With that clever insight in mind, may I present for your review, a few photos that made me realize what a special place – what a special experience – traveling to this town is each and every year. Hint: It’s the people!

Rob Mark, editor

Airspeed Editor Steve Tupper prepares a special brew at the Sennheiser, Jetwhine, MyTransponder party Thursday night

The week started out a tad wet. Forget tad, it was a watery mess and will surely affect overall attendance figures

Father and son management team – John (l), Jeremy (r) at Sonex Aircraft that won a portion of the Lindberg prize for their electric aircraft initiative

Cessna’s skunk works never would acknowledge this as their next generation project, code name Groundcatcher

Ohhh, da food!

Not surprisingly, Jetwhine’s editor did battle on Flight Sim with opponents he had  a chance of defeating (he didn’t win BTW)

See previous shot for details!

FAA’s infamous Pink Shirt controllers at Fisk Approach Control, or as they call it,  the “RayCon”

My old airplane … sniff

Women in Aviation breakfast with EAA’s Elissa Lines (l) and WAI president Peggy Chabrian

North American F-100 cockpit just the way I remember it from my early Air Force days in the 60s

And oh, the Tweet Ups

More crazies at the Sennheiser, Jetwhine, MyTransponder Tweet Up

FlyAbout Director Monika Petrillo

Bob Richards, former ORD air traffic controller, author of Secrets from the Tower and current media lunatic. He also reportedly never recovered from having Jetwhine’s editor as a trainer in the FAA.

Retiring EAA President Tom Poberezny’s infamous scout car, “Red Three”

What would AirVenture be without the kids?

And finally, Jetwhine’s editor shows off his new Cessna straw hat. Thank you Bob Stangarone!

AirVenture 2011 begins in 368 days. See you next year.

To say we’ve had a little rain is an understatement. In just July more than  10 inches has fallen, breaking a record set in 1912. Water has always been a problem during the 30-plus years I’ve been tramping around the grounds, but the subterranean system EAA installed in and around the exhibit areas worked great!

That doesn’t help the outlying areas where 10,000 airplanes park and campers numbering into five figures live for the week. The mass arrivals of Cessna, Bonanzas, Mooneys, and Cherokees didn’t happen, and the North 40 was barren on Day 0, aside from a few campers on the high ground at the west end.

But the sun was out all day, and EAA was doing its best to dry things out, so why don’t you take a (silent) walk with me…and end up at the Sonex Aircraft open house for a look at the Hornet’s Nest updates on the SubSonex jet,  now a three-wheeler, and the single-seat Sonex, the Onex.  If you’d like to take a photographic stroll with me, click more…

In deference to what once was, I start at the Brown Arch, the primary portal to the magical creations on the flight line on my first trip to Oshkosh in 1978.

From the main gate I took off down the walkway to forums. Passing the Cessna outdoor exhibit, it was dry, meaning the subterranean drainage system EAA installed works.

With their higher weight and narrow tires, the warbirds were right to wait before moving into Fightertown.

Here’s a group hoping for dry weather. Set up since Thursday, they were just about dried out. The CAP helps set up general purpose tents in the background.

This Bell 47 spent the better part of an hour at 12 to 18 inches as it tried to dry the turf ramp where the EAA Ford Tri-Motor loads and unloads its paying passengers.

The homebuilt parking and camping area was almost empty, with a lone RV and some campers back on higher ground.

Beware of the Canada Geese! With few neighbors in vintage camping, all should be safe for a while.

Seeking the source of what sounded like a turbojet getting ready to launch, I found not and airplane but this puddle sucker,

Despite the soggy conditions, camper spirits are strong and happy. After skipping his way across this muddy access to Camp Scholler, this guy celebrated not slipping with a happy yee-haw!

Out of the frame, the small pickup is stuck in the mud. On flipped-up back window of its shell is "OSH or Bust!" Neighbors from the next campsite helped the couple wrestle their popup camper into position.

The AirVenture flight lines and aircraft camping areas were mostly empty. I found the flying machines and their campers set up in every nook, cranny, and open space around Wittman Regional Airport’s two FBOs, Basler and Orion.

Attending my inaugural Sonex Aircraft Open House, I had no reference for a good turnout. But there were a number of well-built airplanes and a bunch of happy people there!

A new three-wheeler, the SubSonex jet will soon be ready to resume its flight test program.

The prototype Onex, a single-seat Sonex, is approaching its first flight. Peeking in the cockpit, it seems that I might fit, which is something designer John Monnett promised. After AirVenture, I’ll have to stop by for a fitting.

PS: Technology is sometimes grand, sometimes it’s like wallowing in the mug. This post was supposed to be up Monday morning, with a nice slide show. That didn’t work, nor did the video conversion of the slideshow. After our inability to solve the problem, we punted. But not trying something new was something we never considered. –Scott Spangler

If you plan to be a member of this airborne symphony, or in the automotive conga line snaking its way into Wittman Regional Airport, and you’re free at 1130 on Wednesday, July 28, I urge you to visit the Learn-To-Fly Discovery Center for a panel discussion on the Future of Flight Training.

The LTF Discovery Center is on Main St., which connects the main gain to AeroShell Square, where all the big, cool airplanes are. And the discussion should be lively, which is one reason why (I think) NAFI Executive Director Jason Blair invited me to participate.

