COPA Flight 8 Ottawa

CATSA Canada ≠ Safety

2012-01-30T16:21:00.001-05:00

Shouldn’t our Government’s advice lean towards safety? Here is CATSA’s advice about security screening,

“Dress comfortably with easy-to-remove outerwear, jackets, belts and slip-on shoes”. The source http://www.catsa-acsta.gc.ca/Page.aspx?ID=7&pname=Screening_Controle&lang=en

I guess CATSA security people don’t talk to the flight safety people? Would you wear “slip-on shoes” in an airliner? Like sandals, just to ease getting them off and on again at the security inspection station, really!

I hope not, when you consider that the vast majority of people survive aircraft accidents, many after sliding down the inflatable emergency exit slide on to a runway or unprepared rough areas of an airport, potentially covered in broken glass, plastic, metal, jet fuel, weeds, fire, you name it…

I’m sorry but I want good shoes tightly secured to my feet when I get to the bottom of the slide, not to mention as I hurry to the emergency exit closest to my seat.

Everyone made it off Air France, but look at the terrain they slid down the slides into--not barefoot country.

The modernization of Canada’s busiest airspace

2012-01-30T15:41:00.003-05:00

by Patrick Gilligan, Vice President, Operations, Canadian Owners and Pilots Association

IFR pilots, get ready for major changes in the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal-Quebec City corridor. On February 9th, the airway system in the corridor will change and several traditional airways will be removed from navigation charts.

Air navigation systems around the world are transitioning to a performance based navigation (PBN) system which allows for greater efficiencies for pilots and air traffic controllers. The new system is simpler to manage and allows for improved capacity and more efficient flight operations resulting in reduced fuel consumption, greenhouse gas emissions and noise pollution.

Nav Canada, in collaboration with customers and industry associations such as the NACC, COPA, ATAC and CBAA, has designed a brand new low level and high level RNAV (Area Navigation) route system, based on PBN, from Toronto to Quebec City. The introduction of the new route system necessitated revoking some of the conventional airways. To assess the impact of this change, Nav Canada conducted a sampling of flight plans to determine the impact on non-RNAV equipped aircraft in the area where airways are being revoked. A sample of 358,518 IFR flight plans from our 2011 traffic database, found only 536 filed by pilots of Canadian registered non-RNAV equipped aircraft. In other words, some 99.85% of the IFR flight sample was capable of RNAV navigation.

Pilots flying this corridor using non-RNAV equipped aircraft will still be able to use traditional ground based navigation aids. Some VOR airways have been retained in the corridor specifically for non-RNAV equipped aircraft. However, on any flight off airways, mileage, minimum altitude information and track will need to be calculated by pilots during the flight planning stage. Pilots can expect to receive traditional clearances via: VHF and LF airways, VOR to VOR, VOR radials and NDB bearings, or radar vectors.

Air traffic controllers are being trained for this major change and mitigation has been put in place to address issues related to non-RNAV capability. More detailed information on the changes can be found in the Aeronautical Information Circular (AIC) 38/11 and 45/11.

Finally, a new website http://onboard-abord.ca/, provides an advance look at these changes. The website also contains other important information to help familiarize pilots with evolving air traffic management and flight planning procedures that are applicable to the air navigation system.

Nav Canada Updates Flight Plan To Include Tracking URL

2012-01-30T13:15:00.003-05:00

Lloyd Bunbury just sent us a note indicating that Nav Canada has amended the flight plan filing form to allow indicating a tracking URL to follow for the flight from such sources as SPOT.

Lloyd writes: "I just filed a flight plan ... and noted that you now have a "Tracking URL" field allowing me to enter my SPOT2 tracking URL when filing! This is BIG news and I thank you for listening and taking such immediate action to include this data in the flight plan! Kudos all around!"

This will be a great boon for pilots and may actually help get someone found sooner as it makes more locating resources quickly available to SAR.

Flight 8 Is On Diaspora

2012-01-27T10:20:00.006-05:00

Yes Flight 8 is branching out into social media, in an attempt to get more exposure for the club and also share more information and photos, as well.

Flight 8's internet presence consisted of just a website only for a number of years. Initially run by Flight Captain Mike Shaw, then current webmaster Adam Hunt took it over. On 26 August 2007 the old website was replaced by a new one written in XHTML to make it web standards compliant and also make it load and work better.

Then on 12 August 2007 Mike Shaw launched this blog, with the urgent question "Does the Canadian Owners and Pilot's Association Flight 8 need a blog?". With 101 posts to date (not counting this one) it seems to be fulfilling its purpose and occasionally draws debate on contentious issues.

On 25 January 2012 Mike Shaw moved the flight onto Twitter. Not one to be outdone for social media, Adam Hunt opened a Diaspora account for the Flight on 27 January 2012.

Since most people have never heard of Diaspora, some explanation is in order. Diaspora is a social media network that was created by four students attending New York University’s Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences: Ilya Zhitomirskiy, Dan Grippi, Max Salzberg and Raphael Sofaer. Like a lot of people they had serious issues with Facebook and the fact that it is a private company that owns the rights to everything you write or upload and sells your data to advertisers, tracks you everywhere on the internet, doesn't listen to its users and is generally evil. This article has a lot more detail on the problems with Facebook.

The four students started something better, what Facebook should have been from the start: a free software project to create a disbursed social network where anyone can host a "pod" or server to be part of the network, where you own your own data and where there is no advertising or profit motive behind it all. This article explains more, as does the Wikipedia article. As of January 2012 Diaspora is still in "alpha" development phase, but it works pretty well at this point and is worth supporting as a project.

Flight 8's Diaspora account can be viewed without being a Diaspora member, having an account or without signing in. Of course you can join Diaspora on any pod you like and participate there as well. In the meantime the Flight 8 page will carry meeting announcements, photos and other information.

Both the Twitter and Diaspora pages are linked from the main navigation menus on the Flight 8 website, so they are easy to find.

Will there be more social media forays for Flight 8? That depends on how these ones work out! You will have to stay tuned to find out!

COPA Turns 60 in April 2012

2012-01-27T10:17:00.001-05:00

The national organization, COPA, turns 60 this year!

"The idea to form COPA was born in April, 1952. Laurentian Air Services pilot John Bogie was having lunch in the Ottawa Flying Club lounge with Spartan Air Services pilot Bill Peppler and Paul Saunders when Ottawa pilot Margaret Carson came storming in and declared that something had to be done about the way small aircraft owners and operators were being mistreated by the government."

That got it all started. The COPA Flights (local chapters) were started in 1964 and Flight 8 was initiated in 1967, making it 45 years old this year!

Keep an eye on the national website for information on celebrations.

Last Flight For Dr Trevor Lyons

2012-01-24T19:28:00.006-05:00

Retired Ottawa dentist and COPA Flight 8 member Trevor Lyons recently passed away.

His wife and fellow pilot, Rhonda, sent Flight 8 the following message:

"Sadly I must tell you that Trevor died January 1, [2012] after a brief illness. Please pass this news along, I know that Trevor was well known in the aviation community."

Trevor and his bright yellow 1941 model rag-wing Erco 415C Ercoupe, CF-JZH, will be missed in Eastern Ontario skies.

*Ottawa Citizen Obitiary

Twitter and COPA

2012-01-24T10:10:00.002-05:00

Do you use Twitter? In my view it is best of the social networking sites. I believe COPA National should be on Twitter. I know they don't have a lot of staff but twitter is not labour intensive and it is a great way to get the word out about issues, good news, bad news, happenings, etc. etc. etc.

COPA flight 8 appears to be one of the few Flights with a twitter account, @copaflt8. Please fell free to follow Flight 8 tweets. It's new so don't expect much at this point.

Follow @COPAflt8

Pontiac Airpark Aerial View

2012-01-22T17:26:00.007-05:00

Pontiac's developer, André Durocher, just sent me a really nice aerial shot of the aerodrome facing west, taken in July 2011.

It is such a good photo that I couldn't resist posting it here!

* Pontiac Airpark Homepage
* Google Satellite view
* Pontiac Airpark on Places to Fly

Pontiac Airpark News

2012-01-16T11:42:00.003-05:00

Pontiac Airpark developer André Durocher reports that as of December 2011 the first residential lot, Lot 36, has been prepared for building in the spring of 2012.

* Pontiac Airpark website

First Van’s Aircraft RV8 on penetration Wheel/Skis

2012-01-05T13:57:00.005-05:00

By Patrick Gilligan

December 17th, on a cold morning while the fields were frozen, aerodynamic and flight tests were conducted at Indian Creek airstrip in Ontario on a RV8 equipped with a Lycoming O-360.

The skis were designed and built by amateur aircraft builder Patrick Gilligan. Inspired by simplicity and repair ability, these skis are bolted together using a combination of UHMW, hardwood Plywood and aluminum rectangle tube. Fasteners are stainless steel, bungees are landing gear chock cords and Galvanized steel cables make up the limiting cables.

Why install skis? Skis are an additional safety for flying during late Fall, Winter and early Spring where the ground is soft and in the event of an emergency the aircraft can be landed on soft surfaces, frozen lakes, rivers and fields without tearing off the landing gear or flipping upside down. Although in very deep snow chances are the aircraft may flip but with minimal damage. Cruise performance decreased by only 4-6 MPH and lift increased slightly.

For more information contact Patrick.

*Ski video #1
*Ski video #2

Modification To Restricted Areas: CYR537 Parliament Hill & CYR538 Rideau Hall

2012-01-03T19:07:00.003-05:00

To Ottawa area COPA Flights, from Kevin Psutka:

This relatively minor change to the two restricted areas in Ottawa can catch some of you if you plan a sight-seeing trip down the river. This change occurred without consultation and I will meet with the RCMP responsible person in the near future to discuss his plans for expanding the restrictions further.

This change is one of the Aeronautical Information Circulars that have recently been released. This is just a friendly reminder to check the AICs periodically because these sorts of changes can creep in without notice other than an AIC.

AIC 2/12 says:

CYR537 PARLIAMENT HILL, ON AND
CYR538 RIDEAU HALL, ON

Following an evaluation, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police has requested modifications to restricted area CYR537 PARLIAMENT HILL, ON and CYR538 RIDEAU HALL, ON.

Designated altitudes for the restricted areas shall be increased from 1,500 to 3,000 feet ASL and the radius shall be increased from 0.25 to 0.35 mile.

These changes will take effect February 09, 2012 at 0901 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC). The appropriate aeronautical publications will be amended.

For further information, please contact:

Marcel Pinon
Manager, Airspace and Service Requirements
NAV CANADA
77 Metcalfe Street
Ottawa, ON K1P 5L6

Phone: (613) 563-5630
Fax: (613) 563-5602
Email : pinonm@navcanada.ca

Different Ways to Fly

2011-12-21T18:25:00.002-05:00

There are lots of different ways to fly. Some people use an airplane, while others prefer something a bit different, like Jeb Corliss, for instance:

Do You Own a Cessna?

2011-12-05T06:22:00.003-05:00

If it is a 100 or 200 series single and was built between 1946 and 1986 then you will need to know about this new requirement that Cessna has added to the manuals for your annual inspection.

It actually isn't anything new and any sharp AME is probably doing all of it already, but as aircraft age the need to keep on top of metal fatigue and corrosion increases.

The inspections are simple, but necessary and as an owner you need to know what is being done to keep your aging Cessna flying.

* Powerpoint presentation on the new requirements (Zip file)

* You Tube video (4:37 in length)

Wardbird U at Vintage Wings

2011-11-30T15:19:00.002-05:00

From Robert Fleck, President, Vintage Wings of Canada

Once again this winter we are offering our “Warbird U” series of educational ground schools. This year will feature the Harvard, Mustang, Spitfire, F-86 Sabre and Swordfish. The ground schools cost $250 for non members (Harvard $200) and $200 for members (Harvard $150). These are the exact same ground schools that our pilots have to take for recurrent training, so in addition to covering all aircraft systems, there is always discussion about how each pilot actually operates the plane, validated by our Warbird U guest who inevitably flew the aircraft in combat.

This is a fund raising event for Vintage Wings and the Canada Aviation and Space Museum.The ground schools make a nifty Christmas gift.

Complete details on the Vintage Wings Website.

Diamond Solves Financial Woes With Buy Out

2011-11-15T11:00:00.006-05:00

As previously reported earlier in 2011 Diamond Aircraft of London Ontario indicated it was in dire trouble and needed a federal government loan or it might not survive.

Company President Peter Maurer said in March 2011 "If we don’t get the funding from the federal government, it puts us in a difficult situation. If the D-JET, for example, in a worse case scenario, were not to continue it would have a negative impact on the rest of the company’s operations...[The debts are] at a level that would be very difficult to satisfy out of piston sales. I’ll let you do the extrapolation."

Of course as we now know the government said "no" and the company went away looking for other options, Maurer oddly saying that he had considered a government bailout a "long shot".

On 13 November the company announced its solution to the crisis. It is now majority owned by Medrar Financial Group, an investment company based in Dubai. The buy-out was for an undisclosed amount.

Stories:
*Diamond press release
*AVweb
*London Free Press

It is hard not to note the trend here, as I have written before many aviation manufacturers have recently been bought out by middle eastern or far eastern countries. A short list:

* Diamond Aircraft - majority owned by Medrar Financial Group, Dubai
* Cirrus Aircraft - Government of the Peoples Republic of China
* Continental Engines - Government of the Peoples Republic of China
* Liberty Aerospace - 75% owned by the Kuwait Finance House, a wholly owned subsidiary of Kuwait Finance House of Bahrain
* Piper Aircraft - Government of Brunei.
* Epic Aircraft - partly owned by the Government of the Peoples Republic of China

Once again, though I will make the point that in almost all of these cases investment from North America, Europe and other western countries was not to be found. That means that while many people from North America will shake their heads and say "this is too bad", that is all they will do. They didn't pony up and put money on the table to keep these companies going. The case is the same with Diamond. It is pretty obvious that the choice was simply between selling it to interests from Dubai or shutting it down.

If westerners want to retain ownership of our aerospace industry, then we need to stop the "tut-tutting" and start buying companies out ourselves.

*Complete rundown on the Diamond story

More Free Aircraft!

2011-10-11T18:36:00.004-04:00

Back in August 2009 I wrote a blog post about free aircraft, that discussed Hubert Beaujon's great idea of giving away free plans for his Beaujon Enduro on the internet.

Well it turns out he isn't the only one doing this. Amateur aircraft designer and builder Mike Sandlin has posted "technical drawings" for five of his Bug, Goat and Pig glider designs on his website and released them to the public domain. Such charity should not go unnoted, so thank you Mike!

His designs are all ultralight gliders that are easy and inexpensive to build. All have flying examples, too, as can be seen on his You Tube channel. Complete descriptions are on Mike's website.

If you only have time to watch one video then have a look at Mike narrating the flight of the "Red Goat" at Torrey Pines, California.

There are now Wikipedia articles about two of Mike's designs that give a good overview:

* Sandlin Bug
* Sandlin Goat

Yes he gives his designs funny names. I think the Goat is called that because it climbs so well. The Bug stands for "Basic Ultralight Glider" while the Pig is his "Primary Instruction Glider".

Vintage Wings On You Tube

2011-10-11T11:59:00.002-04:00

Vintage Wings, the Gatineau Airport based flying museum now has its own You Tube channel, so you can feel like you are in the cockpit.

There are also links to other people's Vintage Wings You Tube videos. Recommended: "Scratch" takes the F-86 Sabre for a ride

Canada Flight Supplement Error

2011-10-08T07:33:00.003-04:00

There have reports from members of COPA Flight 70 Oshawa that the new edition of the CFS, dated 20 October 2011, has pages missing.

They report:

*Pages 1093 to 1124 are missing. (Wiarton, Winnipeg, etc)
*Pages 1029 to 1060 are included twice.

If you find this is the case in your edition please send a message to service@navcanada.ca.

COPA President and CEO Kevin Psutka has asked Nav Canada to investigate this problem and for Nav Canada as a minimum to post the missing pages on their website for free download in the interests of safety.

Autonomous Flocking UAVs

2011-09-27T13:24:00.002-04:00

There are lots of things to contend with in the air these days, but Sabine Hauert, Severin Leven and Dario Floreano of the Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale’s Laboratory of Intelligence Systems in Lausanne, Switzerland have added one more: they have taught ten small unmanned aerial vehicles to flock.

This is actually an interesting use of technology, combining small aircraft with Linux to make them fly together in different ways, depending on the parameters entered. This science project shows what is possible with the combination of aircraft and computers.

Story and short video

Air Show Risks And How They Affect The Public

2011-09-26T08:28:00.005-04:00

After the death of Jack "Flash" Mangan in a crash at an airshow in Martinsburg, VA this week while flying a T-28, AVweb has published a very interesting and thoughtful article written by a non-aviator who witnessed the crash. Twenty-year-old Chloe Barkdoll describes the effect seeing this sort of accident has on non aviators. This is very well written and certainly should give airshow organizers and pilots something to think about.

I think her message is clear, while airshows can motivate and inspire people to fly, or at least become aviation fans and supporters, one accident can turn thousands of people into aviation opponents. We need to put safety ahead of all other considerations in airshow planning if we are to avoid this.

Presentation: "Rejuvenating General Aviation…..from the ground up!"

2011-09-20T10:26:00.005-04:00

From: Bruce Dwyer, Professor/Coordinator Aviation Studies, Algonquin College:

Rejuvenating General Aviation…..from the ground up!

Presented by: the Raviator

Time: Monday 26 September 2011, 19:30 hrs

Location: Canada Aviation and Space Museum, Main Theater

You are cordially invited to join Algonquin College students in the Aviation Management and Aircraft Maintenance programs at the Museum next Monday for an evening presentation by Ravi. I have seen Ravi perform this summer at Oshkosh both on stage at the NAFI (National Association of Flight Instructors) breakfast as a guest speaker and heard him perform with his guitar at the Sennheiser booth. Last year I was also at the presentation Ravi gave during the ATAC (Air Transport Association of Canada) meetings.

If you are interested in Aviation and passionate about seeing General Aviation grow in Canada then I think you will enjoy this event and hope that you take the time to come join us next Monday. See Poster Attached!!!

All Flight Schools and Students are welcome to attend!!!

The event is free and you can even enter to win a Sennheiser HD 238 high performance headphone!

British Commonwealth Air Training Plan Tribute

2011-09-12T16:01:00.007-04:00

From John Phillips, West Capital Dev elopments:

In 2011, Vintage Wings of Canada will pay tribute to one of the greatest military and industrial achievements in Canada, indeed the world, during the Second World War. The British Commonwealth Air Training Plan (BCATP) was a stunning achievement in planning, construction, community involvement and aircrew training that involved every province of Canada, hundreds of small and medium sized communities across the country, and hundreds of thousands of airmen from Canada, the British Commonwealth and the United States of America.

The Vintage Wings of Canada "Yellow Wings" program will span a year and a country to bring the story of how everyday Canadians, communities and companies did their part as the Aerodrome of Democracy to win the war against two evil empires.

September 24th, between 10:00 am and 5:00 pm the planes will be at Carp Airport (CYRP). West Capital Developments will be providing a shuttle service from the airport to the Carp Fair which will be going on the same weekend. Planes include the Vintage Wings Harvard, Tiger Moth, Cornell, Finch and Stearman.

More information www.yellowwings.ca

Ottawa Flying Club Needs Volunteers for Fly Day 1 October 2011

2011-09-03T08:44:00.005-04:00

From Marc Desjardins, President, Ottawa Flying Club:

Hosted by the Ottawa Flying Club, Fly Day is an event supported and contributed to by local area pilots, aviation related businesses and organizations, many sponsors, and the Ottawa Rotary Club, and we need volunteers to make it work! Fly Day

Fly Day Pilots Wanted!

Pilots with 4-place aircraft are needed for the 53rd Annual Fly Day at the Ottawa Flying Club to carry out sightseeing flights over Ottawa.

If you are a pilot with:

· A Private or Commercial Licence

· 100 hours or more PIC (special consideration for Algonquin students who wish to volunteer with 85 hours PIC and reviewed by CFI)

· 10 hours on Type

· 10 hours in the previous 12 months (or a checkout by an OFC instructor)

· Familiarity with procedures at Ottawa

· Recency and Currency as per the CARS

· 1 hour PIC or Dual within the last 30 days before FlyDay, and

· a 4-place (or better) aircraft to fly (owned or rented)

...you can take part in Fly Day!

Benefits

If you fly as a volunteer pilot, you will receive:

· Tax receipts for all operating costs

· Free Fuel

· Landing and Departure at CYOW are waived for participating aircraft

All of the Cessna 172s and the Beech Duchess have been reserved for rental use on Fly Day.

Ground volunteers needed too!

Ground volunteers are needed to escort passengers to and from the aircraft and to marshal aircraft.

As most activities take place on the OFC ramp, ground volunteers are required to be licensed pilots, student pilots with their student pilot permit, or airport authority red pass holders.

To Volunteer

If you are interested in flying or for volunteering for other activities, in taking a ride at the event, in being a sponsor, or contributing a static exhibit, please contact Marc Desjardins.

Website: http://flyday.ca/

Ottawa International Runway 04/22 Repaving

2011-08-16T17:53:00.011-04:00

Ottawa International's general aviation runway 04/22 will finally be repaved this summer, starting on Monday 22 August 2011.

The work includes repairing the existing runway surface and some taxiways, plus creating a new taxiway from the button of runway 04 to the Ottawa Flying Club. Designated taxiway "S", the new route will enable aircraft to use the full length off 04 on take-off without requiring a backtrack.

As part of the job most of taxiway "P" and the other unused asphalt left over from the World War II runways in the north in-field will be removed. The part of taxiway "P" that joins "S" to 04/22 will be repaved.

The repaving work by Tomlinson is expected to take 2-3 weeks and thus should be done by mid-September.

* Ottawa Flying Club Article

Dubai to Seattle with Al Hepburn Part 15

2011-08-01T09:01:00.001-04:00

Now that he is home, safe and sound, Al has posted a selection of photos from his flight.

Print Your Own Aircraft?

2011-07-30T19:17:00.005-04:00

That may not be as far-fetched as it sounds, in fact it has already been done!

Scientists in the UK designed a small UAV using CAD-CAM software, printed it out with a 3D printer, assembled it and flew it all in a five day period. This is a sophisticated design, too, with a geodesic structure.

3D printing is a relatively new technology that works similarly to a paper printer, except that the 3D printer builds up layers of plastics to form a three dimensional shape.

Now it is true that this is only a small aircraft with a wingspan just under 5 feet, but you have to start somewhere. It wouldn't take a lot to scale this up to man-carrying size and essentially print your own kitplane. The main advantage here is the speed at which this can be done.

* Story
* Video

Canada eh! ForeFlight on my iPad

2011-07-29T16:10:00.001-04:00

ForeFlight is nice software for the iPad. It even has some Canadian information.

You have several options for chart and airport information. The first option below is really US based and gives only coincidental Canadian information along the border. The second option adds dereferencing to approach plates in the USA, not sure if this is true in Canada. The third option adds Canadian IFR information such as departure, approach and arrival plates. As well as Canadain Low and High Enroute charts, but no IFR Terminal Charts. The last choice is the same as the number 1 but for three months.

ForeFlight HD 1 year 74.99
ForeFlight Pro 1 year 149.99
ForeFlight Mobile Aviation Weather, Flight Planning, EFB, and Charts, Canada IFR (1 Year), Seller: ForeFlight, LLC 149.99
Foreflight HD 3 mos 24.99

I selected the 3rd choice above and was immediately billed 149.99 plus HST for a total of CAD$169.49. I assumed the software is priced in US Dollars, but no, I was charged the same prices in Canadian Dollars at a loss of exchange of about 5%. Thanks Apple!

Canadian pilots that fly under the Instrument Flight Rules IFR will get most of what they need. The weak link is for Canadian Visual Flight Rules guys like me. The Sectionals are just that FAA charts that happen to include parts of Canada along the border. This is not serious if you live in Southern Ontario, but even there it could mislead one into missing Mandatory Frequency (MFs) airports where one is obligated to use the radio. Also, some Class D Transponder areas could be missed such as around Ottawa. FAA Sectionals always warn pilots to use Canadian Charts and publications in Canadian airspace. There are no Canadian VFR Terminal Area Charts (VTAs).

Most Canadian aerodromes at there. I assume they are also in the US versions of the software. I believe the source is the US defense department data. The current update includes correct frequencies even for pretty small aerodromes, such as Embrun, CPR2. In past versions of the data, frequencies were missing for small airports like Embrun.

I have not explored the whole package, but clearly the ForeFlight folks have done Canada well in this update.

Michael Shaw

airmail@rogers.com

Dubai to Seattle with Al Hepburn Part 14

2011-07-22T18:44:00.000-04:00

Our non-flying day in Anchorage was spent - flying. We got a ride in a Cessna 206 floatplane of Rust's Flying Service up to the glacier. It was neat - we landed on the lake at the end of the glacier and taxied beside the ice walls. Not in the same class as the icebergs in Ilulissat, Camilla, but still pretty impressive. Also there were a few moose on the river flats.

