Aeronaut - journal

Asleep on the job

2011-04-19T23:00:52Z

There’s been a lot of noise in the media and from politicians lately about air traffic controllers sleeping on the job. Unfortunately it’s almost all garbage. From Harry Reid’s exaggeration of the facts (stating that it’s “a miracle that everyone is OK” after the “near-tragedy”) to widespread blame aimed at the controllers, the coverage misses the point.

Why the talking heads are overreacting:

Aircraft land without air traffic controllers all the time. They’re called “uncontrolled airports”, and they exist all over the country. As of 2004 there were 19,820 airports in the US, of which only a small fraction have control towers. Further, many of those go unstaffed at night. Calling the recent incidents “near-tragedy” is nuts. If the FAA can’t adequately staff a tower with at least two controllers, that tower should probably close overnight. Airlines are required to fly with two or more crew; why aren’t towers required to be staffed with similar logic?

Why the talking heads are missing the point:

Staffing a control tower with one controller may be enough… until that one controller goes to the bathroom. Or has a heart attack. Or falls asleep in a dark room, alone, barely 8 hours after their last shift. Then, there are zero. And that’s the real tragedy here. The required time between shifts is eight hours. That means a controller could work a graveyard shift, leave the tower, and be back just eight hours later. Throw in a commute, meals, and other factors and you’re optimistically telling controllers that working on 6 hours of sleep is acceptable.

What’s outrageous to me is that as the traveling public we’re all responsible for this system. Passengers may feel comfortable, or not, when on airline flights, but their lives rest in the hands of the pilots, air traffic controllers, and maintenance staff. One air traffic controller can have direct control over more lives in one shift than a doctor or surgeon might in their entire career.

If this stuff pisses you off as much as it does me, write your representatives. Encourage them to support controllers. By doing so, they will be supporting safety. Our system requires stricter duty & rest regulations, more comprehensive staffing, and better recognition of problems. What’s that? You read how much they get paid, and think it’s too much? Shut your mouth, read this statement from a controller, and think about what these outstanding men and women do under extreme stress day in and day out.

It’s not the controllers who are asleep on the job, it’s our leadership.

End of an era

2011-02-16T23:31:43Z

Over the last year, a lot has changed. I got married, flew our newly-restored & upgraded Grumman, spent three weeks in Europe & Iceland, started looking into Masters programs, stopped instructing full time, and got a Real Job™. Oh, and http://aeronaut.ca now redirects to http://ericgideon.com, so update your shit. It’s been a fun year, I’ve enjoyed the changes so far, and I’m looking forward to what the future holds. The only downside to leaving instruction is that I spend a lot of time wishing I was flying, but – and this is key – all of my flying I now enjoy.

Anyway, this last fall was a lot of fun. The two of us went to the Reno Air Races, then visited Germany & Austria, via Iceland. Flying Icelandair was an interesting look at how small airlines can serve smaller markets with narrow routes and the appropriate aircraft. Not to mention, their branding (and cabin crew) was fantastic.

As far as the future goes, I’m looking heavily into masters programs in the field of Human Factors, with the goal of taking that degree into the aviation industry. I’ve spent so much time working with technology & usability, both in aviation and in web design, that I can’t see any other path but this. If you’ve got advice or thoughts on human factors & aviation, I would welcome your input!

I’ve been busy.

2008-12-19T07:48:52Z

Sorry! I’m likely to be away doing other things for a while.

Wow.

2008-07-05T18:47:24Z

I’m happy to (belatedly) report that I’m back from Cessna factory training, where I really, really enjoyed myself. It’s a gorgeous airplane, both to fly and to look at, and the guys down in Bend did a fantastic job. I’m keeping extremely busy, work and otherwise, but I am looking forward to the Arlington EAA Fly-In taking place next weekend. Hopefully my dad and I will be able to take the Grumman in for a day and enjoy the sights.

Off to school

2008-06-01T21:30:20Z

I’m leaving tonight for Bend, OR (KBDN), where I’ll be for a week learning to fly the Cessna 400. It’s technically the LC41-550FG, an indication of its Lancair heritage, but that’s more or less irrelevant.