When he called to seek my participation, Jason, a loyal JetWhine reader, specifically mentioned some of my previous posts and said something about my not seeing the world with ordinary eyes. I’m not so sure of that, so you be the judge—here are my some of my recent training related posts:

Rote is the Route to Prosaic Mediocrity; Does Parochialism Hinder Aviation’s Future?; Becoming a Pilot: Is it a Relevant Choice?; Pay Attention to California School Regs; NIFA Challenges Pilots Past Bare Minimums; California Requires Pro Training Standards that Have Nothing to do with a Pilot’s Education; Pro Pilot Training Evolving to Industry Needs. Well, you get the point, so I won’t go on.

If you’re around the EAA AirVenture Learn to Fly Discovery Center at 1130 on Wednesday, July 28, I hope you’ll stop in. Jason says he’s still confirming the rest of the panel members, but it should be interesting.

And if you are around AirVenture the previous afternoon, let me reiterate Rob’s invitation to Become an Airplane Geek for a Day. I’ll be with the geeks at Forum # 6 on Tuesday, July 27, starting at 1600. I hope to see you there, and at the Future of Flight Training panel discussion. –Scott Spangler

Jetwhine is teaming up with the Airplane Geeks, Flightblogger and MyTransponder to build an interactive session that answers the social-media question to which everyone wants an answer; how can we stop wasting time and money noodling with Facebook, Twitter and blogs and solve some of the real customer-engagement problems facing our industry.

The panel begins at 4 PM on Tuesday July 27^th in Pavilion 6 just north of the control tower and runs until 5:15 PM. That means we’ll run concurrently with the airshow so arrive early to get a seat up front.

Our panelists include Rob Mark and Scott Spangler from Jetwhine, Rod Rakic from MyTransponder, Dan Webb from the Airplane Geeks and Jon Ostrower from Flight Global. All are experienced social media practitioners who will tell us where social media’s headed and what your company needs to know to stay one-step ahead of your competitor.

If you’re “just” a social media aficionado hoping to follow the action or meet the experts, you’re most welcome to join us and listen in. But we also hope you’ll add your two cents to the discussion.

Whether you plan to join us or not, do send along a real-life aviation problem that social media has solved for you, or an area the industry needs to focus on where engaging huge groups of people might just be the answer for you or your company.

And just for fun, we’ll be auditioning a guest host for a future Airplane Geeks show, so plan to rehearse your best elevator pitch before next Tuesday about why YOU should be our choice. We’ll also have some Airplane Geeks T-Shirts to give away and of course, some of those incredible Jetwhine buttons to impress your friends at the show.

All our panelists should be on Twitter during the show by the way. Rob Mark’s @jetwhine, Dan Webb’s @danwebbage, Jon Ostrower’s @flightblogger and Rod Rakic is @mytransponder.

See you next week. And we’ll even tell you the meaning of #OSH10 in today’s title.

Rob Mark, editor

The company will retrofit the UAVs with a probe-and-drogue system, with one being the tanker and the other being thirsty. The company didn’t give a lot of information on what it meant by autonomous, so let’s assume that the two UAVs will be programmed to meet at a specific location and time and the onboard systems will take it from there.

Just to make the accomplishment special, to quote the release, the refueling will “take place at a much higher altitude than has been previously demonstrated with manned aircraft. It will also be the first time that [high altitude, long endurance] UAVs have flown in formation.”

One wonder’s how high? Given manned tanker performance, most midair refueling takes place between 20,000 and 35,000 feet? (What say you experts in JetWhine land with first-hand experience?) The Global Hawk’s service ceiling is 65,000 feet, and unrefueled it has a published endurance of 36 hours.

The notice said the technology that makes this autonomous feat possible will benefit manned flight as well because it will reduce pilot workload. Yeah, automation does that.

As previously discussed (See UAV Pilot Shortage & Military Intelligence, UND Plants Seed of No-Pilot Airliners, and  No-Pilot Aircraft Go Vertical & Hover) it may eventually affect the military and civilian job market, or at least change a pilot’s job description. And let’s not forget another Global Hawk First: FAA clearance for operation in US national airspace.  –Scott Spangler

Between our ohhs and ahhs, my wife and I somehow started reminiscing about memorable birthday displays on previous July 4ths.  The mental movie of July 4, 1974 instantly started playing in my Cranial Cineplex. What made the show—shows, actually—is that I watched them from above.

A photographer on flying status at NAS Alameda, I remember the day was warm and boring. Seeking relief from both, I called air ops and learned that a reserve antisubmarine helicopter squadron had scheduled a night training mission. Another phone call got me on the yellow sheet.

Strapped into the sling seat in the back of the SH-3 Sea King, we took off just after dusk, two pilots, the crew chief, and I. The horizon reminded me of light seeping from under a closed door, and just as it went dark the pilots started calling out the fireworks below as we circled San Francisco Bay.

Contorting my body to see out the small window in the H-3s starboard-side sliding barn door, I finally asked the pilot if I could open it. With a view not much better than mine from his station at the sonar console, the crew chief joined me. A camera hung from my neck, ignored in the darkness.

