AircraftOwner Online

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.

A few months ago, Judge Pope retired after a long and distinguished career of public service, including a stint working for the Department of Justice attempting to safeguard the Federal Witness Protection Program.  Since then, the Southeast has not had a dedicated Administrative Law Judge, and the other three ALJ’s have been covering cases arising out of this part of the country.  That changed yesterday when the Chair of the NTSB, Deborah Hersman, appointed Alfonso J. Montano to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Pope.

Judge Montano is a licensed private pilot.  According to the FAA Website, Judge Montano holds a third-class Medical Certificate, and was issued his private pilot certificate in September of 2006.  This stands in stark contrast to Judges Pope and Fowler, neither of whom had obtained a pilot’s certificate of any kind (although Judge Pope did have some instruction in a Cessna during the Vietnam War).  Judge Geraghty is a long-time pilot, as is Judge Mullins).  To me, the experience of obtaining a medical certificate and a private pilot’s certificate is a tremendous benefit to my clientele of airmen who find themselves accused of a violation by the FAA.  At least we know that Judge Montano is familiar with the terminology, and with the sensations (along with the responsibilities) of flying solo as pilot-in-command; and knows what it is like to try to make important decisions in a three-dimensional environment moving at 100 knots plus.

We have also been informed that Judge Montano is married with two adult children, and that he lives in Prince William County, Virginia.  He began his career after attending New Mexico Highlands University and the San Francisco School of Law, working for the United States Department of Justice as a Trial Attorney.  He has spent the last 15 years working as an Administrative Law Judge for the Department of Health and Human Services and the Social Security Administration.  The Administrative Law practice for the NTSB is a little different from the practice as conducted for those other agencies, and there will probably be a minor learning curve that Judge Montano will have to master, but we can reasonably expect that he will be up to speed very quickly.

Judge Montano is being introduced to the other ALJ’s of the NTSB in September in Washington, D.C., and I am hoping to able to attend the conference where he is formally introduced as a representative (one of several, I am sure) from the Southern Region.  All of us in the FAA enforcement defense field are looking forward to getting to know Judge Montano and to finding out what kind of an ALJ he will be.

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.

    This month in AircraftOwner Online, my colleague Dr. Brent Blue has written about the surprise announcement made on April 2nd by the Administrator of the FAA that has removed the absolute bar to holding a medical certificate if the pilot is taking certain anti-depressant medications (click here to read his article). While Dr. Blue concludes, probably correctly, that few pilots will actually take advantage of this change, I viewed this announcement differently, and very personally.

    A few years ago, a local neurosurgeon wrote a letter to the editor, in one of the many aviation magazines I read, complaining that it is perfectly lawful for him to operate on peoples’ brains while taking anti-depressants as prescribed, but that it was absolutely illegal for him
to fly a 172 around the patch. I could relate to that. I travelled to the Civil Aeronautical Medical Institute (CAMI) in Oklahoma City and spoke with several of the doctors there about the rumors that the FAA would approve anti-depressants for pilots and was told that, while the idea was not off the table entirely, it might take years. This was hardly good news for me.

    Eleven years ago, following a great many horrible events, my doctor advised me that I would have to take anti-depressant medications for the rest of my life if I wanted to avoid the possibility of another depressive episode. He advised me that the psychiatric literature indicated that adults over 40 who had experienced major depressive events, should be placed on low doses of anti-depressants as a prophylactic measure to prevent future depressive episodes. As much as flying had become the central point of my life, I knew that I would do anything I had to NOT to have another bout of out-of-control depression. At that point, I understood that I might never sit left seat solo in an aircraft again. I sold my interest in a beautiful aircraft, and I tried to satisfy myself with hitching rides with others. It didn’t work. There has been a huge hole in my life for over a decade. On April 2, 2010, for the first time, I got new hope, and that hole has begun to close.

    There is now a procedure available for me to be able to demonstrate that I am no longer depressed, although I take anti-depressants to make sure that I my serotonin levels will not allow any situational depression I may experience to spiral out of control. I can now apply to an AME for a medical and start along the long path to a special issuance from Oklahoma City. It may take a year or more to get my medical back, and I may have to spend a lot of money and subject myself to a lot of tests, but now I know that I have a fighting chance to get back in the left seat again.

    I must confess that there were many times over the past decade when I considered whether to attempt to obtain a medical certificate by “forgetting” that I was on anti-depressants. I might have gotten away with it, but my enjoyment of flying would have been tarnished by a constant fear that I would be found out and have my licenses revoked for intentionally falsifying my medical information to the FAA. I chose to simply endure the situation and to try to work for a change in the policy.

    Whenever possible, I have attempted to demonstrate that the FAA’s former position making anti-depressants automatically disqualifying was an absolutely prehistoric view of the current state of medical knowledge. I pointed out that having a pilot – particularly an airline pilot – who really should be on anti-depressants because of his or her chemical imbalances and resulting mental state of depression, refusing to have them prescribed for fear of losing his or her job and ability to earn a living and to support a family, was a lot more dangerous to the flying public than having someone who has been properly diagnosed and treated, whose symptoms are under control, exercising the privileges of his or her certificates. [When Administrator Babbitt made his announcement, he closed by saying that perhaps, if the pilot who flew his Piper Dakota into the IRS building in Texas had been taking the anti-depressants he may have required, we might not have had this tragedy which focused tremendous negative attention on private aviation.]

