to the remainder of the aviation legal community the following morning.

    A native of the Taos, New Mexico area, Judge Montaño has an easy, broad smile which he flashed many times during the course of our meeting, particularly when the discussions turned to his newly-found love of flying. He has been married to the same woman -- Trish, a third-grade teacher -- since 1982. They have two children: a son who is in a Doctoral program in Psychology; and a daughter, who is a college senior pursuing a degree in Art History. His son enjoys flying with Dad; his daughter had a bad experience with a discovery flight years ago and has yet to take advantage of Dad’s offers to take her up. He remains hopeful that she will come to understand, and not to fear, his new passion.

    Other than flying, Judge Montaño is a huge history buff, with a special interest in the Revolutionary War and the Civil War. In fact, when I asked him to tell me about his favorite flight to date, he told me that he flew to Tangier Island, in the middle of the Chesapeake Bay, which the British had used as a staging area for their assault on Baltimore during the War of 1812. Judge Montaño also loves music of all kinds. He plays the guitar, but confesses that he, “hasn’t advanced much since high school.”

    I confirmed that Judge Montaño will be taking over the Southeastern Circuit that recently-retired Judge William A. Pope, Jr. had served for so long. I also confirmed that Judge Montaño does not have an existing backlog of cases that were to have been decided by Judge Pope since his retirement. Those cases have been handled by the other three Administrative Law Judges.

    Judge Montaño has been in rigorous training to understand his new role as an NTSB ALJ. But he is not starting from scratch by a long shot. He has been in public service all his adult life, and has been an Administrative Law Judge for the past 15 years, first working to decide appeals concerning eligibility for Social Security benefits in Portland, Oregon. He also spent much of his career assisting in Medicare and Medicaid fraud and abuse cases, first as an investigator, later as an assistant attorney, then as a Trial Attorney for the Department of Justice, and finally as an Administrative Law Judge. For the past 11 years Judge Montaño presided over adversarial hearings for the Department of Health and Human Services involving civil monetary penalties, terminations, sanctions and exclusions of physicians, nursing facilities, and other health care providers from participation in the Medicare Program. Although his office was, by then, in Washington, DC, he conducted hearings around the United States. He has an interest in all things medical and is looking forward to seeing how medical issues are presented in the aviation legal context.

    Judge Montaño is not at all shy about how much he is looking forward to his new job. He said he is still in shock that he was actually picked for this position, because it involves all three of his passions: aviation, law and medicine. Judge Montaño has clearly been bitten by the aviation bug. He has longed to be a pilot since he was in third grade and a bi-plane flew over a field in which he had been resting. He remembers that the aircraft was so close to him that he could see it when the pilot looked down and waved to him from the cockpit (it was a crop duster). Since then, he had always wanted to learn to fly, but never had the opportunity. Life got in the way.

     But he told his wife of his dreams of flying, and, on Christmas morning of 2004, she gave him what he described as the best Christmas present he ever got -- a Discovery flight at Manassas airport. When he landed, he was a changed man. He knew he would be a pilot. So he has spent his spare time flying when he could and finally received his private pilot certificate in 2006. He rents 172’s, 172RG’s and has flown some Pipers and a 182. He has a close friend who took flying lessons at about the same time, at the same FBO, and they now fly together with their wives to visit friends and family. So far, he has flown as far North as Pennsylvania, as far Northwest as Wheeling, West Virginia, and as far South as upper North Carolina. He is looking forward to training for his instrument rating as soon as he can.

    Judge Montaño told me, “taking flying lessons changed my life. It changed the way I think about things, the way I analyze things, and the way I prioritize things.” He can barely contain his excitement about now having all cases that cross his desk involving aviation.