One of my instrument students is flying us down to Bend to meet his long IFR cross country requirement. After a low approach at Olympia (KOLM) we’re landing at Portland International (KPDX) and then continuing across the Cascades near Corvallis via the V536 airway. The hotel I’m being put up in has wifi, so I’ll be uploading photos to Flickr as I get them off my camera. I’ll try to get something written up as the course comes to a close, but in the meantime the most informative source may very well be Twitter.

Flying for fun

2008-05-07T23:38:41Z

That’s the ultimate standard for success, right? Take something that you enjoy, then find a way to get paid for it. So far, I think I’m doing pretty well. Next month I fly down to Bend, Oregon to spend a week at the Cessna (née Columbia) factory. We’re taking delivery of a brand-new Cessna 400, and I’m going to pick it up with the owner after sitting in on the FITS course.

In a nutshell, the Cessna 400 is a certified, production version of the Lancair IV kitplane that uses Garmin’s G1000 cockpit and GFC700 autopilot. It’s got fixed landing gear, unlike the retractable Lancair IV, yet the 310 horsepower twin-turbocharged engine still pushes it to a cruise speed of 235 knots (270 mph, or 435 km/h) at 25,000 feet. The only faster piston single out there is the Mooney M20TN Acclaim, by 2 knots, but it’s entirely possible to forget to lower the landing gear. With turbochargers, high speeds, and an internal oxygen system, it’s unlike anything we currently rent; before our insurance will cover renters, they will need to receive 15 hours or more of flight training.

Anyway, I digress. I’ve gotten myself and my job in a spot, for now, that I’m quite happy with. I’m keeping busy with instrument students and local flights in the Grumman, both of which are extremely fun, and I’m really looking forward to the Cessna 400 training. Not only do I get to spend a week learning the systems and how it flies, I’ll also be spending quite a bit of time helping renters meet their 15-hour training requirements. I’m also trying to wrap up my MEI rating, but it’s not really something I’m driven to do. Everything else is fun, or exciting, or challenging, but right now learning to instruct in a light twin is more a chore than anything else. I’d much rather be taking trips in the flight levels.

This train of thought started with a recent article at John Ewing’s excellent Aviation Mentor on the topic of the shrinking pilot population in America. I think part of the problem is that for the most part flying just doesn’t seem fun anymore. Getting a private pilot certificate is an intense, exhausting task. The airplanes we fly, Cessna 152s and 172s, are decent enough trainers but are completely uninteresting and do little to inspire passion in their pilots. Would you rather race a Ford Contour, or a Mazda Miata?

Light Sport aircraft were supposed to be a huge step in the right direction for general aviation. The aircraft, like Evektor’s Sportstar on the right, certainly look like a lot of fun to fly. Yet the acquisition costs are high, and FBOs willing or able to rent aircraft to Light Sport pilots are far and few between, often due to insurance that requires pilots to hold a current FAA-issued medical before flying solo. If we could get students into aircraft that are inexpensive, docile trainers and, most importantly, fun to fly, general aviation and the pilot population as a whole could get a very positive boost.

Checkride season

2008-04-10T17:00:21Z

After a pretty marginal winter here in the Puget Sound, the weather is finally starting to improve. Low ceilings and lots of rain have hampered progress for my students working on private pilot certificates, but I’m fortunately also flying with three instrument rating candidates. It’s been a lot of fun, and the weather is less of a problem – although low temperatures have often grounded us due to known icing conditions. Two of them just graduated our instrument training course, and the last is waiting for the examiner to return from visiting his grandkids.

It was a huge relief that they both managed to pass their checkrides on the first attempt – especially since they did so within a day of each other. Signing someone off for a checkride puts a lot more at stake than is immediately apparent, and it causes a ton of stress for the endorsing instructor. If someone is graduated “Part 141” (14 CFR §141: Schools and other certificated agencies), they basically have to pass, because the school needs to maintain a fairly high rate of satisfactory first-attempt checkrides. Making matters more complicated, a flight instructor can only qualify for a Gold Seal on their certificate if they sign off 10 students in 2 years with an 80% pass rate. Where I work, it earns you a raise, so it’s worth training students well.