Restrained by our gunner’s belts, we sat cross-legged in the open door. It was clear and cool and the earth looked like a starry sky. Everywhere we turned pyrotechnics climbed toward us on fiery tails and exploded below in slow-motion super novas of color and light. The only sound was the helicopter’s hum and the pilot’s occasional calls to ATC.

As it did that night, reliving that flight filled me with an ineffable sense of peaceful appreciation for the privilege of being witness to such a sight. And for the first time it struck me that six months after that flight, give or take, I was sitting in the open door of another helicopter, a UH-1N, keeping an anxious eye out for another form of pyrotechnics, red and green tracers, and the snaking molten red dot of a heat seeking missile.

Reporting to the command ship, the USS Blue Ridge (LCC-19), the pilots, crew chief, and I were collecting photos in preparation for the evacuation of Saigon. My part of the mission complete, the camera hung from my neck ignored, as I anxiously searched for telling bits of light rising from the mostly green ground below. Fortunately, on this flight, it never materialized in sharp contrast to the dusky light.

The sudden connection of these two flights moved me, and I struggled to define why as I watched the fireworks burst to life over the trees. That I didn’t make the connection at the time wasn’t the issue: the significance of any event never registers when living the moment. Perspective and relevance comes with time and contemplation. Perhaps this is doubly true when considering the celebration and responsibility of independence. – Scott Spangler

In simpler, more concise terms: Monkey See, Monkey Do.

Correlation is the highest level of learning. It means you employ all  previous learning and make relevant connections to aspects of a new situation and derive the proper response to what one might call a learning experience.  In between the first and last steps are Understanding, which is the ability to comprehend or grasp the nature or meaning of something, and Application, the act of using something learned and understood. 

Despite claims to the contrary, most aspects of aviation rarely step beyond rote. By not correlating the lessons learned from past experiences to new challenges, we’re bound to repeat our past actions, with the outcome a predictable route to prosaic mediocrity. If you doubt that rote is a contributing factor to more than a century of aviation tradition unimpeded by progress (another name for learning through correlation), permit me a few examples.

Let’s start with accidents. Most agree that roughly 80 percent of them are the result of pilots making poor decisions. And as the AOPA Air Safety Foundations annual Nall Report shows, running out of gas, flying into bad weather, and maneuvering, usually close to the ground, are the most common procedures for airplane bending, folding, and mutilation.

Why? Rote.

Pilots are not devising new and unusual ways of running out of gas, flying into bad weather, or maneuvering close to the ground.  They are repeating the same rote actions they’ve read about in thousands of accident reports. If we truly have reached the level of correlation, we’d know that a  timely go-around is the best “save” for a less than perfect approach, yet we still bend airplanes instead, and run out of gas, and fly into bad weather. 

The government is our co-dependent, the pied piper of rote. Structure is necessary to any organization, and rote operation is SOP for most bureaucracies. We perpetuate this by “monkey doing” without first correlating our  current behavior with all we’ve learned from previous situations.

The Next Generation National Airspace System is a perfect example. People in all corners of aviation are complaining that ADS-B is too expensive, not well thought out, or doesn’t provide enough reward to their particular segment of aviation for the investment. I imagine that people made the same complaints when navigation went from bonfires to beacons, and to A-N ranges, and to VORs, and to Loran, and to GPS. Oh, and remember the stink about transponders and the Mode-C veil? 

At the rote level, people wonder why are you doing this to us? Operating at the level of correlation, experience has taught us that we cannot have progress without change, and that change is not free. Life is a series of transitions, and at the level of correlation we know this and plan accordingly. NextGen is just the next step, the eventual replacement for radar-based ATC, and goodness knows the FAA has been talking about it long enough, so it shouldn’t be a surprise that it would one day require some new equipment. Those working at a level of correlation started saving for it years ago, and they will reap the rewards in the future.

As most flight instructors will tell you, only those doing the learning can lift themselves from one level of learning to the next. from rote to understanding, to application, and finally to correlation. It is an individual effort, an individual decision. No one can do it for us.

Each of us has to decide that blindly following the route to prosaic mediocrity isn’t good enough any more. And each of us has to invest the time and effort to actually think about our decisions, to correlate them to all that we’ve learned, and then respond in a way that delivers the best outcome. –Scott Spangler

In getting to know each other, Max Flight, the lead geek, asked about my other aviation activities. In the course of talking about the different aviation and non-aviation subjects I write about, I mentioned that writing for JetWhine was my favorite aviation gig.

The geek quartet seemed surprised at this. So I explained that this exquisite forum gives me the freedom to report and comment on the many facets of aviation I find interesting, unrestrained by the narrow editorial focus of most print and many online publications.

Pondering this self-inflicted epiphany during my celebratory post-podcast whiskey and cigar, publishing’s parochial focus makes sense in a media-rich environment. This outlook also seems to describe many who read them. If something doesn’t apply to their narrow aviation interest, they dismiss or ignore it. I wonder how this attitude has affected aviation to date. It certainly hasn’t done much for American politics.

For decades the slices have been fighting for a dominant share of the shrinking aviation pie. The conflicts are many: When it comes to paying for the national airspace system it’s the airlines versus general aviation. Airport access  issues often pit business against recreational aviators. Military and civilians take sides on who can use what airspace. Things get more contentious when the mix involves helicopters, light-sport aircraft, amateur-built experimental aircraft, powered parachutes, and weight-shift trikes.