Later in the day, we took off and flew VFR around Mt. McKinley (the highest mountain in North America at 20,300'). Not too sure about the regs regarding height above terrain that goes above 18,000', but ATC said we could not go above 17,500', so we actually never went above 16.5. Got some spectacular photos.

Next day, I was able to convince Wei that 1300 miles direct without a guaranteed tailwind was not a good plan and we decided to stop for breakfast/lunch at Juneau, the state capital (population 30,000). We were IFR at FL270 and could see Mt Logan (~19,000') off to the east, so asked ATC for a deviation to fly around it. No problem. Imagine trying this in China!

We grabbed a burger in Donna's Diner at Juneau (first burger of the trip) and continued on top of a cloud deck down to Boeing Field Seattle. The hotel Wei had booked turned out only to have one bed in the room, but our friendly taxi driver found another. I snuck out at 5:45 next morning and took the high speed ferry to Victoria BC, where I was met by Roy Olmstead, a long time friend from AECL days. Now enjoying some R&R in Campbell River BC before returning to Ontario on Sunday.

That's it, folks. The last update. I hope you enjoyed the tale.

Al Hepburn

Dubai to Seattle with Al Hepburn Part 13

2011-07-19T12:38:00.001-04:00

We had great weather for the trip across Siberia to Anadyr and the Russians were really efficient, so everything went on schedule, until we got to Anadyr. It seems the ferry schedule across to the town has changed. We were told that it now runs only 3 times a day, and the last one was at 5 o'clock, so we'd missed it. They had arranged for us to stay at the airport hotel. No restaurant, no internet, and all for $180 a night. We bought some food in the store and made our own supper and breakfast. It turns out that a private boat could have been arranged. I suspect they were just trying to generate business for the airport hotel.

Next morning, we had a one-hour delay getting fuel and finding a form which had been given to Wei on arrival in Russia. Then we were off on the leg to Anchorage, based on the TAF and a text message from Air Journey about enroute conditions, which fortunately were not complicated. So now we have a day's rest in Anchorage before heading down the coast to Seattle tomorrow. We had hoped to do some sightseeing along the way, but that isn't going to happen, due to a low over the Alaska panhandle and the Queen Charlottes. The good news is we should have some help from the wind, so should be able to make the trip direct. That should put is in to Boeing Field mid afternoon.

Dubai to Seattle with Al Hepburn Part 12

2011-07-17T08:48:00.000-04:00

We had one full day in Harbin, during which the only activity of note was a visit to the Siberian tiger park, a safari park where view the tigers from the safety of buses. Two or three chickens and a couple of ducks were not so lucky. There must have been at least a hundred tigers in the park.

I tried to have our flight plan brought forward an hour next morning, but as this would have involved a change in permits via Moscow, I decided it was not worth the risk and we left our departure at noon local time. We finally got the nod at 1:30. The delay was blamed on military activity, but Wei says he thinks they were waiting for a bribe to speed things up.

We had a few build-ups to dodge on the way to Khabarovsk, but on arrival the weather was severe clear. We were in our hotel with refuelling complete within an hour of touchdown, so if we have an equally efficient start, things look good for tomorrow. Khabarovsk has a pleasant park with fountains in the middle of town, and an impressive Russian Orthodox cathedral.

A long day is planned tomorrow, from here to Anadyr, with a fuel stop and Magadan. The weather looks good, however.

Alan

Dubai to Seattle with Al Hepburn Part 11

2011-07-15T19:46:00.000-04:00

On July 12, we flew from Xian to Beijing. I believe we were the first single engine airplane to be permitted to land there. On arrival the visibility was advertised as 3000m, but it was more like 1000. There is a business aviation center there and that's where we went for another big welcoming committee. Carolyn got in around 5 p.m. This stop was managed by Chinese AOPA, which has 1000 members, a beautiful magazine (at least it is nicely printed and has nice pictures - I couldn't read a word of it, of course), but I doubt if the own an airplane amongst them, unless you count Wei, who I'm sure is a member.

Next day, Carolyn and I went out to the Great Wall and there was an AOPA meeting in the late afternoon, featuring Wei. Only trouble was, he failed to show. He had taken the media out to see the airplane at 08:00, and it took all day to get permission to take them out to the ramp. He finally showed about 10 minutes before the mandatory banquet.

The following day, Carolyn and I visited Tienanmen Square and the Forbidden City. We went by subway, which was an experience in itself, and a guide picked us up as we left the station. He was a school teacher, moonlighting to make a little extra money. Both sites were interesting. Lots of Chinese tourists wanting to be photographed with the round-eyes. The traffic in Beijing was heavy, but not impossible. You might credit this to the fact that, ten years ago, there were only bicycles, so the car population is relatively young. But there's another explanation. Your licence plate in Beijing is only valid one day a week!

On the 15th, we left the hotel at 05:00 to be airborne by 08:00, as mandated by ATC. Carolyn headed back home later that day. When we were ready to taxi, it emerged that there was a problem. The yellow line from our parking spot crossed another parking stand, and there was an A320 parked on this stand. No matter that there was 300 feet between it and the next airplane, and our wingspan was about 45 feet. The system says you must follow the yellow line, so if something is parked on that yellow line, you're screwed. And nobody knew when the A320 was going to move. We weren't the only ones affected - there was a bizjet sitting with his APU running as well. Finally, after 3 hours, they moved the offending airplane, and after a long delay due to departures, we were airborne for Harbin, in northeastern China.

On arrival, there was a presentation of cheques to some deserving school children to further their education. The poor kids had, of course, been waiting for several hours also. It was pretty touching, actually. One of the girls had tears running down her face as she accepted the cheque. This will probably make a huge difference to their lives.

So now, I am in Harbin, a little provincial town of 12 million or so, where we expect to see the Siberian tiger collection at the zoo this afternoon. Tomorrow at noon, we head off to Khabarovsk, Russia, assuming the permits arrive in time. The original plan was to go to Sakhalin, but the airport there is closed for runway repairs, hence the change in plan.

Stay tuned.

Al

Morrisburg Aerodrome (CNS8) not Closing, For Now.

2011-07-14T09:11:00.001-04:00

Pilots fly to Morrisburg to show their support. This photo is looking east towards the golf course from the button of Rwy 25 at Morrisburg CNS8.

Over the past year or so, there had been rumours that the St. Lawrence Park’s Commission was planning to close its Airport (CNS8). On 12 July 2011 a group of Eastern Ontario pilots flew into the airport to meet with the Darren Dalgleish, the Commission’s GM and CEO.

Darren Dalgleish is at the head of the table in the photo.

As requested by Patrick Gilligan of COPA, Darren Dalgleish and some of his staff met us at the airport. We then walked over to the Admin building across the road. 9 planes flew in and about 20 pilots from Cornwall, Iroquois, Ottawa, Carp, Bearbrook, Ingleside and Embrun dropped in to show their support. To use the Darren's language, there is no current plan to close the airport, but the Commission must rationalize each asset, and so far see no revenue and fortunately little cost is associated with their airport. The Parks Commission wants the airport to complement their primary activity at Upper Canada Village. Dalgleish noted that the Parks Commission has to ask the Ontario Government to cover its operating short fall each year to the tune of $1.8M. He noted that he has no experience in running an airport and would welcome any suggestions from the flying community.

Various models of management and operation of the small airports were discussed. JD Ross from Iroquois (CNP7) describe how the City of Iroquois manages their airport successfully in a town recreation park using local pilots to manage the airport under an agreement with the city. The Rockcliffe model was described where the Museum owns the land, they have an Airport Commission, and management and operation is by Rockcliffe Flying Club. Capital projects are shared between the Museum and the Flying Club.

The Parks Commission has no idea how much use the airport actually gets. Their primary concern is exposure to risk and liability. Several pilots noted that the CARs put responsibility for the airports they use directly on them, not specifically the airport operator. That said, it was also noted that aerodromes must follow the CARs too. The Ontario Government self-insures the Park. The pilots suggested that the airport ask pilots to sign a book to keep some record of usage.

Pilots talked about how the airport draws them to Upper Canada Village, the Golf course, Restaurant and marina several times a year. In fact, several attendees arrived early enough to lunch at the Golf course. It is this ability and the easy access to Upper Canada Village that makes the airport an attraction for local pilots. Some suggested wider advertising to draw other flying visitors, perhaps even Airport of Entry status for visitors from outside Canada. Pilots pointed to Lamacaza airport near Mount Tremblent as a successful small airport. As well some suggested hangars and a flight school might work to improve revenues from the airport. Several private airport operators present noted that when the paved runway is no longer useable they switch to grass which is cheaper to maintain. Only the Mooney pilot from Cornwall indicated he preferred asphalt.

Patrick Gilligan suggested that an annual fly-in breakfast associated with a visit to Upper Canada Village could be used to involve the local communities and pilots, and perhaps raise revenues. This could be arranged by one or more of the local COPA Flights and take advantage of COPA’s insurance.

It was an upbeat productive meeting introducing aviation to the St. Lawrence Parks Commission management and the Park’s Commission to local Pilots. COPA Flight 8 thanks Darren Dalgleish and his staff for inviting us to meet.

Dubai to Seattle with Al Hepburn Part 10

2011-07-11T11:04:00.000-04:00

Our first internal leg in China, from Changsha to Xian was uneventful. The main impression is that the visibility in the cities is mostly less than 3 km. Wei wants people in China to fly GA. Well, they're going to need an instrument rating before first solo!

Carolyn and I visited the Terracotta Warriors exhibit, and found it most interesting. The had amazing technology 2200 years ago - armour, bronze weapons, pottery in massive quantities, archers, cavalry etc.

Tomorrow, we leave the hotel at 04:20 local, as the want is to be on the ground in Beijing before 09:00 local. The main challenge looks to be low visibility in what the Chinese euphemistically refer to as "mist". Also, some scattered CBs.

Next report from the capital city, which apparently has been the forbidden city for private aircraft up until now.

Al

Dubai to Seattle with Al Hepburn Part 9

2011-07-07T06:59:00.000-04:00

We got off the ground at 11:52 local, and arrived in Changsha, China at 1:37. Despite our agreement to use English unless clarification was required, Wei insisted on talking to the controller in Mandarin, which I think confused him a bit. However, everything was quite unremarkable. Altitudes were, of course, in metric. The weather on arrival was hot and humid. The advertised visibility with 10km+, but I think this is a public relations move. Right now, they are still calling at 7km, but looking out the window, it can't be better than 3km.

This is Wei's home town, so again there was a big welcoming committee. They are saying this is the first single engine airplane to be allowed in to China, but it seems to me a Spanish airline captain flew a Kitfox to Oshkosh via China several years ago. Maybe he went through Taiwan. Also, I think a few single airplanes flew in from Burma during the Second World War. I'm really puzzled by what all the fuss is about. You'd think we'd achieved something remarkable. Now, if we'd been flying a Kitfox, I could have seen cause for celebration.

We were warned by the Boeing Business Jet captain who briefed us yesterday to expect a track offset clearance, but that did not happen. I suspect there is not much demand for the levels at which we fly. Frankly, things were pretty quiet all the way.

We are here for 3 nights, then off to Xianyang, followed by Beijing. Hopefully, based on today's performance, Wei will be able to negotiate a more civilized arrival time.

For some reason eurofpl would not accept our route BEKOL A461 LIG ZGHA. It changed the EET to several hours, so obviously it thought one of the waypoints was on another continent.

Al Hepburn

Dubai to Seattle with Al Hepburn Part 8

2011-07-06T10:06:00.000-04:00

We have permits to go in to China, and it appears we will be operating under English ATC at the airports we will be using, so tomorrow, in we go. Apparently, this will be the first time that a foreign-registered single engine airplane has been allowed in. Also, we are being allowed in to Beijing in a few days, but they are not taking any chances. Arrival after midnight and departure before 6 a.m.

WX tomorrow is forecast to be OK, just some scattered thundershowers. Wish us luck.

Al Hepburn.

Dubai to Seattle with Al Hepburn Part 7

2011-07-03T12:23:00.000-04:00

We had another uneventful flight down from Laos to Ho Chi Minh City yesterday afternoon. There were a few potholes in the road as we descended into Vietnam, but nothing unusual. The handling bill in Laos was again fierce. No wonder, they flew the handler's representative up from Bangkok to look after us, kept her there two nights, then flew her back again! Nobody said anything about GA being competitive in this part of the world.

I shudder to think what the handling bill here is going to be like, since the airplane is occupying an airline stand for the best part of two days, and these stands normally rent by the hour. Ah well, that part of it is not my planning and not my bank account, thank God.

Today, we visited an orphanage, where Wei and his friend (who has been with us since Bangkok) made some donations. The theme of his flight is helping kids around the world. This afternoon we went out on the river for lunch at a small town, Mytho, on another arm of the Mekong Delta. These Chinese never stop eating! We stopped at three different locations and ate at each.

Tomorrow morning we're off bright and early to Hong Kong, where Carolyn should join us. I guess I screwed up on her flight, with the date, airline, etc., so she will arrive a few hours after us, rather than the day before. I had advised Wei before the start of the trip that he should get a qualified Chinese pilot to accompany him in to China, and he said he had one. However, this guy is a Cessna 172 instructor who has difficulty communicating with ATC, as he speaks Cantonese, so that is not very promising. I want to check the Chinese AIP when we get to Hong Kong, but I suspect that, on non-English ATC routes (which he will be on) there will be a requirement to have a crew member with a "Mandarin Competent" statement (similar to our English competent statement) aboard, and Wei does not have one, of course. While Mandarin is his mother tongue, he does not know Mandarin ATC speak, so I don't know whether this proposed trip into China is going to work. He does, however, have the permits from the Chinese government to go in. Maybe he can get a Chinese pilot to brief him in Hong Kong. Stay tuned for the next episode!

Al

Dubai to Seattle with Al Hepburn Part 6

2011-06-30T07:28:00.003-04:00

We arrived here in Laos after an uneventful 1 hour trip from Bangkok.

At Bangkok, there was a media extravaganza on arrival. Two busloads of fans to great the intrepid pilot, then a party in the evening with hundreds of guests, including a representative from the Chinese Embassy (see photo).

We saw the Grand Palace (really, a whole collection of palaces) yesterday morning, but I think some of the food at the party must have disagreed with me, so I took the rest of the day off, and had a small meal in the Italian restaurant (only customer) last night. Pretty well back to normal today, but now Wei has the bug, so it's not only round-eyes who are affected.

Our missing Jep charts finally caught up with us from Reykjavik (have been using my year old ones up to now). It took 1 1/2 hours to drive to the DHL service centre to pick them up, and we never left the city.

The handling bill at Bangkok was the highest so far ($3,500). After this, $1,500 a landing in Russia is going to look like a bargain. For any Scotsmen, the real challenge is to fly around the world and not pay a single handling fee. I doubt if that's possible, except in a real long range airplane, or maybe a balloon.

Al

Dubai to Seattle with Al Hepburn Part 5

2011-06-28T06:57:00.000-04:00

We had a trouble free ride from Agra to Calcutta. In view of the concerns about high oil temperature, we climbed over the airport at Agra before proceeding on course. However, all we saw was a couple of very brief excursions above the redline and this is normal according to the ops manual, so we are putting it down to high ambient temperatures. Socata, the manufacturer of the airplane, do not seem to be concerned.

The weather enroute was better than expected, with only isolated buildups above our level (FL270). So apparently these cloud charts are a bit pessimistic.

As we joined the localizer, tower advised us that there was "heavy rain over the field". Sure enough, we touched down in decent weather and rolled out into a waterfall. We sat in the airplane on the ramp for half an hour before anyone came to meet us.

I'm rather glad we're only staying one night here. The place is like a big, overpopulated trash heap. Quite a jolt to the senses.

Off this morning to Bangkok, where apparently there will be a big media extravaganza. Looks like the weather should be similar to yesterday, with isolated thundershowers forecast. Let's hope they don't get the one on arrival right over the field.

Al

Dubai to Seattle with Al Hepburn Part 4

2011-06-26T06:56:00.000-04:00

We are waiting to see if we can get a new oil temp. probe. Also, since it is the weekend, we cannot get any permits approved to go any futher until tomorrow. We tested the engine on the ground today, and everything was normal. We plan to head towards Kolkuta tomorrow, but stay over the airfield for 10 minutes or so before proceeding enroute. Meanwhile, the dreaded monsoon seems to be advancing. Today, it looks like we might have made it as far as Patna, or even Kolkuta with a bit of luck. The southern alternative, through Sri Lanka and across to Puket does not look like it would have been very nice today either. Stay tuned.

Al

Dubai to Seattle with Al Hepburn Part 3

2011-06-25T07:58:00.003-04:00

Well, here we are in Agra, and all set to visit the Taj Mahal this morning.

It has not been an uneventful trip, but contrary to expectations, weather has not been a major issue.

I forgot to mention in my last report that Wei had no charts beyond Europe. The are apparently resting in the Hotel Borg in Reykjavik. After thinking of the alternative, we decided to press on with my 2010 vintage charts. It has not so far been an issue. The only glitch was that our filed airway through Pakistan was not on the chart, but thanks to the Garmin 750, we had airways defined in the database.

Our brief look at Muscat in the morning revealed quite mountainous terrain, without the high rise architecture of Dubai. They have oil in more moderate quantities, but much more minerals. As usual, we had delays getting out of Muscat. The flight to Ahmedabad (VAAH) was uneventful. On arrival, we had to go through the international terminal. There was a minor problem because we had invited along a friend who was not included in our permit for Agra, our next destination, which is a military airport. However, the handler was able to fix this.

Departure required us to go out through the domestic terminal. So we wound up with a very close run thing getting in to Agra before they closed.

Crossing Jaipur, we had an indication of high oil temperature. The gauge was fluctuating, and I suspect a sensor problem, but this has still to be resolved.

On arrival at Agra, we found the ILS (the only approach for which we had an IAP) was unavailable. Fortunately, it was good VMC, so we just did a visual approach. The main feature of the trip in the dark to the hotel was the incredible traffic. This has to be the definition of anarchy. But we arrived unscathed.

Stay tuned.

Al

Dubai to Seattle with Al Hepburn Part 2

2011-06-23T22:21:00.001-04:00

Dubai was rather interesting, but the whole place is kind of like an oversized American theme park. Construction is evident everywhere. Virtually the whole place was built within the last ten years. Took a desert safari where they take you out and drive you around the desert in SUVs. There are dozens of them out there driving around the dunes which are composed of very fine wind blown sand.

Our departure was delayed by lack of action on the part of the client, and (sorry Trevor) by a glitch in Eurofpl. The locals insisted on adding "R" to the equipment codes, despite the fact that we had G there already, and when did that, we got some kind of weird error (R added and not something or other), which forced us into manual filing. That took a while. Eventually, we had an uneventful flight down to Muscat, arriving after dark. No language problems, because all the controllers are Brits, US etc.

As far as we can see in the dark, Muscat is a lot more interesting and beautiful. We don't know whether we will get out tomorrow or not. Lots of convective cloud with out destination VAAH just on the edge of it. Stay tuned.

Al

Dubai to Seattle with Al Hepburn Part 1

2011-06-20T13:01:00.004-04:00

Well-known (at least to Flight 8 members) globe-trotting pilot Al Hepburn of Pembroke, Ontario is off on another adventure and the Flight 8 blog will be posting updates from Al as he does his trip.

******************************************************************************
Al explains the trip:

The proposed route is Dubai – Muscat – Amehabad, India – Agra, India, Kolkuta, India – Bangkok – Vientanne – Ho Chi Minh City – Hong Kong. At this point, there’s a big question mark on whether my client, Wei Chen (his website) will be able to fly in to China. He has apparently located a Chinese pilot to help him do this. I was not interested in flying in an environment where ATC was not in English. After China, the plan is to proceed to Seattle via Sakhalin, Russia – Petropavlovsk – Anadyr and Anchorage Alaska. Wei’s main objective appears to be publicizing his trip. He has several publicity events set up that cannot be missed. No harm in hoping, I guess.

There’s a well known quote by Robert Burns, Scotland’s national poet: “The best laid schemes o’ mice and men gang aft agley (often go wrong)”.

At this point, the major challenge appears to be getting through the monsoon in India, which sounds kind of scary. You can get an idea of the weather in close to real time by looking at this website.

Remember, India is Z+5.5 hours. Although I intend to use Eurofpl to file the flight plans, there is no real-time tracking available in that part of the world, though Wei does carry Spidertracks which provides tracking to those with whom he is in contact.

The other challenges are the Indian bureaucracy, and what will happen in China. If I’m off the program for 10 days while Wei is in China, Carolyn may come out to Hong Kong to join me. Since Russia is now a known quantity, the bureaucracy there does not loom so large as it otherwise might.

The equipment, by the way, is a TBM 700, which cruises around 275 knots at FL270, and at a stretch can fly 1500 nm.

So, I’m off to Dubai tonight. I’ll send a progress report when there is some progress to report. Wish me luck. Stay tuned.

Al Hepburn

Leavens Aviation Closing

2011-06-20T10:09:00.006-04:00

Leavens Aviation, in business since 1927 as an air carrier, aircraft manufacturer and more recently as a parts supplier and engine overhauler will be closing on 31 August 2011. In a recent e-mail to customers the management explains the move:

***************************************************************************

June 15, 2011

Dear Valued Customer:

As you're probably now aware, Leavens Aviation Inc. has decided to wind-up its operations. After 84 year in the aviation business this is, of course, a very difficult decision but one which we, as a family, felt needed to be made.

Our initial plan had been to wind-up the Parts side of the business and, under different Leavens' ownership structure, keep the shop side of the business going. That, unfortunately, couldn'tbe accomplished.

However, our Propeller, Accessory, Hose and Cable shops appear to have found a new life. two of our long-serving employees (George in Propellers and Harry in accessories) have acquired the shop tooling and equipment and are looking to make a new start in partnership with Quantum Aviation. I hope that you'll hear news from them in the very near future.

Also, we've been able to sell our Engine shop tooling and equipment to the Brampton Flight Centre and I hope thatyou'll hear news from them in the near future as well. Between now and then, however, we still have a few engines on the shelf, deeply discounted and ready to ship. Please review the attached Engine Sheet and let me know if you have any interest.

As to our timeline, we've conditionally sold the Mississauga building and are working to be moved out by August 31, 2011. (We'll still be available after that point, cleaning up our books and records and winding-up the financial side of things.) We're busily selling-off all of our parts inventory and appreciate all of the support that you all have shown during recent weeks. We still have quite a bit of inventory, and some real bargains, remaining.

Thank you all for your business and support over the years and for your many kind words during the past few months. If anyone requires advice on whereto turn for alternate supply sources, please don't hesitate to ask us.

Sincerely yours,

Jeff, Lea Anne, Heather & Bruce Leavens
Leavens Aviation Inc.
(905) 678-1234 ext 211
1-800-263-6142

***************************************************************************

The company website does not currently reflect this information, but a call today to the company confirms that it is accurate and that the website will be updated soon.

CYOW Noise Management Committee

2011-06-15T10:01:00.001-04:00

Cessna 150

Single engine light aircraft like this Cessna 150 draw a high share of noise complaints at Ottawa’s International Airport.

I attended Ottawa International Airport Authority’s Noise Management Committee meeting 7 June 2011. There is good noise news and bad. First the good news, Ottawa really does not have a noise problem. There was a increase in complaints from 55 in 2009 to 81 in 2010. At the same time there was a small increase in aircraft movements from 129,773 to 132,322. For every 1000 aircraft movements there are .61 complaints. I don’t have statistics for other airports but I am told that this is low in comparison with other major Canadian airports. As one would expect the majority of complaints come from residential areas, particularly for departures to the north that fly over the city off runway 32. Complaints generated by noisier aircraft like First Air’s now retired Boeing 727s have dropped. First Air replaced their B727s with Boeing 767s which are significantly quieter. Still military and noisier civil aircraft such as the older Boeing 737s generate some complaints. The airport is considering modifying its noise abatement procedures to limit the times of day when these noisier aircraft (Chapter 2) can operate. Such a change would be voluntary for Military activities.

The bad news is that many complaints are generated by light flight training aircraft operating on runway 04-22. Unfortunately the flight schools based at the airport chose not to attend the meeting. To mitigate this noise the Airport Authority is asking flight training and itinerant aircraft to turn crosswind after takeoff from runway 22 along Merivale Rd. I saw no reason why this could not be done to help mitigate noise. It would have been helpful if the based flight training operators had been at the meeting to comment on the proposal. My concern is that itinerant pilots likely would not know which road is Merivale Rd.

It was noted that there are a couple of repeat noise complainers, particularly about light aircraft. This is likely true at all airports. Nonetheless, if we can make safe small changes to our flight paths and practices to mitigate these complaints we should do so.

This figure shows current flight paths in blue along with the noise sensitive area in red. Following Merivale Rd. rather than over the noise sensitive area will not be difficult. Instructors can easily show student pilots the preferred routing to avoid noise complaints. This will move the downwind leg of the circuit farther from the airport and potentially increase risks if an engine failure occurs.