     We in aviation can count ourselves lucky that three of the four Administrative Law Judges that hear our appeals now understand, and are even passionate about, flying aircraft. The NTSB is not permitted by law to request or to require that applicants for the position have any aviation background at all, and, in the past, many of them have not had any background. We are truly fortunate that we now have someone who has filled out the application for an FAA Medical Certificate, gone through ground school, taken flight training, worked hard to earn his certificate, and experienced the joys, terror, and endorphins that flying solo can produce. When we as aviators go before him, we know that he will be able to put himself in our place and understand what we faced when the decisions we made resulted in an allegation that we violated one or more FARs.

    Judge Montaño is now getting ready to start sitting in on final hearings conducted by the other Administrative Law Judges to see how they do what they do, particularly how they manage to articulate an oral final decision from the bench at the conclusion of the final hearing, which is something that very few other judges anywhere else in our legal system have to do. Usually, Judges can adjourn the hearing, thank the parties and their counsel, go back to his or her home or office, think about the case for a while, and issue a written ruling. The NTSB Administrative Law Judges have found that issuing an oral decision immediately, while the parties are still present, speeds up the process tremendously, and gives closure of a sort to both the Airman and the FAA. It is a difficult skill to master, and Judge Montaño confesses that the prospect is somewhat daunting to him.

    He is also interested in observing how the NTSB Administrative Law Judges handle “Emergency” cases, since the specialized procedure we use does not exist in any of the other Federal Departments. He finds the concept intriguing and is curious to see how it actually works in practice. And, of course, he is very curious to see how his medical background will come into play with FAA aero-medical issues on appeal.

    Regardless of the case, however, Judge Montaño wants everyone to know that he will do his best to listen to the evidence objectively, to treat the parties and the lawyers with respect and professionalism (while demanding the same from them), to provide the parties with a full and fair hearing of their case, and to rule in an objective and impartial manner. He knows full well that his decisions can cost someone a career or can let unsafe practices continue to represent a hazard to the general public. He has had the better part of 15 years to get used to the idea that, no matter how he rules, at least one party (and sometimes more than one party) will be upset with him for the way he has ruled. He has shouldered that burden before, and will continue to shoulder it now for the NTSB.

    The NTSB Administrative Law Judge position is a real plum of a job. For most Administrative Law Judges, once they have been appointed to the NTSB position, they keep the job until they retire. For the time being, the talk around the Office of Judges is now that ALJ Roger Mullins, who is 65 years young, and who has served as an NTSB ALJ for the last 21 years, can no longer be called, “the Kid” -- Judge Montaño has now acquired that moniker. I know that all of you join me in wishing Judge Montaño well in his new position. I, for one, am looking forward to practicing before him, and to helping to introduce him to Sun N Fun, Airventure, and NBAA, where he can seriously fan the flames of the aviation fire that burns within him.

Top 10 lists: They are featured in late-night television jokes, rank the year’s best movies, and even suggest the most influential minds among us. Just about everyone can appreciate a good top 10 list, even if only for entertainment value. But in the world of aviation, top 10 lists play a much more vital role. They help save lives.

Just ask Natalie Johnston, aviation safety analyst with the FAA’s Office of Accident Investigation and Prevention, who’s researching a list of particular interest to pilots—the top 10 causes of general aviation fatal accidents. With the help of several GA subject matter experts (SME), including FAA representatives from maintenance, operations, and the FAASTeam, Johnston is compiling a comprehensive list of contributing factors for each of these top 10 fatal accident causes. The goal of the list: Help us all understand why accidents happen, and more importantly, help us develop ways to prevent them.

A Fresh Perspective

“We’re looking at information from all angles to dig deeper into the root causes of GA accidents,” says Johnston, who along with the team of experts is reviewing data and narratives from hundreds of NTSB accident reports, and may, in the future, use data from the NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) and the FAASTeam. “Carefully examining the data sources, combined with the operational knowledge and personal experience of our SME team, helps us gain a distinct perspective on how to create a safer environment for the GA community.”