Has anyone really considered the consequences of this internecine squabbling and parochial view of the world? The “surprise” of AB-48 is, perhaps, the most recent example of what can happen when people don’t think about their connections to the outside world—and events taking place there that might affect them. (See Pay Attention to California School Regs.) The evitable introduction of UAVs into American airspace is surely the next donnybrook.

Collectively, aviation is a minority in the economic and political tableau of American life.  To survive the growing challenges we all face, it makes sense that the tiny slices of aviation unite as a whole pie of mutual support to prosper in an ever demanding world. But given the entrenched narrow  interests of its participants, I wonder, is this possible? – Scott Spangler

The FAA only posts 10 years of airman numbers, but GAMA’s Statistical Databook  archive provides FAA numbers back to 1964, and less than 60,000 student certificates is not just a decade low but an all-time low. Student certificates peaked at 209,406 in 1968 and reached an all-time high of 210,180 in 1979. They have been in decline since then, falling  into five figures in 1994. 

These numbers are student certificates issued. No one really knows how many students eventually earned a pilot certificate. And no one really knows how many quit before they got their student certificate, typically just before solo. (See General Aviation Won’t Find Future Pilots in Rear View Mirror.) An anecdotal presolo dropout guesstimation is 50 to 80 percent, so adding that  to the number of certificates issued means somewhere between 315,270 and 378,324 people started flying lessons in 1979.

A question more pressing than the accurate number of those who dropped out or completed training or is why are increasingly fewer Americans signing up for training? Looking at the primary factors involved, from training to recreational and career possibilities, the answer seems clear: becoming a pilot is no longer relevant to people today, especially to those who will become the next generation of professional pilots.

A substitute teacher for the local middle and high school, my students, after learning I’m a pilot, express genuine interest by asking a lot of questions about possible aerial adventures, usually fueled by low-level video game yanking and banking and Red Bull Air Racing. Their interest quickly wanes upon learning how much time, money, and work it takes to become a pilot. This predictable because they, and their parents, grew up and live in a  consumer-driven world based on immediate gratification. 

Still, tens of thousands step up to the challenge, and a few actually become pilots. (See A Rare Breed: Students Who Finish Training.) But imagine the outcry if public schools had flight training’s dropout rate. The flight training industry’s typical response is little more than blaming the cost and lack of student determination. Certainly, both are factors, but a more important factor is one that also affects public schools: boredom.

Like public school curricula designed to meet the requirements of No Child Left Behind, flight training rarely goes beyond rote to teach the test. (See No Pilot Left Behind.) Exacerbating this problem is aviation’s perpetuation of a system of pilot training and experience building that has changed little since the end of World War II.

The CFI and aspiring professional pilot in the NPR report explained  it perfectly:  His loans total nearly $100,000, and to build the  experience that will qualify him for a $20,000-a-year right seat in a regional airliner, he’s forced to “flight instruct, tow banners, and haul skydivers.”  Think about the  attitude bred by this decades-old system and the declining student and pilot population should surprise no one. Students expect a teacher, but what they often get is a disinterested safety pilot who regurgitates the rote education he memorized from a CFI just like him.

Following tradition, the NPR story reported that the low student numbers would lead to a shortage of professional pilots. Really? Has a flight ever been cancelled because there was no one to sit up front? It is true that airlines have lowered their entry-level flight-time requirements, and following tradition, NPR reported that this reduces safety.

Nonsense. Flight time is a lousy measure of a pilot’s capabilities. Training is what makes the difference. Just ask the US Navy. Its aviators enter the fleet with roughly the same flight time as new commercial pilots, 250 hours. The low-time aviators are landing F-18s on a pitching carrier deck at night, and new commercial pilots worry about how often they will have to fly a lazy eight during their careers. 

Maybe, must maybe, a shortage of professional pilots will really happen this time. People are pretty smart, especially when their heroes are not the descendants of Lindbergh and Earhart  but the wizards of technology and business who exemplify the benefits of smart decisions that bring a good return on the investment of their intelligence, time, and effort. (See Who Will Fly for America Tomorrow?)

Historically, aviation only makes changes when it is forced to; the federal aviation regulations are proof of that. So only a true shortage of professional pilots will force aviation to abandon its 60-year-old model of training and professional development. Maybe.

A good solution might be the military model, where candidates vie for a coveted seat, knowing they will receive top-notch proficiency-based training designed for the mission they will soon fulfill. Anyone can apply, but only the best will be chosen for the education program that fills a guaranteed professional pilot slot. Because the airlines would have more invested in their pilots, perhaps they wouldn’t treat them like Doritos: Hard financial times? Furlough them! There will always be new suckers who still believe in the happy airline pilot dream. 

Collegiate aviation programs might be an excellent professional pilot training partner. Aside from having the necessary human and knowledge resources, equipment, and facilities, it would be easier to ensure consistent screening,  curricula, and assessment of proficiency through the system of accreditation they all now comply with.

Such a model would take private flight schools and instructors out of the mix of professional pilot training, but such is the price of progress. This happens to all fields, just ask anyone in publishing what the Internet has done to the print side of the business. But progress forces us to change, adapt, and adopt new ways, and flight schools can do the same.