The other unusual complaint is generated by police aircraft. The Airport Authority obviously has no responsibility for this noise, although they do log the complaints. It was suggested that the police consider installing a quieter muffler system similar to those in use in Europe.

Interestingly there was also a discussion of the language used in Noise Abatement procedures, particularly, turbo-prop vs Turbo-jet. Apparently some more modern Turbo-fan aircraft do not believe the noise abatement semantics applies to them?

We light aircraft operators can do our part to mitigate aircraft noise that disturbs our neighbours. We certainly don’t want to see the Airport Authority give up on the north field and close it just because of noise we can control. Let’s do our part!

What Happened To The 2011 Classic Air Air Rallye?

2011-06-04T08:41:00.002-04:00

After attending the 2010 edition of this small airshow I noted that despite the perfect weather that attendance was poor. Probably only 500 spectators showed up on the Saturday of the show when I was there.

In that previous blog posting a number of theories were bandied about as to why the public were a no-show for the Air Rallye. These included the high price ($20 for adults), the economy, that the Air Rallye conflicted with the Central Canada Exhibition (Super EX), the level of disorganization at the Air Rallye, weather that was perhaps too nice, that the Air Rallye was too small and dull and also competition with the free and much larger Vintage Wings Open House and Airshow that was held at Gatineau Airport on the 4 July and which 25,000 people attended plus another free Gatineau Airshow in September that drew 15,000 people.

It looks like Flightworks, the group that has put on the Classic Air Rallye, has somewhat answered the question and also announced their plans for 2011. They say:

"The 2011 Classic Air Rallye"

We've been planning some changes for the Classic Air Rallye for the future. Not all these changes could be implemented for this year, so for 2011 only, here's what's happening."

"With the growth of the Vintage Wings show just across the river in September so close to our August date, the competition for resources - participants, volunteers, media, etc - was becoming too great. Therefore we decided to change our date to the beginning of the airshow season, in early June. The only date the Museum could accommodate us on this year was the June 18th weekend. This of course is the same date as the newly revived Hamilton show. So clearly we wouldn't be able to run the same sort of CAR as in previous years."

"So, for 2011, Flightworks is cooperating with the Museum in staging the Capital Classic Wings and Wheels show on June 18th. This will attract a large number of classic and collector cars, the reenactors, supported by an increased participation by fighting vehicles from the War Museum, and fly-in aircraft. There will not be a formal flying display, but pilots will as usual be welcome to participate and display their aircraft. And we'll be back on the first weekend in June 2012 with the full event."

This year's Wings Over Gatineau airshow will again feature a Canadian EAA convention, the Snowbirds and of course the Vintage Wings fleet. It will be held on 17 September 2011 and is in commemoration of Canada’s First and Second World War Victoria Cross Recipients. As in the past admission will be by donation.

The Classic Air Rallye indicates that they will have a regular airshow next on 2-3 June 2012. It will be interesting to see how that event pans out and whether the new date, as far from the Gatineau shows as possible, will bring the crowds back. My own guess is that even with that date spread, that they are still competing with Gatineau for price and that the past $20 admission for the Classic Air Rallye will have to come down to $10 or less if they are to draw a serious crowd to the event in 2012.

RAA Unveils New Website

2011-06-04T05:49:00.002-04:00

The Recreational Aircraft Association, based in Breslau, Ontario, has recently uploaded a new website.

The organization has had several different designs over the years, but this new one, created by George Gregory, is a very simple and clean layout and makes good use of attractive photos.

Have a look at:

*http://www.raa.ca/

New in Ottawa Skies

2011-06-03T20:17:00.007-04:00

It's orange and it makes a very different sound than the S-76A that it replaced on 7 May 2011. Almost everyone in Ottawa has probably seen the new AgustaWestland AW139 that is now operating from the Ornge base at the Ottawa International Airport, since it is hard to miss.

The two crew, 15 passenger aircraft is used in the medical evacuation role by Ornge, the non-profit foundation that runs Ontario's air ambulance service. Their original aircraft were Sikorsky S-76s, at first on contract from Canadian Helicopters and later Ornge-leased. The new AW139s are bigger, faster and louder than the S-76s they replace and also have more range.

Originally an Agusta-Bell joint venture to produce a new Twin Huey-sized medium utility helicopter, the first 54 built were designated AB139s. Bell dropped out of the project and Agusta continued on its own. After merging with the UK company Westland to become AgustaWestland in July 2000, the later build aircraft were designated as the AW139.

Like the similar-sized Bell 212 Twin Huey, the 139 is powered by twin Pratt and Whitney Canada PT-6 powerplants. These are the PT6C-67C version, however and put out 1,531 hp per side, propelling the 14,110 lb gross weight aircraft to a maximum speed of 193 mph. The aircraft is fairly clean for a helicopter and features retractable nose-wheel-configuration landing gear that gives it that higher top speed, a useful asset in medevac flying.

The 139 has a fully-articulated five-bladed main rotor that gives it a very different sound compared the four-bladed S-76 it replaces. It is definitely louder than the S-76 in flight, although the sound is nothing like the sharp bark of the old two-bladed Twin Huey, it is more like a slowly building whir when approaching.

The AW139 has been very successful with a wide range of customers, from the Bulgarian border police to the Lebanese Army. The 139 is the right size for medevac as well as SAR, executive transport, off-shore oil rig support and military troop-transport use. In fact an enlarged derivative, the AW149, was announced at the Farnborough Air Show in 2006 and is being actively developed.

The 139 is built in Italy and also on a second production line at the AgustaWestland Aerospace plant in Philadelphia.

In Ornge service the 139 is being deployed to seven bases. For this mission Ornge is acquiring eight aircraft, leaving one spare, which will be located in Toronto when it isn't needed elsewhere. The Ottawa base was the third to receive their 139, after Sudbury and London. The aircraft at the Ottawa base covers eastern Ontario including Algonquin Park, from Mattawa in the north, to Hawkesbury in the east, Cornwall in the south and Kingston in the west.

The Ornge 139s have special-configuration medevac interiors that include attendant seats that can swivel and traverse, allowing the paramedics to work on patients with unstrapping. The swivelling stretcher installation, that includes a lift and lower mechanism, permits much easier loading and unloading of patients and reduces the potential for paramedic injuries.

The AW139s belonging to Ornge will be a familiar sight around Ottawa and indeed most of Ontario this summer. They are hard to miss with their bright orange paint schemes, with their distinctive sound.

* AgustaWestland AW139 higher resolution photo

Election 2011

2011-04-19T12:18:00.001-04:00

City Center Airport Toronto

I sent the message immediately below to the candidates in my riding, Ottawa – Orleans, namely Royal Galipeau (Conservative), David Bertschi (Liberal), Martine Cenatus (NDP) and Paul Maillet (Green).

Dear Candidates

I am writing to you to get your opinions on various issues related to personal aviation.

First, I am a private pilot and owner of a light aircraft. I use it for personal travel. Although it is currently not flying, when it is, it is based at Rockcliffe airport here in Ottawa.

As a pilot I would like to confirm your disagreement with the proposed Kettle Island interprovincial bridge which may potentially make Rockcliffe Airport unusable, not to mention clearly putting truck traffic through the backyards of many families in Ottawa. I live in Orleans and support a new interprovincial bridge being built at Lower Duck Island. This location will remove truck traffic from downtown Ottawa and its residential neighbourhoods. Will you support this option and ensure the continued life of Rockcliffe Airport?

As well Canada lacks a clear policy on airports primarily used by personal aircraft, namely Local and Regional airports. This has lead to the announced closure of Edmonton City Centre airport and Buttonville Airport in Markham, On. Both relieve nearby international airports by attracting corporate and personal aircraft that would otherwise consume valuable capacity built to accommodate scheduled airlines at the international airports. Canadian cities tend to be poorly served by reliever airports when compared to other similar cities in North America and the World. This is largely because of a policy vacuum at the federal government level. Currently all levels of government neglect their airport infrastructure primarily in response to the early 1990s National Airports Policy, which was aimed at removing airports from the federal budget process.

Will you support development of a comprehensive airport policy, dealing with both large and small airports, by the Minister of Transport in consultation with stakeholders and the other jurisdictions?

Also, will you commit to supporting a review of Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELTs) regulations that currently require aircraft owners to install devices that have proven to fail in most accidents and hence save few lives? Better technology is available and government should consider alternatives to the current regulations. Will you support reviewing the Canadian Air Regulations as they apply to ELTs?

Sincerely,

Mike

Michael Shaw

Captain: Flight 8 - Ottawa - Canadian Owners and Pilots Association

VP, Short Wings Over Canada Chapter (formerly Seaway Chapter) Short Wing Piper Club

airmail@rogers.com

mike@mikegail.com

http://shortwingsovercanada.com

http://web.ncf.ca/fn352/flight8/

http://copa8.blogspot.com

613-824-7145

Orleans, ON

Canada

**********************

So far, at 11:40 19 April 2011, only two candidates have replied to my message, the Greens (twice) and the Conservative.

Here are the responses in the order they were received:

*******************

CONSERVATIVE PARTY

Mr. Shaw,

Thank you for your message regarding a new proposed interprovincial bridge.

It is important to understand that this project has been in the making for over fifty years. I have been very clear that I support the conclusions of the Greber Report which acknowledges the need for an interprovincial bridge at Kettle Island. This is the most logical place for a bridge in the NCR.

That said, my primary concern regarding a bridge is that it not intrude on our Greenbelt. The Greenbelt is a treasure in our community and some proposals for a bridge intrude on it. These proposals should not even be considered.

I trust that this information will be satisfactory to you. Thank you for your time.

Sincerely yours,

Royal

Royal Galipeau’, the incumbent, seems unwilling to consider other bridge locations, or even mention airport policies, or ELTs. This makes him appear to have a closed mind! Mike

*********************

GREEN PARTY: (3 messages)

18:40 18 April

(to Mr. Shaw)

We are for a fair solution that does not create any more fatalities on King Edward by thousands of truck going through the center of the city. This will require cooperation from all communities, but we must put lives first.

That is our position.

regards

Paul.

Paul Maillet

Candidate

Green Party of Canada Ottawa Orleans

Tel: 613.841.9216 Cell: 613.866.2503

Web: http://paulmailletgreenpartyorleans.wordpress.com

Twitter @PaulMaillet

Facebook

__________________

14:35 18 April 2011

To me from Rob Schmidt

I saw a response from Paul Maillet about the Kettle Island option and wanted to quickly clarify our position in Ottawa Vanier.

We are against the Kettle Island Bridge option. We believe there are alternatives that mean no new bridge will be built, but if there needs to be a bridge we agree with Mauril's preference: the Canotek Road idea that would preserve the Green Belt and reduce impact on residential communities significantly.

Rob Schmidt

Campaign Manager for Caroline Rioux

Green Party Ottawa Vanier

Sent from my iPad

__________________

12:38 16 April

Dear Mr. Shaw

As a retired Air Force Colonel with 33 years service. I do understand the challenges of aviation in terms of rising costs, airspace management, flight safety, airport availability, and the regulatory framework.

The issue of the interprovincial bridge is primarily an issue of the Vanier riding, however, I firmly believe in the urban planning imperative that communities have a strong and significant voice in development decisions that most affect them. That voice I will support. The bridge decision is important in that the congestion and fatality incidence on King Edward is clearly unacceptable. The kettle island decision impacts residents of Manor Park, your airport and the Montfort Hospital. The road network to receive the bridge in Gatineau also deserves consideration. The economics and truck traffic patterns have their arguments. The challenge is to balance competing interests so that all are satisfied to the maximum extent possible. You are one of the stakeholders involved that deserve consideration. That I completely agree with and now we need to be able to make it heard.

Regarding comprehensive airport policy I do agree that a reasonable balance between large and small airports is essential for a country of this size and for the sustainability of large, small and recreational operators. We have the same problem in agriculture between family and corporate farming. Everyone deserves a fair share of the capacity, financial support and resources available. A policy is overdue.

Being a former aerospace engineering officer, the issue of flight safety is always a real concern. I am not aware of ELT failure incidence data, but would always be in favour of better solutions and advances in technology. I agree that air regulations need to keep up to date with advances and more cost effective alternatives. I would support CAR reviews periodically in this respect, and for other improvement opportunities available.

I do hope I am given the opportunity to represent aviation issues in the next parliament.

Regards

Paul

Paul Maillet

Colonel retired

Candidate - Green Party of Canada Ottawa Orleans

Tel: 613.841.9216 Cell: 613.866.2503

Web: http://paulmailletgreenpartyorleans.wordpress.com

Twitter @PaulMaillet

Facebook

The Green Party seems to have an open mind and potentially an understanding of the issues. Mike

***************

LIBERAL PARTY: no reply

Their silence is deafening? Current National Airports Policy was developed under the liberals. Minister of Transport was Doug Young. Mike

***************

NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY (NDP): no reply

Are they afraid to engage a citizen? Mike

Some Aviation Good News

2011-04-07T20:27:00.001-04:00

The aviation news all seems to be bad these days. For instance Narco is in liquidation, there was a tornado that wrecked 40 aircraft at Sun 'n Fun, Diamond Aircraft is not doing well and then there is the price of avgas hovering at $1.50 per litre here in Ottawa and definitely looking to be on the way up.

But there are some good news story in aviation this week. First off the Chinese government buy-out of Cirrus is proceeding and that is a good thing because the company was heading towards bankruptcy and no one in North America seemed interested in buying it. A Chinese-owned Cirrus is better than no Cirrus at all.

At Sun 'n Fun 2011 Cessna launched its new update to the Cessna 400 (Formerly the Columbia 400 and Lancair Certified LC41-550FG before that) which includes a whole new avionics package including IR touchscreens, an updated interior and even snazzy new paint. The TTX model is now the only one in the stable and the older Cessna 350 has been discontinued. The really good news is that the TTX got lots of attention at SNF and picked up 16 orders. That may not sound like many, but Cessna only sold seven of them in all of 2010, so that is a good sign. Cessna also sold 13 high-wing piston singles and one Cessna 208 Caravan and SNF, so they had a good trip there from Wichita.

Also at SNF LoPresti Speed Merchants introduced seven new speed mods and business was brisk for them. Evektor sold seven SportStar light sport aircraft and the WACO Classic sold six brand new Great Lakes biplanes. It seems that at least some people are buying in the aviation world here in 2011.

As far as Ottawa goes the last of the snow has just melted and the next week or two promise temperatures close to 20C or so. It sounds like spring is here and the skies beckon to do some flying.

Some uplifting reading:

* Sun 'n Fun 2011: Green Shoots by Paul Bertorelli
* Cessna Sells 30 Airplanes At Sun 'n Fun By Russ Niles

Aviation's "elephant in the room"

2011-04-03T09:42:00.006-04:00

This week at Sun 'n Fun they had an aircraft-destroying F1 tornado touch down, but the 40-odd planes that were damaged will be repaired or replaced. At least no one was seriously hurt! But other far more damaging things are happening in aviation, ones that are much more long-term than a simple act of nature.

Pete Bunce, the head of the General Aviation Manufacturer's Association (GAMA) brought up the topic that no one wants to talk about, as part of a Sun 'n Fun general aviation "Town Meeting" panel discussion. It is what he called aviation's "elephant in the room", poor salaries for professional pilots that are killing student starts and causing real world safety problems. They were cited as a cause in the Colgan Air crash in Buffalo, for one.

Bunce said, "Nobody wants to talk about that." Flight training is expensive, yet pilots are launching a career with salaries that won't pay their expenses, never mind their student loans, and "there is something fundamentally wrong with that equation."

Bunce is right, young pilots working for air carriers are finding that the six figure salaries they dreamed of no longer exist and that they will be living with their parents for the foreseeable future, unable to make enough to eat. The problem is the same all over North America and indeed most of the globe. Student starts are down as most young people heard what Chesley Sullenberger, the very senior pilot who safely ditched US Airways Flight 1549 in the Hudson River on 15 January 2009, saving the lives of all 155 people on the aircraft said, when he testified before the US House of Representatives's Subcommittee on Aviation of the Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure on 24 February 2009. He told them that his salary had been cut by 40 percent and that his pension, like most airline pensions, had been terminated and replaced by a "PBGC" guarantee worth almost nothing. He also told them that an airline career was no longer worth pursuing and he recommended young people choose something else to do with their lives. He saw the very low pay, not just for new hires, but for all professional pilots, regardless of seniority, as a serious safety problem.

A lot of people have been hanging a solution to this problem for years on the "upcoming shortage of airline pilots" that the flying schools have been pitching to prospective students since the 1970s. I heard it when I learned to fly in the mid-1970s and it hasn't happened yet. Here in 2011, as in 2008, fuel prices are rising quickly again, airlines are cutting schedules and looking at more pilot lay-offs this year and so that old flying school recruiting saw, an "upcoming pilot shortage", isn't likely to happen in the near future either.

Bunce didn't offer any solutions in the panel discussion, but he thought it needed to be discussed.

In theory, in a free labour market, the problem will sort itself out over time, all on its own. Young people are already avoiding flight training and this will, even in a shrinking airline world, eventually result in a pilot shortage and subsequent raising of wages to above starvation levels, or at least to the point where new pilots may have a chance to pay off their student loans and move out of their mom's basement.

Personally I don't see any other way to solve this problem than market forces, but until it does that cadre of young people coming in the door to aviation and getting involved in general aviation as a hobby or as a stepping stone to that hoped-for airline career won't be there.

Aviation Is a Big Issue in The 2011 Election

2011-03-26T11:36:00.012-04:00

The federal election was kicked off today with Prime Minister Stephen Harper's trip to Rideau Hall to ask the Governor General to dissolve Parliament. This was after Harper's government was defeated on a non-confidence motion for not disclosing the costs of new prisons and aircraft. That's right, aircraft. As a result this election campaign is going to feature a lot of discussion about aviation. In fact, this will probably be the first election since Diefenbaker was tossed out in 1963 where aviation will be a central issue.

The Globe and Mail framed the issue succinctly: "Liberal Michael Ignatieff says his party will move a motion of no confidence on Friday, one that will declare the government to be in contempt of Parliament for withholding information related to the cost of Conservative crime legislation and the purchase of 65 fighter jets."

The Canadian Press indicated: "The battle over the cost of the Harper government's stealth fighter has escalated into a war of numbers between the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the Defence Department. Kevin Page today released a rebuttal to senior defence officials, who questioned the math in his latest report, which says the cost of the F-35 Lightning II could reach $30 billion over three decades...The F-35 program in the U.S. has seen huge cost overruns, which Page says will drive up the price tag from an estimated US $75 million to US $148 million for each plane. The department dismisses the figure, but Page pointed out today the Pentagon's latest estimate is US $151 million [per aircraft] and that Washington does not sell aircraft to allies at a price less than what it pays. The jet-fighter deal is expected to be a big issue in the expected spring election because the Liberals have promised to cancel it."

Here is what the opposition has to say on the issue:

so you can see how the battle lines are drawn.

In short it is the biggest government contract ever and it is a sole-source, untendered contract which will see the the aircraft built in the USA and no guaranteed industrial offset contracts for Canadian companies. Instead they will be able to bid on F-35 work against companies in other nations participating in the manufacturing program. The government claims that the F-35 is the only aircraft that meets Canada's specifications, so a competition is not necessary, but they have made the specification "secret" so it is hard to tell.

Critics have noted that the F-35 is short-ranged and single-engined, a factor that has eliminated competitors for past fighter contracts, such as in the late 1970s when the F-16 was ruled out for Canada because of its single engine and we bought the twin-engined F-18 instead.

The F-35 is a stealth strike aircraft, not an interceptor and that brings up the question of what mission does Canada need a stealth attack aircraft for, when our primary role is the air defence of Canada?

If elected the Liberals have promised to not sign the future contract to buy the F-35 and instead hold an open competition to pick an aircraft. Many other global aircraft manufacturers have indicated they would like to be in that competition, including Boeing with their next-generation twin-engined F-18E/F Super Hornet, Eurofighter with their twin-engined Typhoon, Dassault with their twin-engined Rafale and even Saab and their single-engine Grippen.

Price is obviously an issue with the F-35 program behind schedule and over-budget. Unit costs have risen to somewhere around US$150M per aircraft, although the government claims that when the contract is signed in 2013 the price will be US$75M per aircraft.

Another major issue is access to the source code for the software for maintenance and in-flight remote control of the aircraft. On 24 March 2011 Turkey announced it is placing its order for 100 F-35s on hold due to the refusal of the US to provide the software codes to any of the countries buying the aircraft. (This includes Canada). Turkish Defense Minister Vecdi Gönül said without the software source code Turkey could not accept the aircraft and will cancel. This should be a big issue for Canada as well, as without these codes the aircraft cannot be fully maintained in Canada, not to mention that the US, or even hackers, could prevent them from being started or control them in flight, changing their targets enroute.

All of this adds up to a very big issue, one that will put aviation at the front of this election, something we haven't seen in many years.

A really complete summary of the Canadian F-35 procurement controversy can be found in this article.

Engage the Election Candidates for GA

2011-03-26T09:04:00.007-04:00

By Kevin Psutka

The federal election presents an opportunity for members to engage the candidates on their awareness of and support for GA.

The pressure on GA airports is reaching a critical level where real damage will be done to the national air transportation infrastructure from such developments as the closure of Toronto’s Buttonville and Edmonton’s City Centre airports. Regional and smaller airports are being neglected by several levels of government, thanks to the National Airports Policy (NAP), whose goal was to offload the airport system to local interests. The NAP’s fundamental assumption is that community leaders can make decisions about their airports that are in the best interest of the users of the airport and with consideration for the national network of airports. In fact, this assumption is proving to not be the case as many communities are neglecting their transportation asset or actively pursuing closure options.

I encourage everyone to contact the candidates (find your candidates here) and ask the following question:

“Given the important role that smaller airports play for linking our vast country together and for training pilots and maintenance personnel for the air transportation industry, and given that the National Airports Policy has resulted in a significant deterioration of the air transportation infrastructure, will you support a review of the National Airports Policy with a view to creating an adequate and sustainable network of large and small airports?”

Ask for a written response and copy me on anything that you receive. If I get enough input from members, I intend to produce a list of candidates and their positions on our web site just prior to the election date to help members with their election choice. For those who receive a positive response, I encourage you to follow up after the election to remind election winners of their commitment.

Diamond lining up for handouts

2011-03-21T14:37:00.004-04:00

Diamond Aircraft, with a large plant located in London Ontario, is lining up for money from the federal and provincial goverments and has indicated that the company's future will be very uncertain without the bailout loans. The Financial Post described the company as "in rough shape".

It seems that piston sales have been pretty slow though the ongoing recession and the company has been unable to move its D-Jet single engined jet development project forward, due to lack of investment money, despite a firm 230 orders for the $1.89M per copy aircraft.

To get the D-Jet into production the company has located $20M in private investment, plus a committment of an additional $35M from the Government of Ontario. The Ontario government investment is contingent on Diamond also getting an additional $35M from the federal government. A decision by Industry Canada on that was still pending in late March, due to the government conducting "due diligence on the loan".

If both the federal and provincial loans are provided then, combined with funds already provided, the total provincial and federal government investment would be $100M.

Diamond Presdent and CEO, Peter Mauer indicated "If we don’t get the funding from the federal government, it puts us in a difficult situation. If the D-JET, for example, in a worse case scenario, were not to continue it would have a negative impact on the rest of the company’s operations. [The company debts are] at a level that would be very difficult to satisfy out of piston sales,” he said. “I’ll let you do the extrapolation."

Further reading:

* Financial Post - Planemaker Diamond in rough shape
* AvWeb - Diamond's Future Contingent On Loan?

Cirrus Sold to Chinese Government

2011-02-28T15:49:00.005-05:00

The announcement was made today, 28 February 2011, that Cirrus Aircraft had been sold to China Aviation Industry General Aircraft Co. (CAIGA) of Zhuhai, China. CAIGA is owned by Aviation Industry Corporation (AVIC), which is in turn owned by the Government of the People's Republic of China. Anyone who didn't see this coming just wasn't paying attention, as I noted in this blog when Continental was bought by the Chinese.

Of course the company people put the best spin possible on the sale. Cirrus CEO Brent Wouters said: "CAIGA understands the strength and the talent of Cirrus's workforce and the prominence of the Cirrus brand in general aviation. Through this transaction, CAIGA will invest in our employees in both Minnesota and North Dakota by committing to the continued use of our world-class production facilities."

Cirrus co-founder and present Chairman Dale Klapmeier said: "With this transaction, Cirrus will continue to develop and build the best, most exciting aircraft in the world. The original dream remains alive and well at Cirrus. We are just embarking on our next chapter on a global stage."