For example, when reviewing an accident report on a pilot who lost control on landing during a stiff crosswind, there are several initial conclusions that can be drawn. Perhaps the pilot lacked training in crosswind landings or was flying an aircraft type different than what he/she normally flies. However, upon further review, you may learn that the pilot failed to get an adequate weather briefing and missed an opportunity to reassess landing options. Or, you may find that the pilot had been flying the final leg of 400-mile journey with dusk’s hazy onset fueling an already safety-jeopardizing fatigue scenario.

Developing an accurate picture of contributing factors for an accident takes a collective effort. By carefully analyzing all possible factors in an accident and by holding them up to the light of firsthand experience and knowledge, it becomes clearer to see the beginning of a particular accident chain.

There’s also the matter of ranking contributing factors. What sets the SME team’s research apart from the way existing accident data is reported is how the team carefully identifies and scores the most common contributing factors for each top GA fatal accident cause. The scoring process is not intended to attribute a specific number to each factor, but rather to distinguish and separate the most important factors from those with the least probability of occurring. “In the end,” says Johnston, “this will help us develop more effective mitigation strategies and pinpoint what pilots need to focus on to keep from being a statistic.”

The Envelope, Please

While the final list of contributing factors is still being completed, here are the top 10 causes for GA fatal accidents as identified from NTSB accident-report data.

1. Maneuvering – loss of control in flight

2. Initial Climb – loss of control in flight

3. Maneuvering, low altitude flying – aerodynamic stalls, spins

4. Maneuvering, low altitude flying – low altitude operation/event

5. Enroute-cruise – controlled flight into terrain (CFIT)

6. Initial climb – aerodynamic stall, spin

7. Enroute – VFR encounter with IMC

8. Enroute-cruise – loss of control in flight

9. Maneuvering, low altitude flying – loss of control in flight

10. Maneuvering, low altitude flying – collision with terrain/object (non-CFIT)

Looking at the top two, there is a common thread: loss of control in flight. “When we studied loss-of-control accidents, during both the maneuvering and initial-climb phase, the top contributing factor was failure to maintain airspeed,” says FAA Aviation Safety Inspector Donald Wood. A member of the SME team, Wood was somewhat surprised by the finding. “What this shows is a definite need for improving basic ‘stick and rudder’ skills, even among more experienced pilots.”

Despite a few surprises, the group’s findings are consistent with expectations and reveal important links in the GA accident-prevention chain. Airspeed control, pilot experience, preflight planning, and unusual-attitude recovery are all contributing factors that appear most frequently.

“By exploring these factors in more detail, we are seeing patterns that become helpful clues for pilots in similar situations,” says Mel Cintron, manager of FAA’s General Aviation and Commercial Division. “We look forward to collaborating with industry to review this data, along with data from the AOPA Air Safety Institute’s well-established Nall Report. Our goal is to advance GA safety without stifling the spirit of aviation.”

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

This article is reprinted from FAA Safety Briefing.

I never thought that my founding www.throughthefence.org would land me in front of a Congressional committee but that is exactly what happened on September 22, 2010.  I had the honor and privilege to testify before the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee about the FAA’s newly released and updated FAA-2010-0831 (http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-22095.pdf) policy on residential through-the-fence access.  (Hearing can be seen at: http://transportation.edgeboss.net/wmedia/transportation/20100922fc.wvx)

The FAA’s “revised” policy essentially allows for all current and “shovel ready” residential through-the-fence (rTTF) properties but codifies a ban on all future rTTF.  This is an important distinction since the current policy (FAA 5190.6B) (http://www.faa.gov/airports/resources/publications/orders/compliance_5190_6/) had only been an interpretation by FAA personnel that rTTF was “incompatible airport adjacent land use.”

The Democrats lined up the FAA and three supporting witnesses while the Republicans selected me and Mitch Swecker who is the States Airport Manager for the State of Oregon which is very support of rTTF access. 