First, flight schools must accept that they are in the education business, not the aviation business. (See California Requires Pro Training Standards That Don’t Involve Stick & Rudder Education and Pay Attention to California School Regs.) To survive and prosper they should develop mission-based education programs for those who need personal all-weather transportation in  technically-advanced airplanes or want to fly purely for sport—for the fun of it. And hire teachers, not safety pilots.

Then, flight schools and instructors must actively recruit students from their community, not sit around and wait for some national effort, like the long forgotten National Learn to Fly Month, to send prospects through their doors.

Finally, schools and instructors must address aviation’s horrendous dropout rate. Because becoming a pilot is no longer relevant to most Americans, each new student pilot is a rare resource that must be treated with respect. – Scott Spangler

Breaking out of the cocoon in critical. AB-48 makes clear that flight schools and instructors are not in the aviation business. They are in the education business, specifically post-secondary education, which AB-48 conventionally  defines: “Postsecondary education” means a formal institutional educational program whose curriculum is designed primarily for students who have completed or terminated their secondary education or are beyond the compulsory age of secondary education, including programs whose purpose is academic, vocational, or continuing professional education.

In response to AB-48 many schools and CFIs say they are already regulated by the FAA. And when it comes to the subject they teach—aviation—that’s true. Nearly three dozen other fields, from acupuncture and auto repair to  engineering and veterinary medicine, are in the same situation. There are an estimated 400,000 students paying more than $4.5 billion in tuition to private post-secondary schools in roughly three dozen career fields, and, like aviation, each of them must meet the minimum  knowledge and skill standards for their chosen field.  AB-48 is all about the business operations at these schools, not the curriculum. (See my previous post on the subject: California Requires Pro Training Standards That Don’t Involve Stick & Rudder Education.)

Aviation was exempt from the old post-secondary regs, and the Initial Statement of Reasons explains why AB-48 “Repeal[ed] section 73470 (FAA Certified Flight Schools) – “This section is obsolete because it is based on the former law.” The same rationale applies to truck drivers and others, so it’s not just about aviation. The tacit reiteration is that AB-48 is not about what a school teaches, but rather the sound operation of an educational institution, which includes protecting students.

Looking at it another way, no matter what their course of study, had private post-secondary schools followed accepted educational business practices, legislators wouldn’t have to impose the requirements on all of them to protect students from the unscrupulous few.

Some schools are exempt from AB-48, and their common denominator is that they have been accredited by an agency approved by the US Department of Education. Having participated in two reaccreditation exercises at the private college-prep military school I worked for, the standards, from reports to site visits, mirrored AB-48’s requirements.

The same is true for the  accreditation standards of the Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges (ACCSC). Like AB-48, ACCSC serves a variety of educational disciplines. It has accredited 31 aviation schools, 16 for A&Ps, 10 for pilots, four technical colleges that train one, the other, or both, and one for dispatchers.

Initial ACCSC accreditation takes 18 to 24 months and costs $10,000 or more, and schools must renew their accreditation every three years. The primary benefit, aside from guaranteeing students that they will get the education they pay for (or a tuition refund if the school closes), is that accreditation qualifies a school for federal student aid funds.

Its requirements and fees aside, AB-48’s one-size-fits-all legislation is hits small schools harder than large ones, especially in aviation. Flight training institutions range from Part-141 behemoths with a faculty of a hundred or more to a single, freelance instructor preparing a student for a commercial or CFI checkride. Educating state legislators about this range before they write new requirements requires less traumatic effort than dealing with it after the fact, as California schools and CFIs are now doing.

The California case also makes it clear that schools and instructors cannot depend on aviation associations and journalists to be proactive for them. AB-48 became news well after California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the legislation into law on October 11, 2009.  To avoid an AB-48 surprise that could put your state’s flight training future in jeopardy, start learning about the education business and its applicable requirements now. –Scott Spangler

For some it’s exploring the backcountry. For others it is aerobatics. And for Steve Wood, it is setting FAI world speed records over a recognized course in this homebuilt Glasair Aviation GlaStar, affectionately known as Goofy, for its N-number N600FY. I’ve mentioned Steve before, in Looking Up to Sustain a Future in Aviation, and noted that he’d set 90 world speed records.

Just before the three-day weekend I got an e-mail from Steve. He mentioned that he’d just run across the March 9 post, and “I thought you might like to know that on 16 April—yes, I took a day off from Sun ‘n Fun—I provisionally set a further 11 FAI World Records bringing my total to 101 records.”

In his usual manner, he planned the out and back flight to Nassau, Bahamas, with precision and attending to the multitude of details required for any record attempt. The success of any record attempt is determined by the planning, he says. To ensure the accuracy of the overhead times at each of the cities to and from the international destination (Nassau), he flies IFR and talks to each tower before the flight.

Five of Steve’s April 16 city pairs were Daytona, Orlando, Titusville, Vero Beach, and Fort Pierce to Nassau, a total one-way distance of roughly 350 nautical miles. On his way home to Spruce Creek, a fly-in community outside of Daytona Beach, he set another five world records from Nassau to the cities he passed over on the way down. Number 11 was a round-trip record between Daytona and Nassau. His top speed was 240.47 km/h (149.43 mph) between Nassau and Titusville. 