Of course the question everyone is asking is "will the jobs stay in Duluth and Grand Forks or move to Zhuhai?" Right now everyone is making reassuring noises. Meng Xiangkai, CAIGA’s President, stated: "CAIGA is dedicated to being an international leader in the provision of general aviation products and services, and light piston aircraft is one of CAIGA’s business focuses. We are very optimistic to begin our partnership with Cirrus and add Cirrus’s strong brand as the cornerstone in our aviation product portfolio. We are deeply impressed with Cirrus's performance in the global general aviation industry, especially with its consistent product performance, comprehensive safety features, outstanding management team, highly skilled employee base and advanced production facilities as well as its expanding global footprint. We look forward to working with Cirrus’s management team to build upon Cirrus’s proven success and to further expand production volume in order to cement Cirrus’s existing leadership position in the global general aviation industry, as well as to produce greater job opportunities in Duluth and Grand Forks."

EAA Tackles COPA Insurance Plan

2011-01-04T10:21:00.012-05:00

I just read that the US-based Experimental Aircraft Association has recently announced their own insurance plan for their Canadian members. Canadian members of EAA have long asked for a plan that will cover them, since the main EAA insurance plan is limited to US-based aircraft and owners.

The new EAA Canadian plan is being run by Nacora Insurance Brokers with Global Aerospace as underwriter. At one time Global had been the underwriter for the COPA insurance program, but COPA's broker, Marsh Insurance, moved the plan to the current Travelers 5000 Syndicate at Lloyd's when Global hiked their rates. Since then I think that Global has been keen to get back into the Canadian market and compete with the COPA plan.

The new EAA insurance plan, which they have dubbed "C-PLAN", offers both:

* "Liability only coverage for pilots with optional non-owned hull coverage"
* "Liability and hull coverage for specified aircraft"

These are all via individual quotes, rather than tables, like the COPA Silver Wings plan.

The EAA plan also includes:

*Medical Expenses ($10,000 CAD)
*Search And Rescue ($25,000 CAD)
*Emergency Expenses ($5,000 CAD)
*Headset and Handheld Avionics ($1,500 CAD)
*Personal Property ($5,000 CAD)
*Hangar and Contents ($50,000 CAD)
*Premises Liability Extension
*Work In Progress (WIP) available upon request

Of note the headset and handheld avionics coverage is something the COPA plan has always excluded.

To administer the new plan EAA has set up a new website www.eaainsurance.ca. While it is attractively laid out, it is short on detailed information and really just funnels pilots into requesting a quote for either type of coverage.

In my opinion more competition in the Canadian private aircraft insurance market can only be a good thing as it should result in decreased rates and improved coverage and service.

I would be interested to read posts from any aircraft owners or pilots who have received a quote from the EAA plan and compared it to the COPA plan and other competitive options. How did the quote stack up? If the rates were low are you concerned that this will be a first-year phenomena and that rates will rise in future years once they have built up some business by taking it away from their competition?

Continental Now Owned by the Chinese Government

2010-12-15T09:29:00.003-05:00

This story posted on AvWeb yesterday is getting a lot of attention. In it Continental Motors announces that the company has been bought by AVIC International, which is part of Aviation Industry Corporation of China, which is 100% owned by the Government of the People's Republic of China.

Some people are very worried about this, does this mean that foreign interests are taking over the US Aerospace industry? Does this mean that every time you buy something "Made in China" that the Chinese government will take that cash and buy chunks of the USA?

After all the Cessna 162 is made in China by Shenyang Aircraft Corporation, which in turn is again owned by the Aviation Industry Corporation of China. Of course that now means that this Chinese aircraft will have a Chinese Continental O-200-D engine in it.

I would contend that this is all nothing new, that it has been going on for a while, just that people haven't been paying attention. After all the Chinese government already owns a sizable part of the Alberta tar sands and most people don't realize that, either. What a lot of people seem to have missed or forgotten includes:

1. Cirrus Aircraft is 58% owned by Crescent Capital, the US arm of the First Islamic Investment Bank of Bahrain (now called Arcapita).

2. Liberty Aerospace is 75% owned by the Kuwait Finance House, a wholly owned subsidiary of Kuwait Finance House of Bahrain.

3. Piper Aircraft is 100% owned by Imprimis which is owned by the Government of Brunei.

4. Epic Aircraft is partly owned by China Aviation Industry General Aircraft Co. Ltd., which is part of Aviation Industry Corporation of China once again and thus the Chinese government.

Should you be worried? Maybe, but in most cases if these foreign companies hadn't bought these US companies they might not be around anymore, since Americans didn't seem to want to buy them.

Of course some Canadians find this all a bit amusing and ironic. After years of having US companies running around buying up Canadian businesses the Americans are getting a taste of it. In their press release Continental tries to spin it like this:

"I am excited about the opportunity to work with the AVIC International team,” said Rhett Ross, President of Continental Motors. “AVIC International will greatly strengthen Continental Motors’ market access. In addition, increased investment will accelerate new products, such as Continental Motors’ TD-300 diesel engine, which is well-suited to growing regions given international fuel availability. The transaction will allow Continental Motors to continue to be a global leader in the general aviation piston engine industry."

"The sale of Continental Motors to AVIC International is the right long-term solution for Continental Motors, its workforce and the Gulf Coast Community,” said Robert Mehrabian, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Teledyne. “This sale allows Teledyne to focus on its core businesses, while ensuring a bright future for Continental Motors to build on its long, successful history as a manufacturer of proven piston engines for general aviation aircraft. This will significantly enhance Continental Motors’ opportunity to enter the global market for the sale and service of general aviation piston engines."

The outcome of all of this is anyone's guess, but while I am waiting to see what happens next I should go and practice my Tai Chi....

A First Look At The Cessna 162 Skycatcher

2010-11-01T21:18:00.012-04:00

Skycatcher serial number 16200010 (number ten built) was brought to Ottawa by Anna Pangrazzi of Leggat Aviation, the Canadian Cessna representative. The aircraft was displayed at Rockcliffe Flying Club on 30 October and Ottawa Flying Club on 31 October and a number of rides were given, limited by the inclement weather. I was offered a chance to fly the Skycatcher, but had to decline for ergonomic reasons, as I will describe.

As I have written before, the Skycatcher has attracted a lot of criticism for Cessna's decision to have it built at Shenyang Aircraft Corporation in China, especially when more than half of Cessna's workforce has been laid off and don't look to be coming back to work anytime soon. It probably makes matters worse that Shenyang was scheduled to build 300 Skycatchers in 2010, against an order book of 1200, but will only deliver a total of 30. The Skycatcher is built in China and then boxed and shipped to the USA without being test flown. The aircraft are then mated with engines and avionics and assembled by Yingling Aircraft of Wichita, Kansas, who test fly them then. As a production aircraft Skycatcher number ten was built in such a fashion.

The Skycatcher will inevitably be compared with its predecessor, powered by the same Continental O-200 engine of 100 hp, the Cessna 150. Both are two seat, side-by-side trainers, with a high, strut-braced wing and tricycle landing gear. Both are similar in size, although the 162 has 3 ft 4 in less wingspan and is two feet shorter. Looking at the specs the 162 is lighter with a 1320 lb gross weight, limited by the US Light Sport Aircraft rules, versus the 150's 1600 lb gross weight. The Skycatcher is also a bit faster turning in a top cruise speed of 112 KTAS versus 106 KTAS. Even with its smaller wing of just 120 sq ft (the 150 has 156 sq ft) the Skycatcher has a better climb rate of 890 fpm against 670 fpm for the 150.

Of course the 162 has the famous Cessna name on it and that guarantees it will sell. The current orders of 1200 aircraft attest to the strength of the Cessna brand and if Shenyang delivers the Skycatcher will make up about half of all the Light Sports in the USA in a few years time.

Obviously Cessna has got some things right in the 162 design, although I have to admit that they have also got a few things wrong.

In walking around the aircraft and sitting in it here is what I think they got right. First is the fit and finish. The aircraft has been put together as well as any light aircraft has been. The riveting on the metal structure is well done, the paint is flawless and everything fits together well, except the fibreglass cowling which had some wows in it where it should have been flush. Shenyang have built tons of supersonic fighters and even lots of airliners, they know how to built aircraft well. Sitting on the ramp it looks like a Cessna, the 150 lineage is evident, but with an updated look for 21st century flight training.

The second thing that is done right is access. The old 150 has struts in front of the cabin doors and the doors open until they contact the struts, about 45 degrees. The 162 has the struts behind the doors, which is the right place for them. The doors open hinged from the top and supported by gas struts to avoid damage. These are very nicely wrought and work well. The cabin is well done and features fixed seats and knob-adjustable rudder pedals, glider fashion. The cabin is very similar in size to the 150's, except that instead of the seats touching in the middle they are separated by a good eight inches, giving the occupants a bit of elbow room. The flap handle, yes it has good old manual flaps, thank goodness, occupies the space in between the seats. Cessna says the cabin is 44 inches (112 cm) wide at the shoulders, which is definitely an improvement over the 150. That Cessna can get this wider cabin to move through the air six knots faster on the same horsepower shows that a bit of comfort doesn't have to cost performance.

One thing I think Cessna really got right is the control stick. It is a true centre stick, but it is mounted to a horizontal rod that disappears underneath the instrument panel. In fore-and-aft elevator control it slides in and out as you would expect. Aileron control is not the expected twisting motion, but instead it pivots in an arc as if from a pivot point located on the floor. The motion feels very natural, but best of all, without the floor-mounted stick, it stays clear of your legs throughout its range of motion. I think the stick design is truly inspired.

In my opinion Cessna also got a surprising number of things wrong with this aircraft. First is the name, Skycatcher. I am sure that the Cessna marketing department thinks it goes well with Skyhawk, Skylane, Skywagon and so on, but neither pilots nor the public get it. At the flying club get-together I overheard one wife-of-pilot exclaim, "Its called a Flycatcher, no? Skycatcher, why would they call it that?" It is getting called Flycatcher, Skysnatcher and other less polite things. Even my spellchecker thinks it should be Flycatcher. Overall the name is not that important, most people will probably call it a "162" and leave it at that.

The biggest thing Cessna got wrong has to be the ergonomics of the plane. Out of a group of about 12 pilots who came out to look at the plane, four could not fit in it. We are all taller and the aircraft, with its fixed seat and moveable rudder pedals cannot seat crew over about 6 foot 1 inch without your shins hitting the instrument panel and not being able to properly actuate the rudder pedals. There is room to have installed the seat up to three inches further back, but it is bolted to the floor and that makes this no aircraft for taller people. At 6'4" I could not get in it and COPA Publisher Michel Hell had to decline a flight for the same reason.

The second biggest problem with the aircraft is payload. It doesn't have much. The Skycatcher started life as a proof-of-concept aircraft powered by a Rotax 912S 100 hp engine. The 912 is a great engine, cruising on 4.5 US gal/hr of premium auto fuel, but in surveys the US flight schools didn't like it and so the Continental O-200-D was installed instead. The O-200-D is a special new lightened version of the venerable O-200-A, the first version of which was run in 1947. It produces the same horsepower as the 912S, but burns 5.5 US gal/hr in cruise. Lightened as it is, the O-200-D still weighs 48 pounds more than the 912S does. Today Cessna advertises the 162 as having a standard empty weight of 830 pounds (in the Cessna brochure) and a typical equipped empty weight of 834 lbs (Cessna website). As I had indicated I was very keen to see what the demonstrator has for an empty weight. This aircraft has a basic weight of 833 lbs, to which is added "installed" equipment. It is equipped with the second EFIS tube, fire extinguisher, ELT, wheel pants and sun visors. Yes the basic weight excludes all those things, even the sun visors. Something that is very unusual is that the basic weight does not include the unusable fuel or the engine primer, these are also on the list of "installed" equipment. Considering that the engine cannot be started without the primer and the aircraft cannot be flown without unusable fuel it seems very hard to understand why these are listed under options and not included in the basic weight. The engine oil isn't indicated on the weight and balance either, so presumably it has to be subtracted from the useful load, too.

The "installed" equipment, including the primer and unusable fuel, brought Skycatcher serial number 10 to an amazingly high empty weight of 865 pounds. Fill up the tanks (144 lbs) and this particular 162 will carry 311 lbs of people and baggage, or most likely 304 lbs with some oil in the engine. Compare this to my old Cessna 150, with its empty weight of 1065 lbs, which would carry 408 lbs of people and cargo with full fuel. It is hard not to conclude that the 162 is not really much of a two-seater.

As confirmed in October 2010 with Transport Canada, the Skycatcher is eligible to be registered in Canada in the Limited Class, allowing it to be flown privately with AME sign-offs on the maintenance. It will not be able to be used for flight training until the LSA category comes to Canada. This was a recommendation of the 2005/06 TC Recreational Aviation Working Group and has been accepted by CARAC and Transport Canada, but today it looks to be at least ten years off in implementation, if ever.

Leggat Aviation's Anna Pangrazzi reports that the company has already sold one Skycatcher in Canada to a private owner. Rockcliffe Flying Club has two on conditional order, the condition being that the rules change to allow them to be used for flight training. As I have previously written it would be possible for a flight school to have Cessna 162s as rental aircraft outside their operating certificate, but check-outs and insurance could be an issue.

Overall the 162 is an attractively-designed aircraft with reasonable performance. It looks well made and should prove a good aircraft for private owners in Canada, provided you are small in stature and light in weight.

Some additional information:

*Wikipedia background on the Cessna 162
*Video of the Cessna 162 at the Ottawa Flying Club 31 Oct 10

Buttonville Closure Announced

2010-10-28T16:20:00.006-04:00

After years of speculation the announcement on 27 October 2010 that Buttonville Airport is closing within five years should come as no surprise. The airport has been a money losing venture for years, propped up by subsidies paid by the Greater Toronto Airports Authority the airport is sitting on prime condo land in Markham that is worth billions. The airport is privately owned by the Sifton family and will be turned into "a vibrant, 24 hour, mixed-use community".

The question everyone is asking is where will all the private and corporate aircraft go along with all the associated businesses on the field. There are no easy answers to that question, as the Island Airport is moving small aircraft out in favour of airliners instead and most other airports within any distance of Toronto are either filled to capacity or threatened with closure themselves, like Markham Airport.

AvWeb has run the story indicating that the final nail in the coffin was declining traffic at nearby Toronto Pearson, which caused the GTAA to remove the subsidy it paid to Buttonville to keep it open and light aircraft traffic away from the International.

Here is the press release from Toronto Airways:

Media Release

Date: October 26, 2010

Subject: Future of Airport
For Immediate Publication

Markham, Ontario, CANADA – Toronto Airways Ltd. (TAL) owns and operates the Toronto Buttonville Municipal Airport (CYKZ). Their resident businesses include Million Air Toronto - an established FBO of long standing and Toronto Airways Flight Training - the largest flight school in Canada. Others who call Buttonville their base include the Buttonville Flying Club, aviation college operations, corporate and business aviation charter operators, rotor craft schools, private flight operators and aircraft sales/brokerage/management firms.

Announcement of airport future . . .

Derek Sifton, President of TAL has announced today that a business agreement has now been put in place to redevelop the airport lands. Armadale Co. Limited (the parent company to TAL) and The Cadillac Fairview Corporation Limited have formed a joint venture for the development of the airport lands.

In speaking to his staff and tenants about the announcement Sifton stated “I can tell you now with certainty that in the coming years, this airport site will be closed for redevelopment under this agreement. While this will not happen tomorrow, it is going forward and will occur sometime over what we expect will be a five year period.”

“This is not the end of TAL” said Mr. Sifton. “We see this as the beginning of a further development and refinement of our business. TAL is and for some time now has been actively pursuing relocation and/or diversification plans for its aviation businesses. These plans include our customers, suppliers and the general and business aviation community. We have a lot to offer and the ability to take what we do to places where it is welcomed and needed. Now that we have concrete information to work with regarding the future of Buttonville, we can proceed on the options and opportunities and hopefully have an agreement soon with something further to announce. In the interim, it is business as usual for all of us. We have great facilities, a great team and we will continue to support this airport in the best possible manner to ensure safety, security and service responsibility.”

- 30 -

For additional information contact Robert Seaman – by telephone at (705) 250-0473 or by email at rwseaman@bizav.ca

Light Sport Aircraft in Canada - Some Background

2010-10-28T11:42:00.006-04:00

With the upcoming visit to Ottawa this weekend (30/31 October 2010) of the first Cessna 162 Skycatcher to visit Canada I thought it was probably a good idea to review the rules for this aircraft. The C-162 is being brought to Ottawa on a demo tour by Anna Pangrazzi of the Canadian Cessna representative, Leggat Aviation.

I have written before about the C-162 in April 2008 and outlined some of the controversies surrounding the lightest plane Cessna has ever built:

*The Cessna 162 SkyCatcher in Canada

*The New Cessna 162 SkyCatcher - Three Controversies for the Price of One!

To get some updated background on this visit I contacted Transport Canada to see what the options are in 2010 for registering a C-162 in Canada. Basically not much has changed since 2008. The C-162 was designed to be a US Light Sport Aircraft and that category still does not exist in Canada. Back in 2005/06 the Transport Canada Recreational Aviation Working Group that I chaired recommended that the LSA category be adopted as an additional category in Canada. That report was accepted by TC, but it still hasn't happened and is unlikely to happen for many years to come. The reasons for that are complex, but in essence the increased workload created by the attempt by TC to allow the business aircraft sector to self-regulate and the requirement to bring all that work back in house has created so much work for TC that all other initiatives have been put on hold, including bringing LSA to Canada.

Otherwise the Cessna 162 is still a manufactured aircraft with a gross weight of 1320 lbs that doesn't fit into the basic ultralight, advanced ultralight, certified or amateur-built categories in Canada. It fits the Limited Class, but in the past TC senior staff expressed some reservations about putting the C-162 in it. The class was intended for long out of production warbirds and not new mass production aircraft. That reluctance is gone and the way seems cleared for registering imported C-162s as Limited Class aircraft under the new Limited Class rules. Putting the aircraft in the Limited Class means that maintenance must be signed off by an AME and that the aircraft cannot be used for commercial use, including flight training, although aerial work is allowed (banner towing, crop spraying). There isn't much aerial work that this small aircraft could be used for, however.

This all means that the C-162 is a viable aircraft for private ownership in Canada, but not flight school use. The requirement for AME maintenance will make the costs higher than buying a similar AULA, however.

It is also possible for flight schools to use it as a rental aircraft for solo rentals outside their flying training operating certificate, but not for flight training. I am not sure how a school would check someone out on the aircraft, though!

Meanwhile some of the controversies surrounding the 162 that I wrote about in April 2008 still remain. The outsourcing of production to Shenyang Aircraft in China is actually more controversial today than it was in 2008. Back then it was justified by the company because Cessna was out of plant capacity, but since then they have laid off more than half their workers and seem unlikely to hire many of them back in the near future. It is much harder to justify contracting out to China when more than half your own workforce is out of work.

The other controversy remaining is the 162's payload carrying capacity. Cessna still reports the 162's standard empty weight as 834 lbs, which, with full fuel (144 lbs), leaves only 342 lbs for people and baggage, making it not much of a two-seater. I am very keen to see the empty weight on the demo plane and see if it makes that empty weight or if the production bird is actually heavier or lighter. Hopefully we will all have a chance to check it out this weekend, VFR weather permitting.

The 2010 Classic Air Rallye

2010-08-30T17:15:00.001-04:00

August 28 and 29 was the 2010 edition of this event, now in its fifth year. Even though it is billed as an "Air Rallye" it is really a small airshow and is held at Ottawa/Rockcliffe Airport, right next to the Canada Aviation and Space Museum, a great location and right in the City of Ottawa.

The show promo bills the show with these words: "Unlike traditional "Boom and Zoom" air shows, this event takes us back to a quieter, and in some ways, more gentle age. Our primary focus is on providing an attractive venue and event for owners and pilots of vintage and classic aircraft who appreciate the chance to bring out their treasures for our mutual appreciation."

This year marked a first for the Rallye, it was the first year that they didn't get at least one day of rain or otherwise suffer from bad weather. Late August is usually a pretty dry time of year in Eastern Ontario, but the Rallye's chosen time slot on the last weekend before Labour Day just seems to have been jinxed by the climate change demons in the past. But not this year, Saturday saw clear skies, light winds and 28C. Sunday was identical, but hit 30C. It seemed like an ideal year for the Rallye: ideal location in the city, ideal summer weather and even lots of parking and transit connections. And yet the people didn't come in very large numbers. I didn't get an official count on the Saturday when I was there, but I would be surprised if 500 people showed up. For most of the day the organizers, security and participants outnumbered the visitors. You can see the lack of crowds in the video that I shot of the show.

The Rallye used to compete with the bigger show at Ottawa/Carp Airport, but that show died a couple of years ago. The Air Rallye attendance this year contrasted strongly with the Vintage Wings Open House and Airshow that was held at Gatineau Airport on the 4 July weekend. Reports indicate that there were 25,000 people there for that event. I even confirmed that with an ice cream vendor who was at both events. At Gatineau he sold $25,000 worth of ice cream in a couple of hours, at Rockcliffe he was lonely, despite the warm day and sunshine. Both shows largely featured the same aircraft from Vintage Wings, although the Snowbirds did perform at Gatineau. Since everyone in Canada has seen them so many times they don't seem to be a big draw on their own anymore. The Air Rallye was well advertised, too, with lots of posters up all around town, newspaper and radio ads and more. Fewer people live close to Gatineau Airport than Rockcliffe, so it is hard to understand why turn out for the Air Rallye was so low.

I asked a number of people at the Air Rallye where they thought the people were. COPA President and CEO Kevin Psutka suggested maybe the weather was too nice and that with fall around the corner most people went to the cottage or the beach instead. He thought that an overcast day might have brought out more people. Some other pilots posited that the show is too slow paced, with only fly-bys and no jets (other than one very quiet Challenger) or aerobatics, so it doesn't grab much attention.

The biggest factor suggested by most pilots I talked to was the price. The Air Rallye costs $20 per person to get in, with kids under 12 free and includes admission to the museum as well. This compares favourably to airshows like Abbotsford, which was $35 per person this year, but then Abbotsford is a much, much bigger show. A number of people mentioned that the July Gatineau show was free, which is hard to compete with. It is possible that if people were going to go to one airshow in the area that they chose "free".

Airshow attendance this year seems to be generally down, with Oshkosh reporting far fewer visitors, although due to the way the organizers have reported numbers there in the past it is hard to compare Oshkosh attendance figures from year to year. Certainly people who did go to Oshkosh this year indicated that there were not very many people there, compared to past years.

So is it just that the Air Rallye is too small, too expensive and is competing with a free airshow, or is is something else, like the economy, that kept people away?

YOW Volunteer Airport Watcher Fired

2010-06-23T13:09:00.010-04:00

For seven years Stephanie Nicholds was a volunteer with the CYOW Airport Watch, but not anymore.

That group was originally made up of "plane spotters", the people who hang around airport fences watching airliners and noting registrations. After 911 the airport authority had an inclination to kick them all off the airport as a "security risk", but cooler heads prevailed and the local airport police convinced the airport authority that this group of people, who like hanging around fences with binoculars, could be a great resource for keeping an eye on things and improving security. So they got organized and the plane spotters got some identifying car door stickers, some hats and a phone number to call if they saw anything suspicious. Everybody won, except perhaps potential terrorists looking to sneak onto the airport. So far so good.

The fly in the ointment has been that Airport Watch chair Nelson Plamondon has had problems with Airport Watchers in the past saying uninformed things to the press. You see the problem is that when something goes wrong on the airport there is often an Airport Watcher on hand to see it. They become the only source for eyewitness information for the press. Plamondon's policy is that Airport Watchers should not make statements to the press. That is what got Stephanie Nicholds fired as a volunteer Airport Watcher this week.

Stephanie Nicholds just happened to be on hand on Wednesday 16 June 2010 when a United Airlines Express Embraer 145 went 500 feet (150 metres) off the end of the runway on landing and ended up in a ditch. The runway was wet and so when the press cornered her Nicholds said that the plane "was hydroplaning down the runway, and all of a sudden the airplane just ditched into the grass."

The Ottawa Macdonald-Cartier International Airport Authority accused Nicholds of a "serious breach" of the rules. It was the airport authority who passed the problem onto Plamondon for "corrective action."

Plamondon indicated that ever since a similar incident two years ago volunteers have been warned not to speak to the media, something he has been "constantly reminding" them of ever since.

For her part Nicholds thinks everyone has overreacted and stated to CBC: "I think they made a big mistake taking me off the watch. I just hope they can reconsider."

For many aviation and legal people this is probably an "open and shut" situation. Uninformed witnesses shouldn't be telling the press what happened in an aircraft accident, that is the Transportation Safety Board's job. Many posters on CBC.ca see this as a human rights issue, however, that the constitution guarantees freedom of speech, especially when this person was not even an employee, but just a volunteer.

Some of the most-agreed comments:

"what's to prevent her, as a citizen of a free country with supposedly free speech, from standing outside the airport perimeter and continuing to report what she sees, to the media, the aviation authorities, or whoever else she wants to speak to?"

"I can't find any clue, where the authority finds "serious breach" ? Stephanie expressed to the media what she witnessed, there is nothing hidden. This is ridiculous !"

"Yes you should never talk to the media until the powers that be get a chance to put a spin of all sorts on whatever happens. That way the powers can really confuse the issue and make lots of money trying to unravel the mess they created."