Fortunately, with the weather improving I can spend some of my downtime flying the Grumman, which I’ve recently been taking on short trips down to Boeing Field between flights with students. As it gets closer to summer, I plan to start making some longer trips – Portland, Vancouver, possibly Eastern Washington. Even further down the road, my dad and I are flying (almost) to the Reno Air Races this year in the Grumman, going down the coast to Auburn, via the Bay Area, and then driving the rest of the way. We’re looking forward to it.

Improvements

2008-03-03T22:43:41Z

Couple design changes around here. Since most of you read this through the news feed it probably won’t impact you, but do take a look and leave any thoughts you have.

Also on the topic of improvements, I’ve spent some more time lately flying our Skylane with the Garmin GFC 700 autopilot (or automatic flight control system, as they call it). The smallest change to the system – new autopilot and trim servos – winds up having the largest impact in the real IFR environment. Where the Bendix/King KAP 140 was a rate-based system and didn’t have the precision to command rapid pitch or roll inputs, the Garmin uses the G1000’s own ADC/AHRS system to figure out if the airplane is where it needs to be. The higher precision means that it also can react much faster.

When trying to fly an ILS with the ‘old’ system, lowering flaps at the final approach fix or glideslope intercept would cause the autopilot to balloon above and loudly complain “TRIM IN MOTION”. The newer system rapidly (and silently!) counters the pitching moment caused by the flap deployment, precisely intercepting the glideslope at speed and nailing it all the way down to minimums. Being able to fly an approach at 100 knots with 20° of flaps works wonders when it comes to slowing down the very fast new 182T after breaking out on final. I can’t even imagine the hard time guys flying the turbo models must have had with the older autopilot.

When you add in some of the latest G1000 upgrades, like a DA(Decision Altitude) bug for approaches and, in the installations with the Garmin autopilot, the addition of a TOGA button by the throttle, what you get is a complete avionics suite that is continuously evolving and – finally – decreasing pilot workload.

The future, wouldn't that be nice

2008-01-24T01:50:12Z

As I was finishing up my time with UND Aerospace, the fleet had started to switch from classic round-dial ‘steam gauge’ instruments to the Avidyne FlightMax flight display / Garmin GNS430 avionics package. It’s a “glass cockpit” system, along the lines of what you find in modern jet aircraft and turboprops. The Avidyne is a really solid system, but it requires that you also know how to work the Garmin nav/com/gps units, and the workload can get pretty high. If you’re in a Cirrus, the position of the radios (low and in the center console, kind of like where your cupholders might be in a car) makes hand-flying and tuning the radios a risky proposition.

One of the things that excited me about going to work at an FBO outside of the ‘UND bubble’ was that I’d have access to a fleet of Cessna aircraft equipped with the “Nav III” package. This means they use the Garmin G1000 panel and avionics system, although two retain the older (and independently functioning) Bendix KAP140 autopilot. I’ve been doing a lot of instrument training and cross-country flights with the G1000 aircraft, and I recently got to the point where I have about an equal amount of experience in the Garmin and Avidyne cockpits. One uses a modular construction, the other integrated; regardless, the differences in redundancy are mostly academic. Both have similar capabilities and presentation formats, but in the real world the G1000 comes out ahead.

In use, the Garmin has more buttons and more knobs than the Avidyne, but the additional complexity is about on par with having to work one or more GNS430. If you can use a 430 in a round dial cockpit (or in an Avidyne) then the G1000 will make at least a modicum of sense fairly quickly. The Bendix autopilot is an additional hurdle in the G1000 installations two of our aircraft have, due to the challenge of having to learn it on-the-fly and the complexity of modes it uses. Surprisingly, while the G1000 will lead the KAP140 autopilot through a holding pattern entry and around the hold, it won’t do a localizer procedure turn, leading to potential confusion (the Windows-based system trainer will, of course). The G1000 will also load and fly airways, pilot-nav departure procedures, and execute complete missed-approach procedures. It’s all very mature, and generally fairly easy to get it to do what you want.