“Why did I do this? Well, it’s OK having the most records of any British pilot and the most records set in a US registered homebuilt, etc., etc. But I thought I would be the very first to break the 100 world record barrier. Others may set more records than me in years to come, but now at least I will have been the first to break the 100 record barrier—a bit like breaking the sound barrier for the first time!”

And in the process, he brings attention to the causes for which he flies, Flying Scholarships for the Disabled, Able Flight, and EAA Young Eagles. Most who learn of Steve’s accomplishments are, like me, impressed, thankful…and jealous. Others feel threatened for some insecure reason, and they have whispered to me that Steve sets records for personal glory. My only response is a single-word question: So? And if the whispers get a bit uppity and self-important, I pose another question: What keeps you flying regularly and, more importantly, what have you contributed to the world of flight?” – Scott Spangler

A mass arrival of this patriarch of aviation is planned for AirVenture’s opening day, Monday, July 25, and an organization—The Last Time—was formed to make it happen, safely and on time. More than 40 of these historic airplanes will gather the weekend before, July 24-26, and a handful of events have been planned at the rendezvous airfield in Rock Falls, Illinois. (The Whiteside County Airport, SQI, is on I-88, the Ronald Reagan Memorial Tollway, 143 nm south-southwest of OSH.)

My first flight was on a mallard-tailed North Central Airlines DC-3, which carried my mother and me, a mid-1950s toddler, to visit grandma in Battle Creek. Later, I spent uncounted hours reading the exploits of pilots who flew it in civilian and military service. Given its uninterrupted tenure and reliable service in even the most dire situations, the DC-3 embodies the ideals of what commercial aviation should be and it is this spirit with which I measure what commercial aviation has become.

And when I read stories like “As Attention Wanders, Rethinking the Autopilot” in the Chicago Tribune and “ Future airline pilots may be less experienced, less ethical, in short supply, NTSB told” in the New York Times, I think of a story Ernie Gann told me, in Hostage to Fortune, I think. He was a new copilot, wrestling with stormy weather through the controls. To simulate lightening, perhaps, his crusty old captain flashed matches to flames before his eyes. 

Ignoring these incendiary distractions Ernie concentrated on flying his beloved DC-3. Less than pleased to be so challenged, he was happy to be sitting in that seat, understanding what a privilege it was.  Oh, how far aviation has come, how much it has gained—and how much it has lost. Maybe aviation today needs to recapture some of the old spirit or, at least, to be reminded of it. A reunion of former civilian and military DC-3 crews and passengers is one of The Last Time’s Whiteside Airport activities. It will be interesting to hear their reflections on the arc of airline progress. –Scott Spangler

If you’ve never heard of NIFA, it “was formed for the purposes of developing and advancing aviation education; to promote, encourage and foster safety in aviation; to promote and foster communications and cooperation between aviation students, educators, educational institutions and the aviation industry; and to provide an arena for collegiate aviation competition.”

NIFA members are extra-curricular flight teams at 77 two- and four-year collegiate aviation programs nationwide. They are in 11 regions, and the top finishers in the regional Safety and Flight Evaluation Conferences are this week (May 17-22) competing in the 90th annual national Safecon. In the 1990s I reported on a half-dozen of them, and seeing that the event rules are relatively unchanged, it is still my opinion that these aeronauts are aviation’s best hope for the future. Looking at NIFA’s sponsors, from Cessna and Sporty’s to NBAA and name-brand regional and major carriers, the industry seems to think so, too. 

The most concise explanation why this is true is that these students, most of whom are just a year or two into their aeronautical educations, embody the “beginner’s mind,” as defined by Michael Maya Charles in his exquisite book, Artful Flying.  For them, the minimum performance parameters spelled out in the FAA’s Practical Test Standards are not a final exam but a place to start.

Regional or national, each Safecon is a combination of seven flight and six ground events that challenges a pilot’s knowledge and skill. Power-off landings is a perfect example. The target is not 60-foot-tall runway numbers. Landing within this distance wouldn’t qualify a pilot for the team. No, these pilots aim to put the main wheels on a 4-inch-wide chalk line. Judges stand alongside the runway to measure the touchdown point, which rarely exceeds a foot or two. The top finishers are usually separated by inches. To make sure the engine is at idle, another judge points a directional microphone at each plane as a pilot pulls the power to idle on downwind when abeam the line.  Pilots can “clear” the engine once on the base leg. They can use flaps, but not below 100 feet AGL on final.

In the navigation event students fly a multiple-leg cross-country of 70 to 120 miles. Pilots fly with a safety observer, and using any technology beyond a sectional chart, plotter, pencil, and E-6B is disqualifying. “Each contestant must submit a flight plan before take-off, including, but not limited to, the estimated time en route for each leg, estimated total elapsed time, and estimated fuel consumption.” Points are assessed for the difference between what’s planned and actual, and for other deviations, such as not flying directly over a turn point, where a judge sits, looking skyward. Lowest score wins.

What’s important here is that these aviators are flying with all of their senses except, maybe, taste. One checks the other, does the slipstream noise coincide with the airspeed and the stick force, and does progress across the ground in the given wind assure success, or is a more expedient turn to base needed?