Perhaps the point here is really that if the plane was hydroplaning then the airport might be liable for not designing or maintaining the runway better to prevent the standing water hydroplaning requires. Nicholds may have helped make a court case against the airport authority that she volunteers for. That is except for one detail - she didn't see the aircraft hydroplaning, that happens between the tire and the runway. She did see the aircraft go off the end of the runway, but hydroplaning is a conclusion that will have to be determined or refuted by the tire and skid mark evidence and probably the Flight Data Recorder as well. Hydroplaning isn't an observation that can be made by an untrained witness outside the fence hundreds of yards away.

What do you think - should airport volunteers be allowed to exercise freedom of speech to speak to the press, even on subjects they are uninformed about or should they have to agree to keep quiet to volunteer there?

CBC article: Airport volunteer fired for talking to press

Aviation Going To The Dogs?

2010-06-23T12:51:00.005-04:00

I just received an e-mail today from Bob McDonald of COPA Flight 124 Cobden. Bob distributed it far and wide:

"I'm sorry but this is a funny page.... I love my dog but the indignity of
this stuff would make her bite airplanes ;>)
I honestly never knew they made this stuff..I assumed owners custom made it for their pets."

The page he is referring to is Aircraft Spruce's canine aviation products page which as you can see includes doggy hearing protectors, bark bags (don't ask), bandanas, and even a bumper sticker that says "Dog is my Co-pilot".

There is a doggy oxygen mask for which the description says "Previously, pet owners who want to fly at altitude with their canine family members have had few choices. This has all changed thanks to AEROX who have developed an aviation based supplemental oxygen system for pets. An estimated 60 million households have pets and many of those households fly and own aircraft."

Bob thinks it is funny because his dog wouldn't put up with it. I think it just shows that many people treat their dogs better than they treat other people.

Is this controversial, silly or something else?

Avgas In Between a Rock and a Hard Place

2010-06-18T17:49:00.002-04:00

Recent news from the world of avgas has not been good and I believe that the parties involved have collectively painted themselves into a corner here. Let me explain:

This all started because the US Environmental Protection Agency is under pressure to get the tetra-ethyl lead out of aviation fuel. There is no doubt this has to happen as there is ample evidence that lead is a neurotoxin and its presence in avgas is causing measurable brain damage in children. It has to go away and soon and the EPA is going to make it go away soon, too. The debate is over what to replace it with.

Teledyne Continental Motors was concerned that no one was stepping up to the plate to act as a leader in this problem, so they have made a decision to go with 94UL fuel. 94UL is essentially 100LL with the lead removed. It can be produced today very easily and for probably about the same price as 100LL. The only problem is that while about 80% of the existing engines out there can run on it, that leaves about 20% that can't. 94UL would be great for the engines that were designed for the old 80-87 avgas as the lead in 100LL is hard on them and they don't need the octane. Continental's response to the 20% of owners of aircraft that can't use 94UL is that there will be kits to lower compression ratios to continue to use existing engines, but probably with lower gross weights to compensate. Owners will also be able to upgrade to larger engines, for instance trading in an old Continental O-470 for a Continental O-520 to maintain horsepower.

Textron Lycoming has responded by rejecting 94UL and betting on 100 unleaded instead. One form of 100 unleaded is G100UL which is being developed by General Aviation Modifications and is intended to be a new fuel developed from existing refinery products that will replace the lead with other more exotic, but safer, compounds. Some aircraft type clubs, representing high-powered engine aircraft owners, including the American Bonanza Society, the Malibu Mirage Owners and Pilots Association and the Cirrus Owners and Pilots Association have formed the Green 100 Octane Coalition to advocate for a 100 octane solution over 94UL as they believe that anything less will ground their aircraft. The downside of G100UL is that right now it looks like it will cost quite a bit more at the pumps than 94UL would or than 100LL currently does, perhaps double. This fuel would be usable by all present piston aircraft.

There are also some advocates who say "why not make both 94UL and 100UL?"

Unfortunately I think all of these approaches are dead ends.

Lycoming has a good point in its arguments against 94UL, indicating that the loss of power with 94 octane fuel will severely limit the solutions for more powerful aircraft. Lycoming's General Manager Michael Kraft stated in June 2010 that 94UL would be a mistake that could cost the aviation industry billions. The aircraft type clubs note that while the aircraft that need 100 octane are only 20% of the fleet, they buy 80% of the avgas and that if they are sacrificed that the remaining fuel sales will not be enough to keep the airports open and that the result will be a collapse of general aviation as not economically sustainable.

The main problem with G100UL is the cost. 100LL avgas is currently about $1.30 per litre in the Ottawa area. Look for G100UL to start out at about double that and go up from there as the effects of the Deepwater Horizon disaster and the global flat production of oil in the face of increasing demand bring on more high gas prices. In 2008 the US price of avgas hit about $7 per gallon and it seriously curtailed flying at that price. I think that an initial price of about $10 per US gallon is a non-starter for G100UL, but it is likely to cost about that at first and only go up from there. Those kind of prices will seriously hurt general aviation as quickly as the 94UL solution will. That makes neither a good answer to the lead dilemma.

The solution of "why not make both?" is also a non-starter. Airports are today equipped with just one avgas tank. Stocking two grades of avgas would require a huge investment in fuel tanks and pumps and that is just not going to happen. The other side of the coin is that avgas is essentially a very niche market item, the refiners are not going to want to make and distribute more than one kind.

This entire leaded fuel issue has been completely ignored by the aviation industry for more than twenty years, as they were all hoping it would just go away. It hasn't gone away and now the regulators are forcing change in a hurry when long-term planning should have been done by the aviation industry decades ago. Rather than letting the engine manufacturers fight over this issue, we need a single forum where the pilot groups, type clubs, engine and airframe makers can all get together with the regulators, including TC, the FAA and ASTM who control the fuel specs, and work out a solution that won't exclude lots of aircraft and drive people out of flying and also won't greatly increase costs and also drive people out of flying.

Why Am I hearing so much weak radio work?

2010-06-09T22:52:00.001-04:00

“ABC Downwind 27 full stop.” (Ident changed to protect the pilot)

That’s the whole call! It was made by a pilot in the circuit at Rockcliffe Airport a week and half ago. In fact, this pilot made several calls on Rockcliffe’s ATF and never once mentioned that he was at Rockcliffe Airport. There aren’t many airports in the area using 123.5 MHz.

While this guy was circuiting Rockcliffe another pilot was arriving. The guy arriving was calling “Smith Falls Traffic...” Ironically the first guy corrected the second pilot, telling him he was at Rockcliffe not Smith Falls.

Another time there was a student and instructor doing circuits in a Cessna 150. As they were on their take-off role off runway 09 another pilot 3 miles east called saying he intended to join straight in to the downwind for zero nine. As the 150 climbed out he called he arriving pilot and informed him that he believed there would be a conflict if he continued straight in to downwind. As it happened there was no conflict as the arriving pilot was well ahead of the 150 in the circuit.

It sounded to me like the 150 pilot was telling the arriving pilot that he was not allowed to join the circuit straight in on the downwind leg. The CARs don’t support this view, but they do require arrivals to avoid traffic already in the circuit. Still I believe the student and instructor could just as easily extended their climb off zero nine to accommodate the arrival which they stated they saw. In fact, that is what I likely would have done. Unless I am significantly faster, my preference is to have traffic ahead of me where I can see and avoid it.

Finally the C150 pilot, I’m guessing the student, spoke so quickly that he mumbled all the words together so they became incomprehensible. In three or four circuits he always did a full stop, a 180 and back tracked to the button, but I never understood their intention to do that once. I would not have wanted to follow them in the circuit.

Over.

406 ELT Regs Create a Stir

2010-05-17T11:26:00.004-04:00

As recently posted on the Flight 8 home page as well as on the COPA website itself it looks like the 406 ELT issue has been decided by the Minister of Transport in favour of the military and not in the favour of small aircraft owners.

The story was also picked up by AvWeb this week: 406 ELTs To Be Required To Fly In Canada By Russ Niles, Editor-in-Chief where he says "After a brief reprieve, Canada's Transport Minister, John Baird, is reportedly ready to sign a regulation that will require most aircraft operating in Canadian airspace to have 406 MHz ELTs. The rule will apply to foreign-registered aircraft, and those not equipped will not be allowed to enter Canadian airspace."

Niles points out that this rule will not only affect all the Canadian aircraft that have to equip, but also US aircraft that will not be allowed into Canadian airspace without a 406 ELT. This will certainly affect traffic to Alaska and US tourism in Canada.

What do you think of Transport Minister Baird's decision to require 406 ELTs? Will it affect your flying?

Seditious Circuits

2010-04-01T14:12:00.002-04:00

AvWeb's Paul Bertorelli has decided he has had enough of student pilots being taught to fly circuits the size of Florida and so his response has been a sarcastic video trying to get pilots to straighten up and fly right. The video is well worth four minutes of your time.

Personally my philosophy of huge circuits has always been: "If you have an engine failure on downwind and the subsequent landing leaves you more than a day's walk from the airport then your circuit was too big".

Flight 8's Ruth Merkis-Hunt was a flight instructor for many years and here is what she has to say on the subject:

"Based on my own experience, too many flight instructors lack the knowledge and confidence to do circuits the way Bertorelli advocates. Even when I was learning to fly and to become an instructor, the message on all those horrible accidents pilots get into by turning at too steep a bank angle too close to the runway was drilled into our overawed heads."

"Another thing to consider is that flight schools that hire these instructors are out to make a buck, anything else is gravy. That means that anything that can keep a student flying longer will bring in more money for the school. Why would a school advocate nice tight circuits if by extending the downwind so that final approach is initiated in a different time zone that school can squeeze yet more money out of a student?"

"There are also some instructors who just enjoy being on a long final approach; perhaps seeing that as a way to tie up the circuit so that they are the focus of all the attention of ATC. A funny personality change takes place once a pilot evolves into a CAT IV instructor. Suddenly, sense and sensibility evaporate to be replaced by cockiness and stupidity (a substitute for the lack of confidence these barely qualified instructors still have). It is those observations that often lead to the same accidents that flight schools use to drive the point home to novices that circuits must be several nautical miles in length and breadth."

"There is a lot more room for more sarcastic flight instructing videos but they need to be a little more polished. The "interruptions" by the "legal department" were pretty lame, imho. Otherwise, as I said, there is a lot of room for a really cool series. We'll call it, "Dumb sh*t instructors do"."

CYOW Noise Management Committee

2010-03-30T13:33:00.001-04:00

Vickers VC10

As you may know, I am itinerant GA’s representative on CYOW’s noise management committee. CYOW is required to have a noise management committee under provisions in its lease with the Federal Government. I believe it also want to seriously deal with noise issues emanating from its activities.

The fact is that compared to other Canadian airports Ottawa has few complaints about noise, averaging about 50 per year. In fact, aircraft movements are up slightly and noise complaints per movement therefore are down slightly.

There have been spikes related to single events, for example in February of this year a Vickers VC10 took off on runway 14 at 03:40 and generated 10 complaints from all quadrants, even Gatineau, Quebec. This event will see the banning of Stage II noise aircraft during the over night hours. There was a spike in complaints about light aircraft which has since been resolved by the published departure procedures from runway 22 which tends to keep aircraft over farm land rather than residential neighbourhoods.

It is no surprise that First Air’s older B727s generated most complaints, while their B737-200 also gets significant complaints. Surprisingly, Cessna’s generate a significant number of complaints too, one year Cessna’s had 20 complaints. Unfortunately the airport authority’s statistics do not differentiate between Citations and C150s. It is likely safe to assume these were training flight.

Also, not surprising, departures from runway 25 create the most complaints. Departures from runway 32 also generates significant complaints. In fact, the complaints seem to follow runway use patterns at the airport. As noted light aircraft doing circuits also generate significant complaints.

In general, arrivals result in fewer complaints. Currently as part of the Windsor Montreal air space studies, Nav Canada is looking at separation between arrivals from the west (Toronto) and departures off Runway 25. To do this they may increase the number of arrivals transiting the city along 417 from Kanata to Orleans on downwind for runway 25. The goal is to allow arrivals to descend at idle power from the top of their descent to near final approach. At the same time, departures toward the west may be able to climb unrestricted by the arrival stream. The result of such changes would see more, say 55% of arrivals over Orleans at 4000 feet. Currently about 18% of arrivals over fly Orleans on base leg for runway 25. This will not necessarily be nosier since many will be at idle power until they turn final.

I raised a minor concern that the length of entry in the Canada Flight Supplement (CFS) for Ottawa is getting too long and maybe there could be some thought to reducing it. Examples that I mentioned that lengthen the CFS entries seemed to relate to procedures for the based flight training operations and not itinerant GA pilots. Also, I noted that the item on sand and FOD seemed more appropriate as a Caution rather than a Procedure, especially since the Pro section is used to reflect regulatory sanctions and few other than the military do formation take-offs.

If anyone has any comments or concerns on Noise Abatement Procedures at Ottawa please do not hesitate to pass them along to me and I will bring them to the attention of the committee.

Let’s be part of the solution!

Bush Caddy and the Aviation Safety Letter

2010-02-22T19:29:00.005-05:00

COPA Flight 8 recently received a disturbing story about Bush Caddy manufacturer Canadian Light Aircraft Sales and Service (CLASS) and how they were unfairly maligned by the Transportation Safety Board with the help of Transport Canada's Aviation Safety Letter.

Unlike TC and the TSB I have checked these facts out with their originators and have received permission to post these items.

***************************************************************

Notice from RAA

by Gary Wolf, President RAA

How many of you have read the 1-2010 issue of the Aviation Safety Letter? There was an article in it penned by an unidentified TSB author who had an axe to grind against amateur aircraft. His article described several structural failures in Bushcaddy aircraft that had resulted in fatalities.

BushCaddy was immediately inundated with phone calls and emails from angry customers who had read the article, especially the part that stated that the wing spars were undersize and that BushCaddy recommended changing the shear webs to .080" thick material.

The problem is that none of the planes in question were actually Bushcaddy's but the TSB author was so intent on making his point that he never checked the facts. There has never been a fatality in BushCaddy nor has there ever been a structural failure. The part about the heavier shear web was the opinion of the TSB author, but he has never identified himself nor has TSB stated whether he has any engineering credentials.

RAA contacted BushCaddy and then the editor of the Aviation Safety Letter to get to the bottom of this and found that the ASL editor had not checked any facts either. We then prevailed upon TSB to correct the situation, and upon the ASL to delete the offending article and in its place put a correction and an apology.

ASL removed the article two days ago and TSB rewrote the article but the damage has already been done to Bushcaddy. ASL intended to wait for the next quarterly issue to make the correction but that is nearly two months away, so we pressured them to write a correction and an apology, and to post these asap. For the sake of Bushcaddy I hope that this will happen this week.

If you hear of anyone slagging Bushcaddy please correct the person on this matter. Aviation is in a down market and this unconscionable mistake by TSB, compounded by inaction by the editor of the ASL, has seriously damaged a good Canadian manufacturer who does real engineering and testing on their products.

We have a right to expect accuracy from both TSB and the ASL and both entities have seriously compromised their credibility.

***************************************************************

Sean Gilmore, CLASS President and Designer, writes about Gary Wolf's letter:

Yes unfortunately the facts are even worse than all that. Not only have they harmed our company and the Bush Caddy products but they have caused much unnecessary concern among CADI owners. CADI although they were pretty unsophisticated have produced a strong reliable product, many of them have flown for 10 years and more without so much as requiring a single replacement part. The L160 is perhaps the weak sister of the fleet, the wings in our judgment did require beefing up, this was our first major mod to the CADI design.

Notwithstanding however, the L160s built by CADI have been flying for years without mishap of a structural nature.The first incident referred to in the SL i.e. C-FYUB in 2003 has never been clearly shown to be the result of an in flight wing failure. We feel it was included in the article simply for effect. The question has to be asked, if it were an inflight failure why has it taken seven years for the TSB to report it as such.

The second incident however is a different matter, this aircraft had as told me by the owner, shown evidence of wing movement early on. To correct this movement the owner made a part of his own design. The part did stop the evidence of movement the owner however could not identify the cause of the movement. Neither CADI nor CLASS were made aware of the part change. This did fit the purpose of the SL but was ignored.

Another issue demonstrating the overall lack of focus in the SL is the inclusion of the Eco Flyer in the context of "Major Modification to Amateur Built Aircraft", this really baffles me. That aircraft was a prototype and first of its kind returning from Oshkosh and flown by the owner of the manufacturing company why include this at all? The impression I'm left with is, this letter represents an overall biased opinion with regards to Amateur Built Aircraft on the part of TSB and the care less attitude towards our industry by Transport. TC attempts to beg off from any responsibility, by its "we printed it as is" without editing "in good faith" sort of a National Inquirer approach to publishing.

***************************************************************

And here is the response to all of this from Don Sherritt, Director, Standards, Transport Canada

Dear Mr. Gilmore

I am writing regarding the most recent issue of the Aviation Safety Letter (ASL). As the Director of Standards, I am responsible for the publication of Transport Canada's ASL.

The ASL is a key way of informing the aviation community of various aviation issues, including safety matters raised by the Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB). Consequently, the reprinting of information such as the TSB's Aviation Safety Advisories has been a common practice.

The article titled "Major Modifications to Amateur Built Aircraft", printed in Aviation Safety Letter Issue 1/2010, was a direct reprint of the TSB's Aviation Safety Advisory A09Q0071-D1-A1. As such, its content was unedited by Transport Canada and was reprinted by the department in good faith.

After consulting with the TSB on this matter, the department acknowledges that none of the aircraft mentioned in the subject advisory and ASL article were actual Bush Caddy aircraft.

Due to the identified errors in the subject advisory and ASL article, Transport Canada has removed the article from all web versions of the ASL, and the next print edition will include a retraction notice.

Please be assured that we have taken all necessary actions to address this matter.

Don Sherritt

Director, Standards

Transport Canada

Vintage Wings Ground School announcement

2010-02-20T11:37:00.004-05:00

We recently received this announcement from Vintage Wings:

There are two places where you can become a Harvard Graduate. One, we've heard, is somewhere in Massachusetts, the other is right here at the Canada Aviation Museum and the Vintage Wings of Canada facility.

Have you ever wanted to know how the landing gear on a Harvard retracts, locks, or drops? How best to do an aileron roll? Or how to do a crosswind landing in this heavy tail-dragger?

Possibly you have always wanted to know how the wings fold on a Corsair? Or how to start 18 massive cylinders and a 13 foot diameter prop that weighs more than small car? Or how to fly an approach with 20 feet of nose blocking your view to the runway? Or damn it... Just how the heck do you even get in that big beast?

Perhaps you wondered why the Curtiss-Wright P-40 Kittyhawk made such a good ground attack aircraft. And what's it like to fly behind an Allison? Why that crazy landing gear retraction sequence? Want to know first hand how it was to fly with the legendary Stocky Edwards?

Well, you can find the answers to these questions and much, much more in our new series of Warbird Ground Schools. Vintage Wings of Canada has teamed up with the Canada Aviation Museum to bring three information packed two-day ground schools dedicated to the idiosyncrasies and habits of three of the most important aircraft of the Second World War. Get first-hand knowledge from the pilots who fly and manage three of Vintage Wings of Canada's most important aircraft - the North American Harvard, the Goodyear FG-1D Corsair and the P-40N Kittyhawk.

Starting in late February, 2010, with the Harvard, these ground schools will offer students a range of experience, first hand knowledge, technical detail and shared passion. Each ground school will begin at the Canada Aviation Museum with a full day of presentations, discussions and audio-visual material. As well coffee breaks and lunch will be provided to fuel you as you learn. On the second day, we move across the Ottawa River to the Vintage Wings of Canada facility for additional presentations, a personal cockpit checkout and then a photo session with you and your warbird. At the end of each ground school, attendees will each receive a certificate of course completion.

For more information about these Ground School courses and tuitions. please contact:

E-mail: info@vintagewings.ca

Telephone: 819.669.9603

"The last fighter pilot's already been born"

2010-01-31T11:26:00.002-05:00

Career fields change all the time. Getting into the manufacture of buggy whips in 1910 turned out to be a poor move, like training to be a travel agent is today. Careers in aviation are undergoing huge changes right now, too. Some of that is driven by technological advances, but much will be driven by other factors, like much higher fuel costs in the future.

With the upcoming career-focussed National Aviation Day at the Canada Aviation Museum scheduled for 23 February 2010, this seemed like a good time to listen to what some of the experts have to say on aviation careers.

Mike Nelson is a retired fighter pilot who now teaches aviation at the University of North Dakota, a school well-known for its aviation programs. But he isn't teaching fighter pilots at UND, he is teaching unmanned aircraft systems (UAS).

Nelson says: "The last fighter pilot's already been born. The last fighter is being built. And these [unmanned aircraft systems] are just getting started." Like a number of people these days he thinks the F-35 Lightning II is going to be the last manned fighter aircraft built, at least in the west. Even today in Iraq and Afghanistan many of the missions it would be doing, if it were already in squadron service, are being done by unmanned aircraft. This is only set to increase in the future until all military combat aircraft are unmanned, probably by sometime around 2030.

Why is this so inevitable? I think there are four reasons: Cost, risk, capabilities and fuel.

There is no doubt that UAS cost less to do a military mission. Even today battlefield missions, like photo recce, which would have been done by a F-18 or SR-71 in the past, are being done by UAS with cameras. It doesn't take a $60M aircraft to take really high quality photos, these can be done by UAS weighing just a few lbs, because it doesn't have to be big enough and armoured enough to carry a crew.

Risk is a big factor in combat missions. During the Vietnam War tens of thousands of American aviators were killed, including 2202 Huey pilots. Today missions in Iraq are being flown by pilots and crews sitting on the ground in the US. If their aircraft gets shot down they still drive home to a warm meal at the end of their shift. The risk to the enemy is high while the risk to your own aviators is minimal and that gives your forces a huge advantage. And, of course the fewer casualties your side suffers, the less outcry there will be on the home front, too.

Capabilities are critical advantages to the UAS as well. Many combat systems in use today, like the Predator and Reaper give more than 24 hour loiter times, meaning that the troops on the ground have constant air coverage and recce photos available. These UAS operate up high and being small and quiet are out of visual and aural detection range. Crews sitting at home in the States or even in theatre just change shifts every eight hours and the aircraft stays on station over the battle doing its job. Taking photos and video is one thing, but current systems loiter with antitank missiles ready for a target to appear, the capability is in the air now and the ground troops can have a target hit within seconds when they need that. Upcoming UAS fighters will be much smaller than any manned aircraft they are fighting and they will be able to manoeuvre at 24g or better, making the bigger and less maneuverable manned aircraft a sitting duck for them.

Fuel is going to be an increasing issue in the future, as oil prices are set to rise once again like they did in 2008. Small recce UAS are being flown today with electric engines and with their small weight can remain aloft many hours on one charge. As a bonus their electric power makes them silent, even at low altitudes and gives them zero heat signature. Even larger UAS that run on gasoline are often powered by Rotax 912s or other smaller and efficient engines that burn only a few gallons per hour. No comparison with an F-18's fuel consumption.

So for military aviation this means that a pilot will be someone who sits on the ground and manages a semi-autonomous UAS half way around the world, controlled by satellite data-link. The face of military aviation is changing and along with it the traditional fighter pilot will soon go the way of the buggy-whip manufacturer. For the military this means more combat capability at much less cost and risk, which is what they want. It also means the passing of the career of fighter pilot into history and its replacement with the less romantic and glamorous "UAS Operator".

What does all this spell for civil aviation? Probably at least two things. First off the more obvious factor is that we are going to have to give up more airspace to unmanned aircraft operations. Right now they can't see and avoid other traffic and so they operate procedurally separated from other traffic, under IFR clearances or in their own reserved airspace. Here in Canada we haven't lost much airspace to UAS operations yet, but in the US they certainly have civil flight restrictions when UAS are flying.

The second factor is a bit more subtle. I think that a lot of the younger people who get into flying do so because they are hoping for careers like airline pilot and yes, fighter pilot. Few actually go on to be fighter pilots, but it is the glamour of the fighter pilot that draws at least some of them into aviation in the first place. With that gone we will need to find a new draw to keep young people interested in getting into aviation. Telling them they can aspire to sit in an office and watch a robot airplane flying itself half way round the world is not going to inspire young people to want to learn to fly. We are going to need a new approach.

Free Aircraft?

2009-08-04T13:10:00.007-04:00

One thing newcomers notice about aviation is that it costs money, generally quite a bit of money. In these days when you can get tons of good quality software for free, there isn't much that is free in the realm of aviation at all.

There are of course some free things in aviation. For instance COPA Flight 8 membership is free. Anyone can come to our nine meetings a year, featuring interesting guest speakers, held in Ottawa, for free. There is a bargain!

AvWeb, the twice-weekly web aviation news magazine is free, too. As anyone who reads it knows it is a great source of aviation news and usually scoops the paper publications on most stories by months. AvWeb is paid for by advertising, but being aviation advertising, even that is of interest to pilots. If you aren't signed up for AvWeb, you should be. After all its free!