However, once you roll the new GFC700 integrated autopilot into the G1000 cockpit, the G1000 rapidly pulls miles ahead of the Avidyne in both ease of use and capability. The autopilot essentially turns the G1000 into a system you would find in a much more sophisticated aircraft’s cockpit. The display format mirrors that of the CRJ’s Collins ProLine 4 avionics suite, with autopilot modes depicted above the PFD. The autopilot will also drive the flight director’s command bars, and this simple addition allows one to gain familiarity with the autopilot without actually committing to its use. It’s a great autopilot, smoothly and accurately controlling the aircraft and behaving much more consistently than the Bendix KAP140 in just about every respect. It’s a fun system to fly, and when it comes to situational awareness and comfort in the IFR system, it’s hard to beat.

King Schools syllabus oddities (and other thoughts on teaching at a Cessna Pilot Center)

2007-11-29T21:25:06Z

For the most part, this is a list I’m generating for myself. The more problems there are with a syllabus, the more important it is that my coworkers and I have ways of getting around them. I’m currently working with my first instrument student to go through the system, and I’m finding issues as I go along.

First and foremost, the course we’re using was last updated in 2000. What could go wrong? It’s not like there’s been any new technology added to the general aviation world in the past eight years. The course doesn’t include things like WAAS GPS, or LPV approaches, and doesn’t even mention the possibility of glass cockpits.

Why have Cessna and the Kings generated their own rules of thumb for instrument flying? There’s an entire FAA bible on this stuff called the Instrument Flying Handbook. For example:

Cessna suggests that when holding outbound, you double your inbound wind correction. The IFH says to triple it. Try both in the sim with the same wind and you’ll find that tripling consistently works much better. No wonder it’s what’s recommended by the FAA.
The Kings constantly teach a one-size-fits-all approach to instrument flying. “For aircraft slower than 150 knots, start your turn about a half-mile early” is something that really set me off; choosing a distance from the arc to start your entry depends on groundspeed, not how fast your airplane flies. A 160 horsepower Skyhawk could easily be entering an arc at 100 knots and a groundspeed of 80 knots, while a 230 horsepower turbocharged Skylane going the other way could be cruising along at 140 knots but moving over the ground at 160 knots. That’s double the groundspeed, and double the turn radius, yet both Cessnas have an airspeed of less than 150 knots. The IFH recommends taking current groundspeed/200, which works very well. The Skyhawk from our example would therefore turn .4 nm from the arc, while the Skylane would turn at a distance of .8 nm.
Then there’s the fact that they also use a ‘standard’ of leaving a DME arc 5° before your inbound/outbound radial. Do they not understand how VORs work? The closer you are, the narrower a radial is; at 60 miles from the VOR, one degree is one mile. Just flipping through the Northwest region’s approach plates I found arcs from 7 nm all the way up to 29 nm. 7 miles from the station, one radial is .1 nm wide. 29 miles from the station one radial is HALF A MILE WIDE. If you followed Cessna’s rule of thumb, in some cases you could start your turn nearly two miles early.
Regardless of how they teach turning into and out of arcs, they teach arcing itself all wrong. Instead of using the tried-and-true ‘turn 10°, twist 10°’ method, they have students try to envision where the course is off their wingtip, then lead and lag by 5° at a time before turning 10°. Confused? I know I am, and I know why – they’re using the method you should use for an RMI in aircraft that are not equipped with RMIs.
The course seems to be organized haphazardly. Half of the complex procedures are introduced in the aircraft when they should be covered first in the simulator or FTD. DME arcs require at least one lesson on the ground and in the sim, as do intersection holds. Departure and arrival procedures (SIDs and STARs) are often impossible to do in an aircraft, as not all airports have them. ADF holding is enough of a pain in the ass in the sim, where the flight can be repositioned; never mind in the airplane.