Catherine Lang (http://www.faa.gov/about/key_officials/lang/), who is the Acting Assistant Administrator for Airports at the FAA in Washington, was the first witness after Congressman Kurt Schrader from Oregon spoke favorably as a panel member himself.  Ms. Lang did not go into her background as a member of Chicago Mayor Richard Daley’s Aeronautical staff.  We certainly know how much Daley’s organization loves general aviation with its undying support of Meigs Field!

Ms. Lang sported the FAA’s previous points, all of which have been proven to be non factual, not supported by data, and/or not on point, except for a new one—some hangar homes enter the runway in the middle and require aircraft to back taxi.  It seems that the FAA has to keep coming up with new rTTF problems at every turn just to stay ahead of the truth.  The FAA office of Airport Compliance and Field Operations has be the model of “don’t let the facts get in the way of our policy!”

Ms. Lang was followed by Carol Comer (http://tomcat2.dot.state.ga.us/Aviation/Contact_Us/staff.cfm), Aviation Programs Manager of the Georgia DOT, who proudly announced she was a pilot who lived on a private airpark but supported the fact that no federally funded Georgia airport had rTTF access.  Ms. Comer may have neglected to mention that her property was made more valuable by her prohibition of rTTF access at public airports!

Mr. Swecker (http://www.aviation.state.or.us/Aviation/staff.shtml) was next and discussed how rTTF helped Oregon airports stay economically viable and active.  He was followed by Ann Crook (http://www.ecairport.com/AboutELM/airport_manager.asp), Manager of the Elmira Regional Airport, who stated her airport, did not have rTTF access nor did it want it.  Crook was followed by James Coyne who heads the National Air Transportation Association, the trade organization of FBOs, which is mostly concerned about off airport competition to on airport FBOs.

I was the last speaker and I had to mention that even though I was a Republican witness, I was the Democratic candidate for coroner in Teton County Wyoming.  I continued that just like the coroner’s office, the rTTF policy should be a non partisan issue.

You may see the full text of my prepared comments at www.throughthefence.org but to summarize, I pointed out the lack of data and supporting information for the FAA’s position.  The FAA policy represents lots of “what if’s” and “maybe’s” that are not realistic.

I also could not let Ms. Lang get away with her written testimony comment where she characterized rTTF home owner’s input at a public airport board meeting as “influence” that was an “inappropriate process.”  Apparently Ms. Lang forgot the FAA is a part of the administrative branch of the United States, a representative democracy based on public meetings and individual input to government representatives.

My most important point is local airport authorities know who their best neighbors are and these local agencies should be allowed to make those decisions, not the FAA.

It is important for all pilots and those with an interest in aviation to contact their Congressman and Senators to support Representative Sam Graves’ house bill HR 4815 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-4815).

Last month, I presented the first half of our cross-country helicopter flight from Wickenburg, AZ to Seattle, WA. Here’s the rest of that trip.

    Back at the airport the next morning, the helicopter was all fueled and ready to go. Louis did a very thorough preflight and, after saying goodbye to the FBO guy, we climbed in and started up.

    Our route would have us following Route 101 north, through an area of low mountains and rivers to the coast at Eureka. From there, we’d follow the coast past Newport and head inland to Portland. That was the plan, anyway.

    The morning was cool with a very gentle breeze as we headed north. We were at the northern end of Sonoma Valley, where it narrowed. We climbed into the hills. As we climbed, the landscape changed. There were tall pine trees, rocky outcroppings, and rushing rivers below us.

    We continued up route 101 until it dumped us into a valley at Eureka. In the distance, beyond numerous farm fields, we could see the ocean with a marine layer moving it. It appeared that we’d have the same coastal clouds we’d had the day before. I wasn’t interested in flying over the tops of clouds along unfamiliar coastal terrain. I wanted to go inland. But with fuel at half tanks, I also wanted to top off fuel before we changed course. According to the chart, Murray Field at Eureka had fuel. So we headed in and landed at the field.