This week I found something else in aviation that is free. How about a free aircraft? Well not quite a free aircraft, but free plans to build one, you still have to find your own hardware! Still, these days when aircraft plans cost many hundreds of dollars, free plans are a bargain. So what is the catch?

The free plans are for the Beaujon Enduro, an ultralight that was designed in 1978 by Hubert Beaujon. Beaujon designed a large number of practical ultralights in the 1970s and 80s and he sells seven sets of plans in a book entitled "How to Build Ultralights". The Enduro plans are really a free sample so you will buy his book, although they seem pretty complete. The plans are in the form of 25 JPEGs and a total of 15.3 MB. They are free to use, copy and share for personal and nonprofit use as long as the advertisements for Beaujon's book remain on the pages. People have built and flown Enduros.

The Enduro is a very simple single seat ultralight with a constant chord wing made from spruce spars, polystyrene foam ribs and featuring a Rhodes St. Genese 32 airfoil. If you built it as per the plans with a Briggs & Stratton 401417, four-stroke, 656 cc, 16 hp (12 kW) engine it is supposed to come out with a 230 lb (104 kg) empty weight. It is a small aircraft and should be easy to hangar, too with a wingspan of just 24 ft 6 in (7.47 m) and a length of 16 ft 7 in (5.06 m).

So what relevance does this have some 30 years after it was designed? Well it strikes me that while the Briggs and Stratton motor can be found cheaply and, being a four-stroke it does burn only 1 US gal/hr giving an endurance of five hours on five gallons of gasoline, there are some better alternatives. ElectraFlyer offers a really nice electric power package that puts out 18 hp (14 kW). The specified Briggs & Stratton motor, 5 US gallons of fuel and the tank weighs about 120 lbs total. The Electraflyer package with the largest 5.6 kWh battery weighs 104 lbs! This would give about two hours cruise endurance, all for about US$12,500 for the complete powerplant and battery and turn this 1978 design into a true 21st century aircraft. It would be easy to complete the aircraft and get it in the air for under $20,000, not bad for a new aircraft and one in which a "fill up" (recharge) would cost well under a dollar. As a bonus the aircraft flies silently, so no noise complaints!

Okay so the hardware isn't free, but a set of free aircraft plans are a good place to start in aviation, where not much is available for free.

July 2009 Update on 4006 MHz ELTs

2009-07-27T14:14:00.001-04:00

21 July 2009 - by Kevin Psutka

COPA received the following statement from Transport Canada regarding the status of the ELT regulation:

“Transport Canada will recommend that the emergency locator transmitter regulations be published in the Canada Gazette, Part II, pending a Treasury Board Secretariat meeting, which will take place sometime in the Fall 2009.‬‪ ‬‪‪Once published, the regulations will require all aircraft used for commercial, private, or government-run operations to be equipped with either a 406 MHz ELT or an alternate means of emergency location approved by Transport Canada.
The regulations will provide for a transition period of two years to allow sufficient time for stakeholders to adhere to the new requirements.‬‪ ‬‪
Aircraft engaged in non-commercial recreational aviation operations that are currently required to be equipped with an ELT, will be required to maintain their ELT. However, any aircraft not equipped with an ELT capable of broadcasting on the 406 MHz frequency will be required to retain their current ELT and also have on-board a placard that is visible to all passengers. The placard will inform passengers that the aircraft is not equipped with an ELT as recommended by international standards, which may contribute to delays in search and rescue operations. The regulations will provide for a transition period of 90 days to ensure compliance with the additional requirements.‬‪”

This statement follows COPA’s efforts to stop the draft regulation, which was released to the Gazette I public consultation process, from ‬‪going into law in Gazette II. The Transport Minister turned the draft back for more work and the above statement reflects this work and Transport Canada’s intent not to seek more consultation. It is important to note that the above statement is a statement of intent, not an announcement of the final regulation. The current draft is undergoing internal government review, including legal vetting, and may change again as it works its way through the internal process.

If the final version of the regulation fulfills this intent, privately registered recreational aircraft, including foreign registered aircraft, will be permitted a choice between a 406 ELT (TSO C126), an alternative means and 121.5 ELTs (TSO C91 or C91a).

If you have not converted to 406, please remember that satellite monitoring of 121.5 has ceased as of 1 February 2009 and you should consider carrying an alternative device, file and adhere to a flight plan and use flight following services whenever possible, as well as monitoring 121.5 MHz because this may be the only means of alerting for many of your fellow pilots. Even if you have converted to 406, you should consider additional measures to improve your chances of your distress being detected and then being found.

Amateur-builts lose weight restriction

2009-05-27T13:53:00.002-04:00

This is interesting news!

For years US amateur-builts have had no restrictions on their gross weight or number of seats, while Canadian amateur-builts have had those restrictions.

In the 1950s Canadian amateur-built aeroplanes were limited to two seats and 1200 lbs. Over the years the limit has grown and a few years ago was raised to a maximum of 5000 lbs and four seats.

Now with the issuance on 2 April 2009 of a new EXEMPTION FROM SECTION 549.01 OF THE CANADIAN AVIATION REGULATIONS AND CHAPTER 549 OF THE AIRWORTHINESS MANUAL – AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS - AMATEUR-BUILT AIRCRAFT those restrictions have been specifically lifted. This means that Canadians can now build, import and own amateur-builts of any size and weight.

This applies not just to aeroplanes, but all categories of amateur-builts, including gyroplanes, gliders, helicopters, airships and balloons. There are still maximum empty weights that must be met, but these are in relation to the builder-selected gross weight.

GPS For Sole-Means Navigation?

2009-05-26T09:11:00.004-04:00

For many years Canadian pilots have been relying more and more on GPS for both VFR and IFR navigation. There are even pilots who are using it as their sole-means, especially VFR and have stopped buying paper maps. With very few problems the GPS satellite constellation has proven itself up to the task, at least since it was declared operationally ready on 27 April 1995, but that could be changing very soon.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office has identified that the USAF-run GPS satellite constellation is in trouble. There are currently 30 satellites in orbit, the 24 needed for the system and six spares, which sounds like enough to run the system. The problem is that many of the satellites are getting old and will need replacing soon or will fail. The USAF has a program to replace the satellites, but it is US$1B over budget and almost three years behind schedule.

U.S. Government Accountability Office recently said that it "is uncertain whether the air force will be able to acquire new satellites in time to maintain current GPS service without interruption...there will be an increased likelihood that in 2010, as old satellites begin to fail, the overall GPS constellation will fall below the number of satellites required to provide the level of GPS service that the U.S. government commits to."

Because of the orbits involved, Canada is one nation that may see greater periods of no-usable-GPS signals, starting in 2010. If the USAF is not able to catch up its replacement program or if the older satellites fail at an increased rate than expected then GPS signals may not be reliable enough for navigation over Canada next year.

There are replacements available, such as the Russian GLONASS satellite system that is currently semi-operational, having not completely recovered from the fall of the USSR. To use it though, you will require a different receiver that works on the GLONASS frequencies, something most current receivers do not currently do. There are two other systems, the European Galileo system and the Chinese COMPASS system. Galileo is expected to be operational in 2013 and COMPASS is still in the planning stages.

These three alternate systems will probably mean that starting in 2013 reliability will be improved and you will be able to buy new hardware that will use two of more of the available systems.

So what to do for aviation navigation in 2010? Probably the obvious solution is to ensure that you have the "traditional" methods of navigation available, this includes paper maps for flying VFR and VOR/ADF for IFR flight. Losing GPS signals while VFR is a nuisance, but it can be a "show stopper" while in cloud IFR.

The warning has been sounded, now we all have to take advice from the Boy Scouts and "Be Prepared".

What airport is he at?

2009-01-12T22:32:00.001-05:00

I'm sure you've been there. You're 10 minutes back from your destination, a small airport with no control tower or flight service station, just an ATF on 122.8 MHz. You called on the ATF that you are 10 minutes east at 3000 feet giving your landing intentions. Another aircraft calls 20 miles east, but you missed the beginning of his transmission and don't know if he is going to your destination too. Is he just above your high wing Cessna?

Wouldn't it be nice if he had followed the FAA's recommendation to repeat the name of the airport at the end of his position broadcast. He must be Canadian...

Transport Canada only expects us to say the airport name at the beginning of our position call and to not repeat it at the end.

For some years I have followed the FAA's recommended practice of repeating the airport name at the end of the transmission. I used to fly at Russell (PH4) (now closed) and our ATF was on 122.8 MHz. There were lots of calls at other airports on that frequency. "Russell Traffic, Colt NDS 10 east over Casselman at 3000 landing Russell". Any pilot listening will know where I am and that I am going to Russell. I believe this is the best way to maximize the chance of conflicting traffic knowing my location.

Now I fly out of Rockcliffe most often, "Rockcliffe Traffic Colt NDS right downwind 27 full stop Rockcliffe. Is that so hard?

Are you and your passengers just "congestion!"

2008-12-19T16:42:00.001-05:00

As you know, pilots flying under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) are required to read back clearances to ensure that they and the air traffic controllers issuing them understand each other fully. But, pilots flying under Visual Flight Rules (VFR) are requested to NOT read back most clearances and instructions. For the rules check CAR 602.31 and for additional guidance check TC AIM Section 6.1.

The reason most often offered for this difference is that VFR read backs will cause frequency congestion. Are you and your passengers just "congestion"? We VFR types are only requested to say our call sign to let ATC know that we understand and will comply with the clearance or instruction. The only check to ensure the clearance or instruction is understood correctly is the controllers' observation of our action. It seems to me that an important opportunity to break the incident/accident chain is intentionally being overlooked, and just because of possible frequency congestion.

It's not against the Canadian Air Regulations (CARs) for pilots flying under VFR to say more than one's call sign. I usually repeat the key points of communications with ATC for no other reason then to demonstrate that I understood and will follow them, especially when there is more than one action expected, e.g., "cleared take off two two , right turn, not above one thousand five hundred, November Delta Sierra."

I am going keep right on reading back multi-action clearances, and I would like the rest of the VFR crowd to join me in doing so. I'm not the only one asking for read backs. Even some control towers (e.g. Nav Canada's Ottawa Tower) wants us to read back taxi clearances which contain hold short of runway limits.

We don't need to make long read backs, just altitudes, headings...you know, the important stuff. Agreed?

Update on 406 ELTs – Our Sector Must Equip

2008-12-14T08:14:00.004-05:00

The following article was released by COPA 12 December 2008. Please post your comments!

****************************************************************************

Update on 406 ELTs – Our Sector Must Equip

By Kevin Psutka

I will cut to the chase. We are at the end of the long battle to bring common sense to this issue. Common sense has not prevailed. Transport Canada has decided to proceed with a multi-million dollar regulation that will require virtually all light aircraft owners to equip with a 406 MHz Emergency Locator Transmitter. Gliders, balloons, ultralights, parachute aircraft and a limited number of other operations will be exempt. The proposed transition period that would have required some owners to equip by 1 February 2009 and others to equip over a two-year period will slip a bit because it was stated at the meeting that it is highly doubtful, given the state of our government and its ability or willingness to process complicated issues like this one, that this will proceed to Gazette Part II and into law by the end of January.

Now for the details.

I will not repeat the many reasons why mandating 406 ELTs does not make sense. This has been covered many times in the course of this issue. Instead, I will concentrate on what occurred at a meeting with Transport Canada on 11 December.

An unprecedented number of responses to the Gazette consultation process and an unprecedented number of enquiries from Members of Parliament on behalf of their constituents caused Transport Canada to call a meeting of key stakeholders, including COPA, to examine the possibility of modifying the proposed regulation.

The Department of National Defence (DND) attended the meeting and held to their position that any alternative to 406 ELTs must be able to provide the same performance as they claim is provided by the ELT system: without activation from someone on board the aircraft, provide notification of distress to a Rescue Coordination Centre within 15 minutes from automatic activation and provide the distress location within 2.7 nm (5 km). Upon questioning from me about performance above 70 North and in mountainous regions, DND acknowledged that the notification time may be double or more in some situations because of satellite coverage and terrain masking.

I have long maintained that the 406 system is excellent when it works but the key component of the system, the on board ELT, fails at an unacceptable rate. Without this key component, it does not matter that the rest of the system may be working perfectly. When the ELT fails the SAR folks have nothing to help narrow the search area. Transport Canada’s Merlin Preuss picked up on this point and challenged DND to specify what reliability they need from an alternative system or from the 406 system for that matter.

DND stated that their research indicates that there will be a failure rate of less than 25% for 406 ELTs. This is an assumption because, of course, there is no reliable data on the performance of 406 since there are so few in existence. And because the Transportation Safety Board does not comment on ELT performance for all accidents, no one has solid data on performance. Thanks to some hard work by a couple of COPA members, we gathered data on the past few years of reports from the Canadian Aviation Daily Occurrence Reporting System (CADORS) to indicate that there is a 75% failure rate. I presented this at the meeting to counter DND’s claims of a much lower failure rate. DND claimed that our high failure rate is due to the fact that the majority of ELTs are old technology and that 406 will be much better. There is absolutely no proof of this claim. Transport Canada decided to proceed with effectively mandating 406 ELTs despite this significant issue.

In preparation for the meeting, Transport Canada prepared some draft wording in order to soften the notification time (it was “immediate”) and location accuracy (it was 2.7 nm) and consequently accommodate some tracking services. Although no specific numbers were determined at the meeting, it is clear that no matter what is chosen by Transport Canada for the maximum time to provide notification and the maximum location accuracy, it will preclude all affordable alternatives for our sector for the foreseeable future. Tracking services that could qualify currently cost thousands of dollars to install and thousands of dollars per year for the service, plus someone would be required to monitor flights real time for missing position reports and take action within a relatively short period of time. So, while it appears that it will be possible for some commercial operators to purchase a commercial tracking service that will also fulfill a distress function, it will be out of reach for our sector, certainly within the timeframe that we will be required to equip.

It was clear at the meeting that Personal Locator Beacons and affordable tracking devices such as the SPOT Personal Tracker will not meet any revised performance criteria that Transport Canada may develop. I stated that the only way that devices such as SPOT could qualify would be if notification was tied to the expiry of a flight plan and the location accuracy would have to be around 30 nm; the distance between 10 minute position reports at the typical top speed that smaller aircraft fly. I also stated that the one-size-fits-all approach should not be applied. While it may make sense to require higher performance for commercial operations or over certain areas of Canada, our sector of aviation does not require this level of service. It was clear at the meeting that Transport Canada was not prepared to go this far.

Transport Canada stated at the meeting that it is doubtful that the regulation will be finalized before the end of January. Faced with this reality, the conversation turned to the proposed transition period that involves a two-year phase-in starting on 1 February 2009, Transport acknowledged COPA’s concern that it will be impossible for many to meet the proposed transition period because of lack of availability of low cost ELTs and scheduling of installation. It is simply unreasonable, for example, to require everyone flying north of 55 North in western Canada or 50 North in eastern Canada, to equip on 1 February 2009. Transport Canada will reconsider the transition period but would not commit to specific dates at the meeting.

Transport Canada reaffirmed that there will be no exemptions for foreign aircraft and that they will be subject to the same transition provisions as Canadian aircraft. In preparation for the meeting, COPA learned from the Canada Border Services Agency that they processed over 63,000 foreign private aircraft in a one-year period from May 2007 to May 2008 and about 90% were US registered. This figure does not account for the large additional number of over-flights of Canadian airspace. The US will not mandate 406 so there will be a huge economic impact on business and tourism from the loss of this sector of trans-border transportation. Transport Canada is not concerned about this issue and our efforts to bring this to the attention of the politicians has failed to stop the development of the regulation.

Since it was clear that Transport Canada will proceed with effectively mandating 406 ELTs for our sector, my effort at the meeting turned to softening the blow. We have already achieved some concessions in the form of reclassifying ELT installations so that AMEs can install most of them and LiSO2 batteries are now acceptable in Canada. I suggested at the meeting that Transport Canada eliminate the annual recertification requirement. Modern batteries have a life of five or six years and the new ELTs have built-in test features to verify the condition of many of the components, rendering most of the recertification process redundant. I also pointed out that there are issues with dangerous goods when tens of thousands of ELTs are shipped around the country every year and that aircraft will fly with nothing on board for up to 30 days each time one is removed for inspection, thereby putting lives at risk. My suggestion was to tie the recertification to the battery life. Transport agreed to review the requirement. If my suggestion is accepted, it will save $400-$600 in each five-year period.

I also pointed out that there are relatively few low cost ELTs approved for Canada. Therefore, many owners will be forced to equip with more expensive ELTs unless the transition period is extended to both give manufacturers of approved low cost ELTs time to produce adequate quantities and to have more types certified. I pointed out that Pointer Avionics, the only Canadian manufacturer of low cost 406 ELTs, has a promising concept incorporating a GPS but it is not yet certified. I pointed out that it would be good, since our sector will be forced to spend millions of dollars in these difficult economic times, if the money could remain in Canada. Transport agreed to step up its efforts to certify the Pointer ELT.

For the near term, here are some things for aircraft owners to consider. Until such time as the regulation is finalized, everyone can continue to operate with their existing ELT. However, monitoring of 121.5 via satellite will cease on 1 February 2009. There will be no extension. If you do not replace your ELT with a 406 one by that date, your only means of alerting will be by over-flying aircraft and by a very limited number of NAV CANADA receivers. It will therefore be more important than ever after 1 February for members to tune a spare radio to 121.5 whenever possible in order to help our fellow pilots in need.

The list of approved ELTs is at http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/certification/elt.htm . Be sure to check this list if you are uncertain of the status of a particular ELT you are considering for purchase. If you are considering an ELT from a foreign source, keep in mind that it must be coded for Canada. You could at least incur an additional expense to have it coded.

Whether or not you equip with a 406 ELT now or wait until you are captured by the regulation, you should carry an additional device to adequately protect everyone on board and make up for the shortcomings of ELTs. Don’t be fooled by the statistics that are presented by the government regarding performance. You are being presented with a false sense of security by a justification that is not based on fact.

From this point on the focus of COPA’s effort will be on informing members about the options for equipping with 406; new products and prices as well as the merits of additional devices even if they are not approved. We are encouraging manufacturers to provide us with new product articles.

As we learn of developments and timings of the final regulation, we will provide reports on our web site and in the newspaper.

I hope that as competition develops, we may see the prices for 406 ELTs decrease and that some alternatives may develop to meet the requirement at an affordable price for our sector. For the time being, however, it appears that 406 ELTs will be the only option for our sector of aviation.

Nav Canada in the Recession

2008-12-07T10:21:00.002-05:00

Despite our PM's assertion just a few weeks ago during the election campaign that Canada would not see a recession, in November the economy lost 70,600 jobs. Apparently the country is in for many more job losses and a recession that may be the worst since the 1930s or even earlier than that.

While the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum, held in Lima in November 2008, indicated that recovery would come in mid-2010. Our PM was not convinced that it will happen anywhere near that early. Other economists are starting to say that ten years would be more realistic.

The problems Nav Canada faces are similar to the last recession in 2001-02, following the 911 attacks, only on a much greater scale. That was the first recession the company had faced since its formation in 1996. Back in that rather minor recession Nav Canada burned through its $80 million "rainy day" fund very quickly as airlines cut schedules. Because Nav Canada gets almost all its income from the fees it charges users, its income is very dependant on airlines schedules. When airlines cut flights Nav Canada loses income right away.

The other side of the problem is that Nav Canada is operating an air navigation system that is very fixed in levels of service. They can't quickly shrink the operation and lay-off staff to save money. If airline flights at any given airport get reduced Nav Canada still needs the same number of air traffic controllers to man the tower and the centre.

On top of that the company has very few customers of any importance fiscally. Yes there are 23,000 private aircraft owners that get billed each year for "provision of services" but the total amount collected is about 0.08% of the company's budget - coffee money essentially. Of the commercial carriers Air Canada and Westjet are paying the vast bulk of the fees that keep the company afloat. The smaller bush airlines and helicopter companies provide a very tiny percentage of Nav Canada's fees. Essentially all the aircraft in the country not operated by the two biggest airlines are more of a nuisance to Nav Canada than a source of serious income. This means that Nav Canada is almost totally dependent on those two carriers, if they cut flights then Nav Canada can't do much to cut expenses and bleeds cash quickly. On top of that while a company like Westjet is able to cut routes with little notice, Nav Canada has a long and protracted aeronautical study process to close a single FSS or tower, even if traffic no longer warrants keeping it open. The process can take years just to get all the "X"s needed to close an obviously under-used facility. The government does not fund Nav Canada.

In good economic times things hum along. The company can slowly add staff and facilities as increased traffic requires. But the same constraints put the company in a very bad position when the economy goes bad. And when it goes very bad, very fast, as it has done in late 2008, then the company has very few options. In 2001-02 they were saved by the fact that it was a short recession. They increased fees, which caused howls of protest from the airlines who were cutting back and had no cash to spare. Air Canada even grieved the increases to the Canadian Transportation Agency indicating that it thought Nav Canada was not running the company in a "reasonable and prudent" manner. Air Canada's problem was that while they were cutting everything their fees were being raised by another company who was claiming they couldn't cut at all. The CTA sided with Nav Canada, of course and denied rolling back the fee increases. Basically Nav Canada got through that recession because it was a short one.

Some of Nav Canada's options today may be:

* burning their "rainy-day fund" again
* slowly starting the process of identifying places to cut services over the next few years
* increasing fees again
* running deficits and borrowing money

There have been aviation writers who have said that the whole privatized air traffic control model only works in good economic times and that in protracted bad times the company can't raise fees enough on the few remaining aircraft left flying in a long recession to make ends meet. It becomes a problem of diminishing returns as the fee increases make flying even less viable and cause fewer aircraft to fly.

Perhaps the end result will be asking for a government bailout, like GM, Ford and Chrysler, or perhaps just handing the keys back to the federal government once and for all?

What do you think? Can Nav Canada survive a long period of very low airline traffic, if so how?

Planning a Panel the Easy Way!

2008-11-21T18:50:00.001-05:00

It doesn't matter whether you are building your own amateur-built or refurbishing an older certified aircraft, one of the hardest parts is designing the instrument panel. This is because you have to balance cost, 2-dimensional panel space available, weight, ergonomics, cooling requirements and the one factor that usually bites everyone who tries, depth behind the panel.

In the past builders would make wooden or cardboard mock ups of the panel and all the radios and instruments. It was difficult going and mistakes were still made, especially when depth wasn't accounted for. But there is an easier way now.

Aircraft Spruce and Specialty have created a new panel planning software package. This is nothing generic at all as it includes panels for 300 light aircraft types and 1300 instruments and avionics units. Plus you can add instruments and avionics by specifying the dimensions and weight.

The software allows you to move everything around until you find a solution that works. It accounts for weight, electrical amps used and instrument depth as well. The program produces a summary shopping list by cost, Aircraft Spruce stock number weight and electrical load. It also can create a panel cut-out template and a JPG image of the finished product.

The software is available from Aircraft Spruce and Specialty exclusively and is mailed out on a CD. The cost is USD$250, but as long as you purchase panel components of at least USD$7500 then the company will credit you with the full purchase price, making the software free at that point.

The good news is that the software package will run on Windows and Mac. The bad news - no Linux software, because Linux applications are always free!

Avgas - The Next Nail?

2008-10-20T17:45:00.004-04:00

We have discussed the Future of Avgas before in this blog, and some of the predictions made there started coming true on 15 October 2008. That was the day that United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) changed the environmental standards for lead contamination from 1.5 microgram/m3 to 0.15 microgram/m3.

The new standard requires that the sources of lead in the United States, which includes lead smelting, airplane fuels, military installations, mining and metal smelting, iron and steel manufacturing, industrial boilers and process heaters, hazardous waste incineration and production of batteries reduce their emissions by October 2011. The EPA has named avgas as one of the most "significant sources of lead".

The new rules aren't clear as to exactly how non-industrial sources of lead, like those from burning avgas, will be impacted.

Most pilots see this as a bad thing, as this new standard will probably mean that 100LL will no longer be available to be used in the USA after 2011, but the story is more complex than that. The tetra-ethyl lead that is used in leaded avgas is a neurotoxin (i.e "brain poison"), as are all its combustion products. Those stories that you may have heard that the tail-pipe products of leaded gasoline combustion are harmless are not correct, all compounds of lead are toxic to humans.

So what does lead in the environment do? Mostly it causes mental retardation in children as well as cardiovascular disease and death in people of all ages. New research has conclusively shown that even in very low levels environmental lead causes retardation in children. In fact the EPA's own research shows that the acceptable level shouldn't be the new 0.15 microgram/m3 standard, but more like 0.02 microgram/m3, which is seven and a half times lower.

The last round of environmental standards imposing the old level of 1.5 microgram/m3 came about in 1978 and that resulted in the end of leaded auto fuel. Why wasn't unleaded avgas invented back then? The answer to that question is complex, but the short answer is that it was, sort of. A 100 octane lead-free fuel hasn't been invented, and may in fact be impossible, but a new standard was developed for 82UL. Aircraft designed for the old minimally leaded 80/87 avgas could run on 82UL, but it was never put into production. As long as 100LL was still being made no refiner was interested in making 82UL. Also 82UL will only work for those low-compression engines that can use an 82 octane fuel. For example, you can't run a Cirrus SR22 with its high-compression Continental IO-550-N 310 hp engine on 82UL, so it is not a complete solution.