Similar thought processes are at work in the ground events such as ground trainer (a flight-training device), aircraft preflight inspection, and Simulated Comprehensive Aircraft Navigation (SCAN), where competitors employ a non-programmable flight computer, plotter, and pencil to find the answers to a 40-question exam created by the event’s most demanding judges.

What makes these aviators special is that they volunteered for it, and all that I’ve met relish the challenges presented. Perhaps the best comparison to their shared spirit is found among the volunteers who serve in the U.S. Marine Corps.

Maybe that’s the key to attracting those who will make good professional pilots. Make it tougher, not easier. Challenge them to be better than the bare minimums. Teach them to be an extension of the airplane and metaphysically integrated into the airspace, and if they aren’t capable, say so and send them on their way. Aerial  automatons—those who want to push buttons and levels and twist knobs to deliver the numbers demanded by a voice on the radio—need not apply. –Scott Spangler

It’s not the President’s lack of attention to business aviation that has me upset this time though. Nope, it’s this silly Future of Aviation Advisory Committee Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced in March that really burns me.

The committee will focus principally on five issue areas:  ensuring aviation safety, ensuring a world-class aviation workforce, balancing the industry’s competitiveness and viability, securing stable funding for aviation systems, and addressing environmental challenges and solutions. 

The DOT last week announced the 19 members who will make up the panel. The cast of characters is pretty much whom you’d expect, Patricia Friend, president of the flight attendants union, CEOs Glenn Tilton from United, David Barger from JetBlue and Robert LeKites from UPS, not to mention a few airport CEOs like Paul Regalado from Nashville and Thella Bowens from San Diego, not to mention Nicole Piasecki from Boeing.

There’s really only one guy who seems the odd man out. That’s Cessna’s CEO Jack Pelton. It’s not that there’s anything wrong with Jack. Quite the opposite in fact. He’s a personable, bright guy who’s had aviation blood running through his veins since he was a kid. And, of course, he just happens to run a company that produces more business aviation airplanes each year than any other on the face of the Earth.

The real problem with this big Aviation Advisory committee meeting that begins next week is that Jack Pelton’s the ONLY guy in the group that doesn’t somehow relate to the airline industry. Hello Mr. LaHood! I know you’re only an Obama appointee, but I’m from Illinois too, so please hear me out.

The real future of aviation begins with encouraging new pilots and mechanics and airport operations people to join the industry. By the time they reach the airline level, they’ve normally been around for some time. So guess where these people really learn about aviation? It’s at the general aviation airports where people first learn to fly, like Chicago Executive (KPWK), or Dallas Addison (KADS) or Van Nuys (KVNY). So why not invite the manager of Dallas Addison Airport? Joel Jenkinson’s a pretty smart guy. Bet he could help.

Business aviation also operates a huge fleet of aircraft of all shapes and sizes. Why not invite the National Business Aviation Association president Ed Bolen to be part of the committee? And of course there is the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association that represents over 425,000 people in the U.S. who use aircraft? Why not ask Craig Fuller? I know AOPA only represents about 2/3 of the active pilots in the U.S., but hey Ray, go with me on this one. Of course there’s always the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) that represents thousands of employees and customers that have nothing what so ever to do with the airlines. Pete Bunce can be pretty chatty about the future.

So why hasn’t Ray LaHood asked for input from anyone besides the airlines you might be asking? Simple. Only one of two reasons I can think of, either they don’t care or they don’t have a clue where general and business aviation fit in the mix about that Future of Aviation. Neither one is much of an answer. Oh wait, I just thought of one more. This entire aviation advisory committee is just one big PR show. That’s not much of an answer wither though, is it?

The Next Step

Remember the work everyone did beating down the Large Aircraft Security Plan from TSA last year? We need the same effort now. Write the White House and then write or call your local Congressional representative. Tell them you’re mad as Hell and that you’re not going to take it any longer. If the DOT Secretary isn’t bright enough to understand that the future of aviation begins at small airports, let’s convince him. And then tell the President he needs to get Air Force One pointed toward Wichita so he’ll realize there’s more to the future of aviation than simply what Boeing build in Seattle.

Rob Mark

Thirty-five years ago I was on the USS Blue Ridge. It was steaming toward its San Diego homeport after serving as the command ship for the evacuation of Saigon, the true end of a decades-long conflict which proved that insurgency works.

Then I saw the Orlando Sentinel story about the cost overruns on the new F-35 strike fighter.  Given the changing face of international conflicts—insurgent forces don’t have air forces—and the 57 percent increase in the F-35’s cost, it seemed to me that it may well be America’s last dog fighter.

Even the Defense Department tacitly agrees that there is little need for a dogfighter. Like the F-18, the F-35 is a strike fighter. In other words, because it is unlikely to meet an airborne foe, other than a missile, air support of ground troops is its primary mission.

Curious, I searched for recent reports of jet-v-jet battles. Let’s see, there was the turkey shoot of the Iraqi air force during Gulf War I (1990-91). In 1986 F-14s fought over the Gulf of Sidra’s Line of Death, and in 1982 there were the Falklands matches between Harriers and Argentinean A-4s.