    The FBO gal greeted us on the radio when Louis set down near the pumps, telling us she’d be right out. Murray didn’t have a fancy self-serve system. In fact, it had the sort of system we had at Wickenburg when I ran the FBO back in 2003—completely manual. The FBO gal came out to keep us company while we fueled. She was soon joined by a man who, after exclaiming that a “flying tomato” had landed, struck up a lively conversation about Eureka, the Phoenix area (where he’d once lived), and alternate routes.

    By this time, the wind was coming off the ocean, bringing clouds inland with it. You could see wisps of clouds speeding east, over the airport. We were advised to head north along the coast until we got to Crescent City, then follow route 199 (I think) inland to Grant Pass. That’s where we could pick up I-5 north to Portland. I was doubtful; I really didn’t want to fly over the clouds for the 50 to 60 miles to Crescent City. But I decided to take a look.

    We said some quick goodbyes and started up. I took off, climbing steeply at 1000 feet per minute through a scattered 200-foot ceiling of clouds. From that vantage point, it was easy to see where the clouds ended and the land began. Sometimes the clouds would be out over the ocean. Other times they stretched inland into the mountains. I handed over the controls to Louis and we continued north along the edge of the cloud bank at about 1,500 feet.

    We didn’t even realize that we were passing over the Redwood forest until Louis asked me about it and I checked the chart. The tall trees didn’t really look special from above. But when you looked down into the forest, you could clearly see that one kind of tree towered above the others. From down on the ground, these trees are amazing. From 1,500 feet above sea level, passing over them was a non-event.

    The cloud bank had shifted out a bit to the ocean by the time we reached Crescent City. It was very tempting to continue north along the coast. But when I looked out beyond the nearest clouds, it seemed to me that the clouds were thickening, climbing higher into the sky. I didn’t want to have to climb with them. And I certainly didn’t want to lose sight of the ground. So I decided to head inland, following the advice of the guy at the FBO. We turned east, found route 199, and followed it.

    This route wound along a number of valleys and canyons past tree-covered hills and mountains. The streams and rivers below us were gushing with white water from snow melt. The northwest had had plenty of snow during the winter months and the recent record high temperatures were melting that snow quickly. Later, I’d hear on television about the flooding expected in Portland, Seattle, and other communities near rivers and streams.

    After a while, we broke through the mountains into the valley at Grants Pass. We picked up I-5 and headed north into more hilly terrain. I noticed on the chart that a local mountain pass had its own automated weather observation system (AWOS) and I tuned into the frequency to get weather information. A similar station on my route between Seattle and Wenatchee would be useful when it was time to move the helicopter to Quincy for June and July.

    At Myrtle Creek, the mountains ended, dropping us into a broad valley. The highway straightened and we followed it. By this time, I was pretty hungry and fuel was dipping to quarter tanks. It seemed like a good time to look for lunch and fuel. As we approached Creswell, just south of Eugene, I heard other pilots talking in the pattern. I asked if there was a restaurant and was told that there was a sandwich place just a quarter mile away. We headed in for landing.

    The fuel pumps were decidedly helicopter-unfriendly. Maybe you know the kind: they’re situated at the edge of the ramp and have a shade cover over them that extends out to the ramp area. The shade’s height is about even with a helicopter’s spinning blades. The trick is to hover close enough for the hose and static reel to reach but not close enough to hit the shade with your blades. Louis did a marvelous job, landing to one side so that airplanes could still roll up next to us. I was hoping to leave the helicopter parked while we went to get some lunch.

    The hose just reached the helicopter—Louis had to stretch it out while I fueled. I topped off the tanks. Then we used the facilities and I went in search of someone who could tell me where the food was. I found two people in a small trailer that seemed to house a flight school. It turned out that the restaurant was more than a quarter mile away—on the other side of the airport, as a matter of fact—and that he wanted us to move the helicopter before we walked there. I wasn’t interested in either the long walk or moving the helicopter. So we decided to continue on, with the promise of a Chinese restaurant right at the end of the runway at Albany. I like Chinese food and rarely get an opportunity to eat some.