Essentially because 100LL wasn't caught in the old lead standards in 1978, there was no major motivator for the fuel and engine makers to come up with either an unleaded high octane fuel or to find another technical solution. There are some possibilities on the horizon, like Unison's LASAR ignition system that will allow some high compression engines to use premium auto fuel, but in general we are still dependant on 100LL here in 2008 and just accept the lead it is putting into the environment. We probably should have spent the last 30 years developing real solutions, because it has been obvious since 1978 that leaded avgas's days are numbered.

This is all happening in the USA, how does all this affect Canada? Well 100LL is all made in the USA and shipped to Canada. So if they stop making it, it won't be available here. The Canadian volumes of avgas used are tiny and won't justify starting up Canadian refining of this difficult to make (because of the lead) product.

The key question is then, should we try to fight these environmental concerns to keep flying on 100LL? Some organizations, like AOPA, argued during the hearings before the standard was changed that 100LL should be retained, saying that "any changes that would force an immediate change in the current composition of avgas would have a direct impact on the safety of flight and the very future of light aircraft in this country."

Essentially we have a choice here: keeping flying on 100LL and accept that it will cause mental retardation in children or stop using 100LL and find something else. Which is the right thing to do?

The EPA seems to have made their choice.

Additional reading:

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash /news/epa_100ll_lead_standard_aviation_fuel_199020-1.html

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2008/10/16/lead-air.html

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/new-epa-lead-standard-significantly/story.aspx?guid={EC3D72C5-9037-4ECB-BC93-4B2EFF038E37}&dist=hppr

http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2008/081017epa.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avgas#Environmental_regulation

The Economic Situation - Is There Any Good News?

2008-10-10T15:30:00.004-04:00

The last two weeks have finally seen the global credit crisis started by the US sub-prime mortgage problem expand to affect all the stock-markets worldwide as well as the the global financial industry. Already credit, loans and mortgages are harder to get.

David Smick, a global strategic adviser, noted that the US Government had hoped that "The "shock and awe" of the sheer size of the taxpayer-funded bailout would somehow restore confidence. Instead, stock markets collapsed and credit markets remained frozen."

Cessna's CEO Jack Pelton had some things to say about the availability of credit at NBAA this past week. Essentially he said that in the 2001 recession credit was available, but there were fewer buyers, today there are lots of buyers for business jets, but credit is drying up.

Just about every economist says that we are in for a time of economic slowdown, ranging from a recession to predictions of worse. How bad it will or won't be and how long it will last, all depend on who you listen to.

All of this has implications for anyone trying to sell anything that people normally borrow money for. For instance with mortgages already harder to get, the number of potential home buyers will shrink and house prices will fall.

So what does this mean for small aircraft owners? On the minus side it means that the number of prospective aircraft buyers will decrease and this means that used aircraft prices will fall even lower than where they are now. It may be very hard soon to sell an airplane at any price as no one will be able to get financing to buy them. As people lose their jobs, buying or even keeping an aircraft will not be a priority. Flying activity will probably decrease and this may make it hard for airports to make ends meet. Some aircraft manufacturers, especially small ones, will have trouble staying afloat as orders dry up. Some people trying to sell aircraft will see prices drop so low that they will decide not to sell and, instead, take them off the market instead.

It all sounds pretty bad for aviation. Is there any up side to all this?

There actually is! Most forecasts indicate that oil prices are set to fall as demand drops below current production. Analysts have predicted oil may fall to as low as $50 per barrel in the near future, although that will largely depend on whether OPEC manages to cut production to hold prices at their target of $100 per barrel. All this means that for the next while avgas prices should stabilize and may even go down, especially as demand for oil falls.

The other upside is that for people in the market to buy an aircraft and who can pay cash, there will be some real bargains out there in the next while. The trick will be to wait a while for prices to fall further than they have done already.

If some owners do manage to sell their aircraft this may result in a glut of hangar space freed up. I think hangars are unlikely to fall much in price, but space may be easier to find than it has been in the past.

So we may have cheaper gas, available hangarage and very cheap airplanes available.

Tough economic times always create problems for everyone. There is no doubt that some aircraft owners will have to sell planes due to job losses or other financial pressures. There will be bad news for some owners, but it won't be all bad news for everyone.

Some worthwhile background reading on the general financial situation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_financial_crisis_of_September-October,_2008
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/09/smick.crisis/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/09/eichengreen.depression/index.html

What do local politicians think of General Aviation?

2008-10-09T14:44:00.001-04:00

Below is the reply to the message I sent to candidates in the Ottawa - Orleans riding.

The first reply was Marc Godbout, Liberal. The other candidates have yet to reply.

Here is what he said...

From: marc@marcgodbout.com [mailto:marc@marcgodbout.com]
Sent: 9-Oct-08 13:24
To: Michael Shaw
Subject: Re: Pilots concerns
Dear Mr. Shaw:
Thank you for your recent e-mail and the issues of concern to pilots that you raise.
While I am not personally informed regarding your question regarding replacing ELT's, I would certainly be willing to look into it. With regards to the bridge at Kettle Island, I do support the recommendation of the consultants report that Kettle Island would be the best choice for a new inter-provincial bridge. While I agree with the location, I feel that a sincere effort needs to be made to lessen the environmental and social impact that locating the bridge there would have. This includes how it would impact the Rockcliffe Airport and the Flying Club.
I have learned that while aviation emissions account for only 2% of all emissions, aviation has been an industry of focus for environmental
activists and governments in other parts of the world. The Liberal Party believes that the first step in fighting rising greenhouse gas emissions is to put a price on carbon. However, the Green Shift does not propose any increases to aviation fuel in the first year of the plan.
Sincerely,
Marc Godbout

"Dear Sir (or Madam)

"I am writing to ask for your support on the following issues that are important to pilots and aircraft owners living in your riding.

"1. Currently the Department of Transport of Canada has regulatory changes in Canada Gazette, Vol. 142, No. 32 - August 9, 2008; Regulations Amending the Canadian Aviation Regulations (Parts I and VI - ELT). The effect of these changes is to require Canadian and foreign aircraft owners to install the newer 406 MHz Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT) in order to be allowed to operate in Canadian airspace. Contrary to what is stated in the Regulatory Impact Statement written by the Department of Transport, these newer 406 MHz ELTs will cost aircraft owners significantly more than $61 million. Also, these ELTs are no more likely to survive an accident and transmit its location than could the older ELTs that were mandated under the original regulation. We believe Canada should not mandate installation of the 406 ELT, rather there installation should be at the aircraft owners discretion. For complete details please see the Canadian Owners and Pilots Association's website, Http://www.COPANational.org.

"2. We ask that you not support the building of the Kettle Island Bridge across the Ottawa River unless there are clear assurances that it will not result in displaced thresholds and reduced capabilities for pilots landing and taking-off at Rockcliffe Airport. Information on Rockcliffe Airport can be seen at the Rockcliffe Flying Club's website at http://rfc.ca and the Canada Aviation Museum's website at http://www.aviation.technomuses.ca/.

"3. We ask that you eliminate the avgas fuel excise tax of 11 cents per litre currently imposed on purchases of aviation gasoline. When Nav Canada was selected to manage and operate Canada's Air Navigation System it imposed fees on all aviation sectors using the navigation system, including the operators of piston powered aircraft. The taxes on fuel sold to the airlines was reduced to compensate them for having to pay the new Nav Canada's fees.
"No such relief was given to the operators of piston engine aircraft. We would like to see this tax eliminated to help Canada's flight schools, commercial operators and private flyers continue to play their part in Canada's transportation system and economy.

"Finally, close to 60,000 private aircraft cross the Canada - USA boarder each year. Like all travelers, pilots of personal aircraft face more and more difficulties crossing the border. We therefore ask that you carefully consider the impact of any border crossing measures on the aviation community.

"Should you have any questions on these issues please do not hesitate to contact me.

"I look forward to your positive response to these issues.

"Thank you,

"Michael Shaw
Captain COPA Flight 8, Ottawa
airmail@rogers.com
613-824-7145

Http://www.copanational.org
http://web.ncf.ca/fn352/flight8/index.html
http://copa8.blogspot.com"

Internet Flight Crew Briefings

2008-09-28T19:36:00.001-04:00

Have you seen the online Flight Crew Briefing for Teterboro Airport, NJ (KTEB)? If not point you browser at http://www.airportflightcrewbriefing.com/teterboro/.

This is a really interesting way to deal with airport and airspace idiosyncrasies of individual airports. Most pilots have Internet access at their homes. Teterboro makes use of this capability giving pilots an opportunity to get the scoop on Teterboro's uniqueness before going there. Further, the FAA encourages this capability and even contributed to producing the Teterboro briefing.

I believe we should be exploring this approach for some Canadian Airports? Rockcliffe Airport in Ottawa, while not particularly difficult to fly into, seems like a perfect candidate. The unnecessarily complicated airspace in the Ottawa area, not to mention the proximity of Macdonald-Cartier and Gatineau Airports, Parliament Hill and the governor General's residence, all suggest that giving pilots a heads-up on the best procedures for getting in and out of Rockcliffe would be a good idea. Sure, the Canada Flight Supplement has enough information about Rockcliffe and the area to permit any current pilot to operate there safely, but having access to well thought out advice and examples on the Internet would enhance safety. Finally, the CFS should contain the Internet addresses (URLs) for such briefings under the aerodromes concerned.

It would be a real advantage for pilots who do most of their flying in the less busy rural areas of Canada and fear flying into the more complex, busier areas like Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. As I understand it flight schools and student pilots make good use of Teterboro's briefing. There is no reason it can't be done better right here in Canada. In fact, It might just ease the comfort level of US pilots before they fly into Canada.

What do you think?

The Private Aircraft Fleet - What Could Be Going On?

2008-09-16T16:43:00.003-04:00

Some odd things have been happening lately in the private aircraft fleets in the USA and Canada. The US fleet is shrinking as owners unload older light aircraft and many are exported, but in Canada the fleet is still growing and fairly quickly. The Canadian private civil fleet grew by 799 aircraft between July 2007 and July 2008, which is a growth rate of 3.2%. This is an enormous rate of growth, especially for economic times that can at best be described as "unsteady". This compares to a fleet gain of 597 aircraft in the period July 2006 - July 2007, which was 2.4% growth.

I got thinking about this recently because of a conversation I had with a pilot and aircraft owner. This person has a 1940s two seat certified taildragger for sale and it has been for sale for a number of years. He was mentioning that he has had quite a number of people come and look at it, but has had no offers at all. He was wondering what is going on, why it isn't selling. I have seen the aircraft and it is in nice shape. It has a recent finish on it and a recent engine overhaul as well. I asked him about the price he was asking. He indicted that he had just under $60,000 invested in it and had been asking just over $40,000 for it. More recently he had lowered the asking price to just under $40,000. A quick look around at the aircraft selling websites show that this year and model, in similar shape and with similar SMOH, are being advertised for US$18,000-$24,000, which is currently Cdn$18,900-$25,200. Those are "asking prices", too, not "getting" prices. Sellers will be settling for a couple of thousand less.

I mentioned to this pilot that his make and model are selling for these kinds of prices and his response was to indicate that he won't sell it for that little. He just walked away in disgust. I have been hearing this quite often in recent years.

So what is going on here and what does it mean in the larger picture?

Back in the 1990s, when there were no new light aircraft being built, used aircraft went up in value, way up. Flying magazine reported that light aircraft had appreciated an average of 12% per year for ten years at one point in the mid-1990s. This made them a great investment, better than the stock market in most cases. But it didn't last. A number of factors have brought values down, including new aircraft production, retiring baby boomers getting out of aircraft ownership, the weak US economy, the dramatic fall in the US dollar 2004-07 and high gas prices. It all adds up to the fact that, in Canadian dollars, many older aircraft have lost close to half their value since 2003.

That is just simple economics, but the rest is a bit more subjective. Many owners, like the pilot mentioned earlier, are not willing to sell their planes at a huge loss. They have put a lot into the aircraft and are not willing to let it go for a song. The result is that if you check the COPA classifieds there are lots and lots of aircraft for sale. Many have been for sale for a long time. A quick check of US classifieds show that the same aircraft, or better, can be bought in the USA for as little as half the asking prices in Canada. North America is one light aircraft market, they are easy to move and easy to import, so Canadians are buying in the USA instead of in Canada. This results in the record number of imports and the record numbers seen in the Canadian fleet.

But what about all those aircraft for sale? According to owners I have talked to, most of them aren't being flown much. The owners want to sell, but not for a loss and they don't want to run up the engine hours and decrease the value further while they are for sale. In the meantime high gas prices aren't helping and it seems that most are parked and not flying.

This means that the exploding Canadian fleet numbers aren't really indicative of the "flying fleet", but rather the "parked fleet". In fact, judging from fuel sale information, there are fewer aircraft flying fewer hours in Canada, not more.

So what can an owner who wants to sell an aircraft do? There are two possibilities:

1. Price the aircraft to the current US prices and accept that it has lost value while you owned it.

2. Hang onto it and hope that the US economy improves, gas prices go down, the baby boomers don't retire, the US dollar climbs against the looney and not too many new aircraft are built.

What if those factors don't reverse? Then it is very likely that used aircraft prices will continue to fall over the next few years.

What would that mean for the Canadian civil aircraft fleet numbers? Basically they will continue to climb as more and more aircraft are imported from the USA, as it has done so for the last four years. However it will continue to give a more and more distorted picture of actual flying in Canada as more owners decide to park, instead of sell, their aircraft.

What is the long term outlook? Because many owners won't sell at the large losses they face today and and because a large number of these unsold Canadian aircraft seem to be owned by older Canadians, it is likely that these parked aircraft will end up as "estate" problems for their heirs and executors to solve eventually.

A Renaissance at Winchester?

2008-07-17T12:52:00.001-04:00

Just a few years ago the small private registered aerodrome at Winchester Ontario seemed to be on the way to oblivion. There were few aircraft based there and even fewer services.

In January 2007 Chris Adams purchased the property and now operates it under the name Adams Aviation Services. One of his first tasks was to construct a new, large maintenance hangar on the property and offer aviation maintenance services. Adams is an experienced AME and holds both an M1 and M2 licence. Over the winter of 2007/08 he plowed Runway 07/25 and kept it open, no mean feat this past winter.

As a result of the construction Adams can now offer hangar space to rent as well as outdoor tie downs, too!

The field is now attended, as Adams lives in a house at the airfield. His stated goal in this endeavour is to "re-establish it as the busy airport".

The airport has two runways:

* 07/25 is turf and asphalt 2000X100 feet (centre 18X1800 asphalt)
* 16/34 is turf 2460X80 feet

Adams has put together a new flash-based website for the airport, including photos of the new buildings at www.winchesterairport.ca

Contact:

Chris Adams
Adams Aviation Services
Winchester Airport
12355 Nesbitt Road
Winchester, Ontario
adamsaviation@winchesterairport.ca
613-612-4714

I would like to hear from any local flyers who have been down to Winchester airfield in 2008 - what did you see there?

Aviation Trends and Expectations

2008-07-06T17:21:00.001-04:00

AvWeb recently ran two back-to-back reader polls that produced some surprising and interesting results. I thought these might be worth discussing.

First off it is worth noting that these AvWeb polls are "non-scientific", in that the participants are "self-selected". People not interested in the issue probably won't take time to answer. Also the respondents might be from anywhere in the world and therefore may not represent Canadian or even US fliers.

Here are the complete results to both polls, as of today:

At what fuel price (if any) would you quit flying? (Choose the answer that's closest to your personal limit.)

They're already too high. (And I've already quit.) 28%
$7 a gallon 14%
$8 a gallon 10%
$9 a gallon 13%
$15 a gallon 12%
I could never quit, no matter how much I have to pay for gas. 24%

What would be the minimum acceptable speed, climb rate, cruise speed, payload and flight time endurance acceptable to make you consider owning a battery-powered electric airplane if it cost under $150,000? (Remember that fuel and maintenance costs would be greatly reduced!)

500 fpm, 60 kt, 200 lb (single seat), 2 hr 2%
500 fpm, 60 kt, 400 (two-seat), 2 hr 7%
500 fpm, 120 kt, 400 lb (two-seat), 2 hr 19%
500 fpm, 120 kt, 400 lb (two-seat), 4 hr 38%
1000 fpm, 180 kt, 800 lb (four-seat), 4 hr (and I might be willing to pay more) 18%
I would never consider an electric airplane. 4%
OTHER (My opinion doesn't appear as a choice.) 11%

As can be seen from the two questions AvWeb asked, one of the biggest issues facing aviation in 2008 is the price of fuel. With the loss of the value of the US dollar and the increase in the price of a barrel of oil, gasoline has doubled in price in the USA over the past twelve months and looks to keep going up for the forseeable future. In some parts of the US lower states 48 avgas is already around $7.00 per gallon.

What is surprising about this poll is that the largest group of respondents is those who chose the first answer - "They're already too high. (And I've already quit.)" If you account for the fact that avgas is already close to $7.00 per gallon, which was the second choice, then the number in that category is probably 42% of US pilots, which is a staggering number. My first thought is that if you think aircraft were cheap this spring, wait until this fall if all those pilots and owners are quitting and selling their planes!

The number of people who say they would quit flying at $8, $9 or $15 per gallon is fairly even, and then you get to the second biggest group - "I could never quit, no matter how much I have to pay for gas." Upon reading that I found it hard to believe that there really is no price that is too high to pay to keep flying for 24% of respondents. I wondered if perhaps it was just an emotional response. Then I thought about it and concluded that they are probably being honest there. They will always fly but will cut their hours down, at least until they are flying just five or ten hours a year, or even just one hour a year. But they will never quit. However the amount of flying they do may not be significant.

Here in Canada we have seen Avgas go up in cost by 50% in the last year, but unlike in the USA, it hasn't doubled in price. So I would expect that the results of a similar poll to this one, that just asked Canadian pilots, would not be so skewed towards the first response.

As gloomy as the results to that poll are, the second poll is much more positive, although we can examine how realistic the expectations are.

First off only 4% said they would never consider an electric aircraft. That means that 96% of pilots would switch to a battery-powered electric airplane to keep flying, or at least that they would consider switching. That is a result that reflects a lot of optimism.

The reason that AvWeb asked about battery-powered electric airplanes instead of fuel-cell-powered or hydrogen-burning or bio-fuel-burning aircraft is obvious, there are none of those aircraft flying right now and the difficulties of getting them flying outside a test environment are quite high. On the other hand battery-powered electric airplanes are here today, available commercially and they work. They are also quite cheap to fly, the "fuel cost" being under $1 per hour. Fuel cell aircraft (other than one Boeing test project) are still many years away and they will be expensive for the performance, if they are ever commercially available.

The most interesting results from the second poll are buried in the details. As noted in the last blog entry, you could buy or build an aircraft that matches the first response, today: "500 fpm, 60 kt, 200 lb (single seat), 2 hr", but only 2% would be happy with that kind of performance.

The largest response by far, at 38%, was for an aircraft with performance of "500 fpm, 120 kt, 400 lb (two-seat), 4 hr". That sounds like a battery powered CT-2 or something similar. The question is: "is that close to reality today, given the current state of the art?". Let's look at that.

The limiting factor in electric flight is the battery technology. ElectraFlyer uses lithium polymer batteries that can provide 5.6 kwh of power at a weight of 78 lbs, which is 13.9 lbs/kwh. To meet the performance goals stated, an aircraft like a CT-2 would need to produce 100 hp (75 kw) for 15 minutes and then 75 hp (56 kw) for 3.75 hours, for a total of 229 kwh, not counting any reserves. Using lithium polymer batteries this would mean that they would weigh 3180 lbs, a bit heavy for a CT-2-like aircraft, with a gross weight of 1320 lbs.

Of course lithium polymer batteries are just the best available today, not tomorrow. Right now the next generation of batteries with the best promise are probably hyper-capacitors. Instead of a big container of chemicals, these are banks of capacitors that can soak up a charge and then release it on demand to the engine. They have some real advantages over chemical batteries: they are lighter, nothing to spill and they can be recharged quickly, if you have enough amps and volts available to charge them fast.

One new state of the art hyper-capacitor is made by EEStor and will power the next generation Canadian-made CityZENN car. In the car application it will produce the power to let the car do 100 km/hr for 4 hours, which makes it a pretty practical electric car. The EEStor hyper-capacitor weighs 300 lbs and holds 52 kwh of power, which is a power density of 5.8 lbs/kwh. This is obviously twice as good as the lithium polymer battery.

With a hyper-capacitor our hypothetical CT-2-like aircraft could meet the mission requirements with a battery pack that weighs 1321 lbs. That happens to be the gross weight of the aircraft, but it is getting closer to reality. The current CT-2 engine and fuel weight for four hours is close to 310 lbs. Electric motors and controllers weigh considerably less than their gas-burning equivalent, so there is some savings there. Basically, though to have a practical "500 fpm, 120 kt, 400 lb (two-seat), 4 hr" airplane battery technology needs to produce a battery that will hold 229 kwh of power in a form that weighs around 260 lbs, for an energy density of 1.13 lb/kwh. This would be about 12 times better than lithium polymer or about 5 times better than the next generation of hyper-capacitors.

Can it be done? I sure hope so!

A Glimpse of the Future of GA?

2008-06-27T11:02:00.003-04:00

These days Randall Fishman seems to be on the cutting edge of what may prove to be the future of general aviation. Last year his ElectraFlyer battery-powered trike won the Grand Champion Ultralight and Innovation Award at AirVenture. This year he will be bringing his ElectraFlyer-C at Oshkosh.

The ElectraFlyer-C is essentially a technological development of the trike's powerplant design, but with the electric engine and battery pack mounted in a Moni motorglider. The motorglider is a natural for this type of power, as its low drag profile and low span loading add up to an aircraft that is very efficient and therefore, can fly on a small amount of power.

The ElectraFlyer-C is powered by a 29-pound, 18-hp electric motor, a regenerative-braking-capable controller package and two lithium polymer battery packs. The batteries weigh a total of 78 pounds. The single place Moni has a 27.5-foot wingspan which gives it a respectable 18:1 glide ratio. It weighs 380 lbs, fully charged and ready to fly, less the crew weight.

The aircraft is expected to have a climb rate of at least 500 fpm, a cruise speed of 70 mph and a stall speed of 45 mph. With the current batteries it should be able to fly under electric power for approximately 90 minutes, giving a realistic one hour flight, plus a half-hour power reserve.

The plane can be recharged from a 110-volt outlet in about six hours. Using a 220 volt charger will cut the recharging time to about two hours.

The Moni airframe is no longer available as a kit and so Fishman will not be marketing a complete aircraft. Instead he is focusing on providing the complete power pack including the motor, controller and battery packs. This is aimed at home builders who will then mount this powerplant in their own aircraft.

What is the point? Well perhaps two-fold.

First the ElectraFlyer-C is expected to operate for a fuel cost of about 75 cents for a one hour flight. This compares to a minimum of $10-15 per hour for fuel for any gasoline burning aircraft, even in this horsepower range.

Second, GA has to be prepared to move away from burning gasoline and oil-based fuels. Many folks spend a lot of time complaining about the price of gas these days, but very few people are doing anything about it.

People like Randall Fishman and his ElectraFlyer are rarities - someone who is dealing with the issue of high oil prices head-on with practical, well-engineered solutions.

So kudos to Randall Fishman, he may well be showing us the way to the future of personal flying. I don't think too many pilots would argue that 75 cents an hour for power to fly is a bad thing!

Pictures and details on ElectraFlyer's website

Walk Arounds are Getting More Important!

2008-06-16T13:59:00.000-04:00

The increasing price of avgas is having an interesting effect and that is adding up to making doing better walk arounds a really good idea.

AvWeb recently carried a story about a commercial light aircraft in New Zealand that suffered a gas theft. This probably shouldn't be a surprise to anyone - avgas is worth a lot of money these days. In this case the thieves got away with 26 gallons (100 litres) of fuel, valued at $200.

Avgas is $1.67 this week at Carp, which would make this theft $167, even at the relatively cheaper cost of gas here over New Zealand.

In the case of the aircraft in New Zealand the pilot noticed the theft on his pre-flight inspection and reported it to the police. He gets full marks for doing a good walk around. How many of us fly in somewhere, gas up and then go for lunch, come back jump in and just go, without re-dipping the tanks?

It could be quite a surprise to start up and take-off only find that you only had enough gas left in the tanks to start up and take-off. In this day and age make sure you dip those tanks before you fly!

Some News on Rebuilding Certified Aircraft into the Amateur-Built Category

2008-05-29T14:37:00.001-04:00

There have been some troubling things happening in the amateur-built aircraft world recently, particularly for people who are trying to build an amateur-built using any components that were previous used on a certified aircraft.