    Most of the FAA doctors with whom I have spoken over the years knew that the official position did not make sense. They even identified Canada and Australia as having very successful programs where anti-depressants were commonly used in the pilot population without problems. It appeared to me, however, that there really wasn’t any institutional momentum for the FAA to add the United States to these countries in this regard, and, knowing how long it takes this bureaucratic entity to get things done most times, I was not optimistic of any change to the policy.

    Dr. Blue is probably correct that not many pilots will take advantage of this change, but I know of at least one, and probably several more – including one neurosurgeon – who are deeply grateful for the opportunity to demonstrate our qualifications to fly safely. Kudos to the FAA and to all of those advisors who helped make this new policy a reality. I usually spend a lot of time doing battle with FAA and criticizing the things that I feel they do wrong. It actually feels great to be able to compliment the FAA for at least one thing that I feel they got right.

    Thank you FAA. Thank you CAMI. Thank you Administrator Babbitt.

A Few “Heavy Iron” Procedures for the Light Aircraft Pilot

A Bonanza crashed at a nearby airport. Witnesses said the engine failed at an altitude of 75’ to 300’ and the pilot attempted to turn back to the airport. He did not make it. Both occupants died.

    The NTSB released the transcript of the US Air flight that crashed on takeoff at Lexington, Kentucky. Much was made of the pilots’ chatter about irrelevant information while the crew lined up on the wrong runway. That accident also revealed that there were not as many controllers working as there should have been, and the one controller who was working was not watching the doomed flight.

    “Sully” ditched in the Hudson, rather than trying to put it on dry land. How many of us, in our own aircraft, would have made the almost-instantaneous decision that we could not save our aircraft from damage, and that we were going to “get wet”?

    Some airline procedures, if properly and habitually used by private pilots, would allow those who fly with us to testify in court as to our habitual use of enhanced safety procedures beyond those that are required by regulation if we are ever involved in an aircraft crash. This could spare us, our families and our Estates, a great deal of humiliation and expense.

    These are a few suggestions:

Pre-takeoff briefing

On most professional flights, the pilot flying will brief the crew-members on the procedures that will be used for departure. Even if you have to say it out loud to yourself, this is a great habit to get into. “We have been cleared for takeoff on Runway 05. On the takeoff roll, if any instrument goes into the red, or changes suddenly in any way, I want you to tell me immediately. I will rotate at 85 knots and climb out at 120 knots. If we have not reached climb speed, I will abort the takeoff on the runway. Below 300’, I will land straight ahead, even if I go off the end of the runway. I will not make any turns. If we are above 300’, I will hold 106 knots, best glide, and attempt to land on I-95 with the traffic. Above 1,500’, I will determine whether it is safe to attempt to land back at the airport or at another landing area within our glide radius.

    This forces the pilot to think about a rejected takeoff or an engine failure at low altitude. We probably all know someone who tried to turn back to the airport at too low an altitude following an engine failure, and didn’t make it. Saying what you intend to do before you take the active can help you avoid the compulsion to try it too.

Sterile cockpit

Professional crews do not discuss any matters not concerned with the flight from engine start until 10,000’. Similarly, once the aircraft has been cleared to descend for approach to landing, until engine stop, the professional crew discusses only issues related to the present and upcoming phases of flight. Those of us who fly light aircraft can modify this rule so that, until established on initial cruise altitude and heading, no one says anything that the crew can hear unless it is directly related to a safety of flight item in the current or pending phase of the flight. Similarly, once the flight has been cleared to descend for landing, the passengers and crew should confine themselves to safety-of-flight items only. Many of us know pilots who chatter from engine start to shut down. How many radio calls were missed? How many checklist items were never checked?

Fly the airplane

Most of us learned this one in primary flight training. But it is vital, even in a small aircraft, to make sure that someone is always in command, and that someone is always actually flying the aircraft.

Use the system, but don’t depend on it

Whether flying IFR or VFR with radar advisories (flight following), use the system. Having people on the ground that know who you are, where you are going, and what you are doing, is a good thing. If the advisories become burdensome, cancel services and navigate on your own. Don’t become complacent. When you are advised unexpectedly, “Radar Service terminated, Resume own Navigation, Squawk VFR”, can you continue your flight without straying into restricted airspace? GPS and moving maps have made this easier than it used to be, but it is no less important.

Double check the controllers

Unless given an “immediate” instruction, there is usually time to make sure that the instruction makes sense. Controllers are human, and sometimes they make mistakes. If cleared onto a runway, look down the final approach course to see if someone is being landed on top of you. Look down the runway to see that the last guy is clear and no one is trying to cross the active. In flight, if an instruction doesn’t make sense, ask the question. Don’t blindly follow the instruction if that voice in your head is telling you that something is not right. Once cleared to land, check to see that the landing runway, and all crossing taxiways and runways, really is clear.

In an emergency, the insurance company owns the aircraft

If an airline crew is forced to land off airport, or on the airport with damage, the crew shouldn’t care about is whether the aircraft is going to get damaged. The crew is thinking: “how can I save my life and the lives of my passengers and crew?” Light aircraft owners often feel that the aircraft is a part of their family. We don’t want to see it get hurt, and we try to save it. The moment the engine quits, the fire breaks out, or something else extreme happens, think: “The insurance company owns this airplane now. I am going to sacrifice THEIR airplane as much as I need to in order to keep us alive.”

By applying these and other “big aircraft” concepts to your normal, habitual procedures, there is less of a risk of you being the one held responsible at trial, and your flying will be much safer.