    We continued north along I-5. I should mention somewhere here that we caught glimpses of some of the Cascade Peaks along the way: Mount Jefferson, Mount Hood, and later, Mount St. Helens—all huge snow-covered peaks towering above the terrain. We were getting rather close to Portland. It seemed stupid to land at Albany and waste an hour when we could press on to Portland, arrive by 3 PM, and get some food there. So we decided to skip lunch. We snacked on the sugar snap peas I’d brought along and kept in my little cooler.

    About 20 miles south of Portland, I dialed in Portland Approach and told them where we were and where we wanted to go. Although we were landing at Portland, it wasn’t Portland International. It was Troutdale (TTD), which sits on the Columbia River just east of Portland. Neither Louis nor I knew the area, so I used the magic word: “unfamiliar.” We got a squawk code for our transponder and vectors toward Troutdale. When we got closer, we were handed off to Troutdale Tower. I told the controller we wanted to land at “TV Land”—which is what I’d been told—and he guided us in to a ramp near the east end of the runway. The grassy field I’d been told to park in was clearly visible and I told the controller we’d land there. Louis set us down and we shut down.

    We’d stopped in Portland so I could get some specialized cherry drying training in preparation for my summer job in Quincy, WA. I worked with Dave, who was kind enough to spend some time with us, on Sunday evening to cover some of the basics over dinner. We flew on Monday morning.

    When I was finished flying with Dave, Louis and I reloaded the helicopter and started north. We were on the last leg of our flight from Wickenburg to Seattle and had chosen a relatively direct route. Expected flight time was less than an hour and a half.

    The day was overcast, with high clouds masking the sun. A dreary light illuminated the landscape. Although the temperatures were mild—in the 60s—it felt like winter. I didn’t take many photos. The light was just too darn ugly.

As we flew, we had clear views of Mount Hood, Mount Adams, Mount St. Helens, and Mount Rainier, four of the tall peaks of the Cascades. All were covered with thick caps of snow.

    Our course took us quite close to Mount St. Helens. So close, in fact, that when Louis asked if I wanted to fly over Spirit Lake, I said yes. Mount St. Helens, which was once just another beautiful snow-capped peak, had a massive eruption in 1980 that blew off its top and most of the north side of the mountain. Nearby Spirit Lake was the recipient of much of the ash and other debris that increased the water level and changed the look of the lake. The best views of the volcano are from the north, where you can see the lava flow and debris field. Since we were so close, it made sense to take a look.

    By the way, if you’re ever in the area, visiting Mount St. Helens, I highly recommend taking a helicopter tour up the valley to the mountain. The views are up close and personal, much better than the photos here.

    I punched Boeing Field (BFI) into the GPS and we got back on course. We passed far to the west of Mount Rainier, then headed inbound. Louis had done much of his training at Boeing Field, which is squeezed into a tight area north of Seattle-Tacoma International (SEA) and Renton (RNT), I so I turned all navigation and communication over to him.

    In the meantime, I was getting seriously stressed about the amount of small airplane traffic around us, most of which was showing up as targets on the helicopter’s TIS system. We were flying up in “airplane land”—the same altitude small airplanes fly at when they’re trying to stay under the class Bravo airspace. This wouldn’t have been so bad if we were talking to a controller who could advise us of traffic, but we weren’t. I urged Louis to descend and he did. But it wasn’t until we were cruising at about 500 AGL that I felt comfortable again.

    We landed at Boeing Field and set down near Pad 6. The mechanic who was going to be doing my helicopter’s annual inspection, Rich, came out to meet us. A while later, all of our gear was unloaded and they were wheeling Zero-Mike-Lima away. I wouldn’t be seeing or flying it for more than two weeks.

            We’d completed the flight from Wickenburg to Seattle in about 13 hours of flight time. Louis was home, but I was only halfway through my travels.