Those who cling to the past may say we need fighters to counter the sudden aggressiveness of a nation with the economic horsepower to field an air force. There aren’t many of those, and America does business with most of them, and armed conflict is unlikely because it is bad for business.

Looking at the trend of world conflicts over the past 35 years, they will continue to get smaller and more focused, and the weapons used to fight them must do the same, whether it is a squad of special operations warriors or a unmanned aerial system that’s on duty all day.

The US Navy has just ordered a version of the armed Predator C. Called the Sea Avenger, it “fulfills the Navy’s need for a carrier-based [UAS] system that offers long-endurance, proven  [Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance] and precision-strike capabilities.”

The future of flight, it seems, is becoming ever more clear. For at least the rest of my life, pilots will still occupy the airplanes they fly. But like those who drive today’s B-52s, those airplanes may be approaching twice the age of their pilots. – Scott Spangler

Most public and private schools accredited by agencies recognized by the Department of Education are not affected by new California requirements because they are imposed by the accrediting agency, all of which charge hefty fees for the service. The Act is for schools with no outside oversight of their business operations.

Which might be why the proposed regs that put the Act to work lift the exemption once enjoyed by FAA-approved  flight schools. If approved, says National Air Transportation Association, to operate in the state, schools that train commercial pilots must  pay a $5,000 fee and earn approval from the Bureau of Private Postsecondary  Education, just like every other private school that educates people for a profession.

This application for approval requires third-party audited financial statements showing that the school has at least a 1:1 asset to debit ratio and requires it to pay 0.75 percent of its annual revenue to the California Student Tuition Recovery Fund, along with with other admin and recordkeeping requirements.

Understandably, this doesn’t sit well with flight schools. NATA President Jim Coyne wrote Governor Schwarzenegger a letter urging him to reconsider the flight school requirements:

“This legislation and the ensuing regulations are intended to ensure that students pursuing post-secondary education in the State of California are treated fairly and receive a quality education,” writes Coyne. “My concern arises from the fact that AB 48 removes the exemption for FAA-approved pilot schools….The inclusion of flight training…imposes a series of requirements, designed for larger classroom-type institutions on the unique and primarily small business-owned flight training industry.”

Not to go all Jon Stewart here, but isn’t this just another example of the bifurcated logic that has kept professional pilot training trapped in the 1950s? We want students to get a good education and to be treated fairly by schools, except when someone asks us to grow up and walk our talk of being credible institutions that provide a top notch education for serious students who want to be a professional pilot.

Yeah, the requirements are tough, demanding, and expensive. So what? Nobody ever said education was easy. As highlighted in the ongoing discussion in Pro Pilot Training Evolving to Industry Needs, what makes pilot training any different than the education required for other professions, from medicine and the law to plumbing and cosmetology?

Absolutely nothing.

Some schools have a lot of money tied up in classrooms. So do flight schools, except that some of their classrooms fly. It’s still a classroom. What matters most to any profession is the quality of education delivered in it. There’s no denying that toeing the line on California’s new requirement will hurt, and it will kill some schools, but if it makes for better professional pilot training, and improves the reputation of the industry that provides it, aviation will be the better for it. – Scott Spangler

Sharing the winnings with me she asked if I would start flying again and what airplanes I would buy, saying “You could have one for aerobatics, an SNJ, and one that would take us to see the grandkids.”  Being a pragmatic realist, not to mention persistently frugal (or, as my wife says, “stubborn and cheap”), I took a sip and seriously considered an answer.

Answering her first question was more difficult. Everyone flies for a different reason. For me, having an autopilot fly me from Point A to B is boring for the same reason airline travel is boring. Seth Stevenson said it best in a recent New York Times Op-Ed piece. The Icelandic volcano caused travelers to find alternatives, which was good,  “because flying is an empty, soulless way to traverse the planet, the best flights are in fact the ones you forget immediately after hitting the tarmac.”

Most flying today is no different than  taking the bus, where the other passengers are the  “adventure.” GA is like taking the car, and you get to pick your traveling companions. Cue the memories of childhood road trips and  your anticipation for the next one.Taking another sip, it struck me that perhaps this lack of adventure is aviation’s missing growth hormone.

In my formative aviation years flying was anything but clinical. It was Steve Canyon comics (getting his helmet made my Christmas!) and Clutch Cargo cartoons of aerobatic adventures and aerial explorations of little visited corners of the planet. Airline travel was a special event with a dress code where everyone was on the best behavior.

Such adventures are still possible, at least in GA, but creating them isn’t simple or inexpensive. My all-time best airborne adventure ever was flying a Sportsman 2+2 from Arlington, Washington, to Anchorage, Alaska, with the good folks from Glasair Aviation and a gaggle of Glastars. We flew up the trench, landed on gravel bars, and camped out.

This trip was special because it was a rare visit to heaven, and it sustains me. (And to answer my wife’s second question, fixed costs for a fleet of airplanes would quickly deplete the lottery prize we almost won, so one airplane that met several missions would have to do, and that one plane would be a Sportsman, with Tundra tires, skis, and floats.) 

So what passes for adventure today, aviation or otherwise, with the millennial generation, which is now starting to spend its discretionary time and money? What cartoons and comics—excuse me, graphic novels—fed their interests and shaped their lives? And how does aviation today stand up to that? – Scott Spangler