This practice used to be allowed, as long as the project still met the 51% determination, in other words that the builder still did the majority of the work. This meant that quite a lot of formerly certified parts could be used and, in fact, some certified aircraft had some enough work done rebuilding them that they qualified for 51% and the amateur-built category.

In 2006 the FAA heard about what was happening in Canada on this issue and decided to object to Transport Canada. It has to be pointed out that there are many US home-builts flying with a lot of certified parts on them, in addition to engines, avionics and instruments, which have always been permitted. There are US registered Breezys that have whole wings and struts straight from Pipers installed on them. These met the 51% rule in the USA and are legal US amateur-builts.

The FAA is going though its own deliberations about the 51% rule these days and and so they objected and indicated that they would take action if TC didn't. So TC started telling people: no more certified parts on amateur-builts. This caused more questions than there were answers, of course.

On May 4th there was a Minister's Delegates, Recreational Aviation seminar and TC finally gave some useful guidance on what the new rules are.

RAA President Gary Wolfe explains the news:

"Yesterday's MDRA seminar (May 4th) largely clarified Transport's new policy on the incorporation of formerly certified major components to Amateur Built aircraft."

"It will remain legal to incorporate these into a project under certain
circumstances. Parts which are attached by bolts came under scrutiny. The removal and replacement of these components does not qualify towards a 51% determination, nor does the opening up of parts for inspection."

"Repair and rebuilding of components can qualify towards 51%, especially if the rework is to pieces that were originally assembled by permanent methods such as welding, gluing, bonding, soldering. Dismantling and reassembly of these components can be considered to be repair and rebuilding."

"Riveting was not discussed in the document, so RAA has already sent an email to TC for a clarification of this point. For awhile it had been TC policy to fast track owner-maintenance aircraft into amateur-built, but this will now become much more difficult."

"Earlier, the work that had originally been done to become an owner-maintenance aircraft had been allowed to qualify for the amateur-built 51% determination. Now this earlier work will not qualify, so it is unlikely that there will be any more fast track conversions, unless the owner-maintenance aircraft is being largely rebuilt again."

"Borescopes and video cameras had previously been allowed for internal inspection of closed components, but these will no longer be allowed."

"It will henceforth be necessary to unrivet skins or remove fabric to determine whether formerly certified major components are suitable for reuse. Rebuilding a major component can qualify it towards 51%. If for example a builder had begun with a complete Cessna wing but found that he had to remake more than 50% of the components, he could get credit for having built a wing. Every major component reuse will trigger the requirement for a 51% determination. There will initially
be a peer review by MDRA, then a determination by TC."

"Projects which have already had their 51% determination will be allowed to proceed to final, to become amateur-built aircraft."

The news here may not be what everyone was hoping to hear, but at least there is some clarification, at least at this point.

The price of Avgas - What to do?

2008-04-13T18:45:00.003-04:00

The price of Avgas - What to do?

The data definitely shows that more Canadians now own private aircraft than ever before. At the end of March 2008 there were 25,244 private aircraft registered in Canada. During 2007 there were 659 private aircraft added to the Canadian fleet.

So more people are flying more airplanes, right? Maybe.

The numbers on "hours being flown" are harder to come by, as Transport Canada don't publish what they get from the AAIR reports. One thing that we do suspect from talking to fuel dealers is that over the last few years they area't pumping as much Avgas as they used to.

So what is going on? More aircraft being purchased, built and imported but flying fewer hours?

It is possible, because of two facts.

First, right now aircraft are quite cheap. The plummeting US dollar since 2004 has made most used aircraft very cheap in the past three or four years. If you are building your own aircraft then the plunging US dollar has made aircraft building supplies and US kits cheap. Aluminium, engines, fabric, instruments are all far cheaper than they were in 2000.

Second, gas is expensive and it is going up. Everyone watches the price of car gas and in the last year it has gone from a national average of 92 cents to $1.19 this past week, which is a 30% increase. BMO Nesbitt Burns analyst Randy Ollenberger is predicting pump prices of $1.50 within a few months and that it won't come back down, due to high demand around the world.

Avgas hasn't gone up in price as quickly in the last year, but some northern locations are already selling at over $2.00 per litre and prices getting near $1.75 aren't uncommon in southern Canada this spring. Given the normal price differences between car gas and aviation fuel Avgas will likely end up close to $2.00 per litre across most of southern Canada this summer.

So "airplanes cheap, gas expensive" adds up to more people owning more airplanes and flying them less. It isn't a good trend, but with strong and increasing global demand for oil, while world oil production is flat or even declining, what is the future for personal flying?

At least one company thinks it is electric aircraft. They have taken the concept beyond the experimental stage and are selling production electric aircraft today.

In fact Electric Aircraft Corporation has been selling their ElectraFlyer since last year. It is a single seat US FAR 103 legal weight-shift trike, with a Northwing Stratus hang glider-style wing. It is powered by an 18 hp electric motor that weighs just 26 lbs. Instead of filling up the gas tank you recharge the 5.6 kWh Lithium Ion battery pack. The battery weighs 78 lbs. A charge should take about four hours and would cost under 50 cents at the 8 cents per kWh we pay here. That charge will give you a take-off and a flight of 1.5 hours at an average of 5 hp used. It is able to fly on this low horsepower because of light weight and a big wing area with relatively low drag. The trike weighs 247 lbs and can be purchased complete today for USD$16,885.00 ready to fly.

There is more, though. Not only can you fly for pennies an hour, but there is no gas to buy, no oil to buy and the electric motor is maintenance-free. The aircraft is also quiet. With a geared prop that turns slowly it is so quiet that you don't need hearing protection. Your neighbours will love this aircraft, because they won't know it is there. No more calling ahead for gas either - if your destination has AC power then you can get a "fill".

The company says that it is "The closest thing to a magic carpet ride ever attained." They may be right.

Okay I can hear the grumbling already, "Sure, great if you want to fly some open air ultralight at 25 mph, but am I going to be able to run my SR-22 on a battery?"

Let's see: A 310 horsepower Cirrus is 231 kW. Assuming 15 minutes at full power and four hours at 75% power cruise, you would need a battery pack with a capacity of 750 kWh or about 134 times that of the ElectraFlyer trike. Using Lithium Ion batteries that would bring the weight of the battery pack to about 10,000 lbs. Maybe not.

I don't think battery powered aircraft are going to be practical above the ultralight level, at least unless some amazing things are done with battery technology.

There are some promising things being done with hyper-capacitors. They work like batteries storing a charge, but do it through banks of capacitors, rather than chemical means like batteries. Zenn Motors of Toronto are planning to bring out a new car soon that will be powered by an EEStor ceramic hyper-capacitor that will produce 70 hp and drive the car at 100 km/hr for four hours, giving it a range of 400 km with an electrical storage unit that weighs 300 lbs. The best part is that hyper-capacitors can be charged in a few minutes from special high voltage/high amp charging stations. This has promise for aviation applications.

One thing is clear: the private aircraft of the future will look different from the aircraft of today, they won't be 1950s airplanes with new engines. They will need to be able to fly on less horsepower and that means greater span and lower wing loading than we see today. It is not an accident that Boeing's fuel cell test plane was a Dimona motor glider.

The good news is that innovative things are being done and, thanks to companies like Electric Aircraft Corporation, you could be flying silently and free of high gas prices today, if you want to.

The Cessna 162 SkyCatcher in Canada

2008-04-07T11:19:00.002-04:00

My last blog entry outlined some interesting controversies about the Cessna 162. These are global issues for the aircraft type, but there are also some issues that affect this aircraft only in Canada.

I should start by pointing out that these issues have been known for quite a while, but they have no current solutions. I talked to Transport Canada this past week to confirm that this information is still current.

The primary question is - as a Canadian can you buy and fly a Cessna 162?.

The answer is "yes, sort of, maybe, depends."

If you are planning on buying a C-162 for private use then the answer is "probably". If you want to use it in a flight school operation then the answer is more complex and closer to "no".

The whole issue hinges on the status of the C-162. It is a fully manufactured aircraft with a gross weight of 1320 lbs that meets the ASTM rules for a US Light Sport Aircraft (LSA). It is not a FAR 23 certified aircraft.

In Canada the C-162 does not qualify to be a CAR 523 or CAR 523 VLA certified aircraft. It is too heavy to be an Advanced Ultra-light Aeroplane (AULA) or Basic Ultra-light Aeroplane (BULA), as they are limited to 1232 and 1200 lbs respectively. It only fits into one category in Canada - the Limited Class.

The Limited Class was really developed to allow old out of production non-certified aircraft to be flown in Canada, such as warbirds and non-certified experimental gliders. Even though the C-162 fits this class, putting brand-new, mass-produced Cessnas in it wasn't TC's intention and in talking to them recently they are still a bit uncomfortable with the notion.

If a private owner were to put a C-162 into the Limited Class then it could be flown like any other light aircraft. The only restriction would be that maintenance releases would have to be signed by an AME, not by the owner as in the US LSA class.

Aircraft in the Limited Class can be used for commercial use, but only for CAR 702 Aerial Work operations. This means banner towing, aerial photography, crop spraying, etc. It can't be used for flight training. To be honest there aren't too many aerial work applications for this small, 100 hp aircraft.

So what do you do if you want to use C-162s in your school? Well you could try applying for an exemption to the CARs, but don't count on it being approved.

The next question most people would ask is "So what is going to happen?"

There is some good news here. The CARAC Recreational Aviation Working Group which I chaired in 2005-06 actually addressed this exact issue. It recommended that the LSA category be established as an additional category in Canada, among other recommendations. That report was accepted by CARAC in 2007 and moved on towards the TC risk assessment and NPA drafting processes.

In talking with TC officials this past week I confirmed that the recommendations are still on the way to becoming rules, but that the massive reorganization that TC is currently going through have brought work to a stop on this and many other projects.

So when will the LSA be a category in Canada, allowing private ownership of C-162s with owner-maintenance and their use in flight schools?

The soonest I would look for this is in about ten years. Due to TC priorities (i.e. not small aircraft) and shortage of manpower at TCHQ, I think "never" is a better bet.

Free advice:

If you are thinking of buying a C-162, or any other LSA that doesn't qualify to be an AULA or BULA in Canada, for private use then contact TC Airworthiness before putting any money down. Find out if they will issue a Special Certificate of Airworthiness - Limited for it. Be prepared to have the maintenance signed off by an AME.

If you are thinking of buying a C-162, or any other LSA that doesn't qualify to be an AULA or BULA in Canada, for flight school use then contact your TC principal inspector before putting any money down. Find out if there is any chance of an exemption to operate the aircraft in school use. If not, it may be possible to put it in the Limited Class as a private aircraft and use it for rental only, as that use is not under your operating certificate.

The New Cessna 162 SkyCatcher - Three Controversies for the Price of One!

2008-04-03T14:33:00.008-04:00

Cessna's new two seater, the Model 162 is a remarkable aircraft for a number of reasons.

It is the first two-seater Cessna has produced since C-152 production ended in 1985. It is the lightest aircraft Cessna has produced with an LSA gross weight of 1320 lbs. It has control sticks, instead of the ubiquitous Cessna "ram's horn" wheels. It even has swing-up doors, unique in the Cessna line-up.

Overall, though the Model 162 is remarkable, it is not that innovative. It is made of sheet metal, like all the other Cessnas have been, although the up-and-coming NGP may break that rule as do the Cessna 350 and 400, although Cessna bought those designs already flying. It has a Continental O-200 engine, just like its Cessna 150 predecessor of 1959. Despite its lighter weight it will have a performance very close to the 150 or 152 as well.

Where the 162 does stand out is that it has proven so controversial. In fact there are three controversies involving the SkyCatcher, not including the choice of name, which most pilots seem to dislike.

The aircraft's name is pretty minor compared to the biggest controversy - building the C-162 in China. Cessna announced on 27 November 2007 that the 162 would be built by the Shenyang Aircraft Corporation, which is a subsidiary of China Aviation Industry Corporation I (AVIC I), a Chinese government-owned consortium.

This decision resulted in a blog article by Cessna spokesman Tom Aniello on the aircraft's website www.skycatcher.com. Don't bother looking for that website - it doesn't exist any more and that is part of the story, although you can read an archived copy of the page here.

Aniello's blog was an attempt to put forward the logical business case for building the aircraft in China. His best two arguments were that the aircraft would have cost $71,000 more to produce in the US and that Cessna was out of plant capacity in the USA anyway.

Aniello also pointed out that Shenyang is a long standing producer of airliners and fighters and that they build parts today for Boeing's airliners. They are a reliable source.

The blog was just like this one, an article with a chance for readers to post their thoughts. And they did - thousands of them. I read them all. About 10% were positive about the decision and expressed understanding. The remaining 90% were very negative. They cited shoddy Chinese products being subject to recall in the USA, Chinese products being painted with lead-based paint, China's human rights record, exporting of US jobs and China's less-than-friendly relations with the west and the USA in particular. Many posts were from people who claimed to have either been considering buying a 162 and now wouldn't, or from people who had ordered one and canceled their order. The outpourings were sometimes ill-thought out and sometimes very eloquent and well written.

Cessna's response was also ill-thought out. On January 25, 2008 they deleted the whole website and issued a new statement.

It says:

"First off, we would like to personally thank everyone who has joined the conversation about our new Cessna SkyCatcher. Your comments and opinions surrounding this bold new venture are extremely valuable to us and especially as first flight gets closer."

"As the excitement builds, our site has also evolved. We’ve implemented new methods and editorial protocols to better facilitate communication. At the same time, we’ve added a new site feature that will include all of the very latest SkyCatcher product updates. This section is called e-Briefs."

"Here’s how the site works: we now invite you to submit your comment to our site editors for consideration of on-line posting, much like traditional publishing. This will give us a better opportunity to respond with our own comments on a more regular basis. You can rest assured that views representative of all sides of an issue will be chosen for display on the site by our editorial staff."

Naturally most people have understood this to mean: "to serve you better, we are ending all debate." Other aviation blogs have taken up the cause, but at least Cessna isn't hosting their own criticisms anymore. Obviously Cessna' mistake was to host a debate in the first place. They completely underestimated the results. Someone in Wichita got debriefed over this one.

Incidentally despite their new invitation to submit comments it looks like no negative ones have been posted. Big surprise. Lots of people are still unhappy over the decision to produce the aircraft in China and also that Cessna invited and then cut off debate.

There are two other controversies that the 162 has produced, but these are talked about less often, overshadowed by the Chinese out-sourcing issue.

The first is the cost. Cessna is now offering the 162 for USD$111,500, having sold the first 1000 orders at $109,500. Cessna's statements indicate that the price, if it were built in the USA would have been $182,500. This seems like a far-fetched claim. The current price of the bare-bones C-172R is currently $234,500. Given that, $182,500 doesn't sound out of line for a smaller two-seater. The odd thing is that other companies are building LSAs in the USA and are making money selling them for a lot less. A good example is AMD who sell the Chris Heintz designed Zodiac XL for USD$99,900.00.

Why would it cost Cessna twice as much as a small company to make an airplane in the USA? The size of Cessna and its experience should make aircraft cheaper, not more expensive, one would think. They must be making a lot of money building them for $111,500 in China, or perhaps the profits are eaten up by shipping the made-in-USA engines, avionics, etc to China and then back again?

The last and least-mentioned controversy about the 162 is its full fuel payload. With a gross weight of 1320 and a full fuel load of 26 US gallons (144 lbs) the aircraft has just 346 lbs remaining for occupants and baggage. That means that it won't even carry one standard TC weight man (200 lbs summer) and one standard weight woman (165 lbs summer) without draining an hour's worth of gas out. Don't ask about baggage.

Of course many will argue that with an LSA-imposed gross weight of only 1320 lbs how can the plane have any payload? Here is what the competition offers for full fuel payload:

AMD Zodiac XL - 370 lb and that is with 30 gallons of gas. With the SkyCatcher's 24 gallons it would lift 394 lbs

Flight Design CT - 476 lbs and that is with 34 US gallons on board. With the SkyCatcher's 24 gallons it would lift 536 lbs.

So why is the SkyCatcher so heavy, compared to other designs in its class? I don't have an answer to that question.

For me the most interesting controversy involving the 162 is its sales figures. Cessna claims to have over 1000 firm orders for the aircraft. If so that would mean that once these orders are filled almost half the LSAs in the USA will be Cessna 162s. Given the higher price and the poor load carrying capabilities, not to mention the huge backlash against the Chinese outsourcing, why is it selling so well?

Perhaps the answer there is the same answer as why brand-name Tylenol outsells the identical and much cheaper generics by ten to one: the power of brand names and advertising.

The Cessna 162 is a fascinating story to follow, more controversial than any other aircraft that Cessna has ever built. I am sure that as production starts and C-162s are delivered to customers we will hear a lot more about it!

Further recommended reading

Uncontrolled Airport arrival - Joining the circuit...

2008-03-15T21:52:00.001-04:00

Quoted here is the kind of sloppy work in the TC AIM that really bugs me, in the section on traffic circuit procedures uncontrolled aerodromes it says, "...once the pilot has ascertained without any doubt that there will be no conflict with other traffic entering the circuit or traffic established within the circuit, the pilot may also join the circuit on the downwind leg (Figure 4.6)." My problem is that the statement quoted above and and as repeated in figure 4.6 are misleading at best and conflict with the CARs at its worst. Also, transport's authors use the word "conflict" which is not defined, but I take it to mean likely risk of collision with known traffic.

First, the statement and figure seem to suggest that in spite of any conflicts, one can enter the circuit with impunity from the upwind side as shown in figure 4.6 above? Not! The CARs clearly require one to ensure that one will not risk a collisions with other traffic (CAR 602.96) no matter how one chooses to join the circuit. Also, I doubt that the rules right-of-way (CAR 602.19) are made void by CAR 602.96.

In my view pilots doing circuits should give way to traffic joining straight in to the downwind by extending their climb straight out a little farther from the airport for separation. If there is traffic on downwind and they turn crosswind they risk collision with that traffic (thereby contravening CAR 602.19). I believe it is better to climb straight out farther from the airport for separation than it is to ultimately extend the downwind leg far past the airport because of traffic ahead. Check the midair at Mascouche in 1997 where the downwind legs stretched outside the airport's five mile zone. If someone is 5 miles from the airport they are on a cross country not the downwind leg!

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/air/1997/a97q0250/a97q0250.asp

If on the other hand the airport has a right hand circuit, then traffic established on downwind will have any traffic arriving from the upwind side on their right. If they collide who had the right of way? You got it the guy joining from over head is on the right of the pilot on downwind and has the right of way.

I see nothing in the CARs that say traffic established in the circuit can ignore the rules right-of-way. What the CARs say to me is that arriving traffic must avoid collisions and conform to the pattern of other traffic. They do not say don't give way to aircraft on your right when in the circuit. Also keep in mind that the CARs require all pilots to avoiding having collisions (CAR 602.19) in spite of who has the right of way.

Here is a summary of what the CARs (CAR 602.96) say about operating an aircraft on, or in the vicinity of an aerodrome (controlled or not). These are my words not the CARs.

Before landing or taking off the pilot must be satisfied that there will be no risk of collision with other aircraft or vehicles. And that the aerodrome is suitable for his intended operation.
The pilot must observe the traffic circuit so as to avoid a collision.
The pilot must conform to or avoid the circuit made by other aircraft operating at the airport.
The pilot must make all turns to the left when in the circuit, unless a right hand circuit is specified in the Canada Flight Supplement (CFS).
The pilot should, if able, land or take off into the wind.
The pilot must maintain a listening watch for air traffic control communications or if unable watch for visual signals. (As I read them the CARs do not require radio equipped aircraft to monitor the ATF.)
If at a controlled aerodrome the pilot must have a clearance to land, take off or taxi.
If not intending to land the pilot must be at least 2000 feet above the aerodrome elevation when over flying it.

No where do the CARs say one must join the circuit from the upwind side or on the downwind leg or from anywhere in particular. Nor do the CARs relieve pilots of their right of way obligations under CARs 602.19.

Let me state it quite simply, Transport Canada's statements in the AIM about avoiding conflicts when joining the circuit on the downwind leg, appear to apply to all situations when joining the circuit, not just joining on the downwind leg as depicted in figure 4.6.

Good airmanship suggests we follow the circuit joining procedures that TC lays out in the AIM, but they should fix the wording to reflect the CARs more closely. We are better off if we all follow known procedure--it is better to know what the other guy is likely to do and vice versa.

Michael Shaw

airmail@rogers.com

Conflicting traffic please advise...and other useless phrases!

2008-03-10T19:32:00.001-04:00

"Rockcliffe Traffic Cessna 172 Bravo Romeo India five east over Orleans at one thousand five hundred in bound landing Rockcliffe. Conflicting traffic please advise..."

"Conflicting traffic please advise...", give me a break! What does this add to the system except wasted verbiage and frequency congestion. Why broadcast of your position and intentions on Rockcliffe's frequency if not to advise other pilots in the area that you are there and what you are planning to do? The whole point of making the broadcast is to coordinate your arrival with other traffic in the area. Only an idiot would not respond to your broadcast, especially if he thought there might be a conflict. I don't just want conflicting traffic to advise me. I want all traffic in the area to report their position and intentions. If I shut up and listen I will likely hear them all calling out their positions without my "please advise" request.

My normal routine is to build a mental picture of reported traffic in the area so I can decide if I will continue with my original plan or change it to ensure a smooth, safe flow of traffic. I need all traffic to broadcast their locations and intentions, not just those who think they might be in conflict.

Mr. "Please Advise" is almost as annoying as the sunny Sunday afternoon pilot who requests an airport advisory on the ATF when there are three reported in the circuit and several others calling in bound, all broadcasting position reports. What, prey tell, is one going to find out that is not already obvious by shutting up a listening on the ATF? Nothing! Spare us the request for advisories when it is busy.

And then there is the, "Rockcliffe Traffic BRI is clear of the active..." If I am in the circuit I can see that you are clear of the active runway. On the ground, if you can't see the way is clear don't take off...We really don't need to waste frequency time with useless stuff.

For that matter, why say "Cessna 172 Bravo Romeo India." Shorten it to "172 Romeo India" or better "romeo india turning final 27 Rockcliffe, number two." I know TC expects a longer call sign but this is faster and is just as clear, as long as there is not another romeo india on the ATF.

Michael Shaw

airmail@rogers.com

What is the future of Avgas?

2008-02-18T18:37:00.002-05:00

This has been an interesting question for a number of years, but most people haven't been paying attention.

The heat was recently cranked up a notch by comments made by the new President of Teledyne Continental Motors, Rhett Ross.

In an interview with AvWeb Ross stated that he thought it would only be a matter of time before aviation was "forced out" of using 100LL. His company is proceeding full speed in the development of a 300 hp diesel engine that will be the first of a series of jet-fuel burning diesels from 100-300 hp. You can tell by the fact that they hope to have this new engine certified by late 2009 or early 2010 that Continental considers this a priority issue.

But is there a threat of 100LL disappearing in that sort of short term window?

The answer is an emphatic "yes" and GA needs to be ready for it.

We used to have four grades of Avgas - 80/87, 91/96, 100/130 and 115/145. The refining industry just stopped making each one of those over time and it caused some real heartache, especially for owners of aircraft that needed 115/145, because they couldn't go to a higher grade. A lot of engines stopped flying and some aircraft left service or got re-engined to turbines.

A few years ago there was a specification developed for 82UL (for unleaded), but no refiner has shown any interest in making any of it. Too small a market to bother.

What might cause 100LL to go away?

There are currently two different types of threats to the one remaining grade of avgas. The first is economic and the second is environmental.

From a refiner's economic perspective 100LL is hard to justify making at all. The market for it is tiny and spread out far and wide. The specifications for it are very tight which makes it expensive to produce. It also needs special handling at the refinery and during transport, because it contains tetra-ethyl lead (TEL) - it can't come into contact with other fuels. It requires dedicated everything as a result.

Overall making 100LL is a pain for the refiners and they wish they didn't have to do it. There are only two refineries in North America that make 100LL.

There is also only one company in the whole world that makes the TEL that is an essential ingredient and that is Innospec of the UK. If they decide to stop making this very toxic substance 100LL cannot be made anymore. On any given day the world has about a 30 day supply of 100LL on hand. Gone are the days of vast quantities of gas being stored - it is all "just in time" delivery these days.

These economic factors make 100LL's existence very precarious - today, not just years from now.

Everyone knows that leaded auto fuel was phased out in the early 1980s. Why? Because lead in gasoline is a toxic substance. No matter what the combustion process or temperature the tailpipe products of lead combustion are toxic to humans and most likely cancer-causing as well.

In the USA, the Environmental Protection Agency is once again looking at 100LL and why it is the last leaded fuel in use. Many environmental groups want it removed as well and not without good reason.

As Continentals' Ross pointed out this week, this will happen at some point, either from the economic or environmental perspective.

The question for pilots and aircraft owners is "what then?"

Auto fuel will still be available for some time, so if your aircraft is designed to run on auto fuel or can use it through an STC, you will be using that. I would bet that those empty 100LL tanks at the airport will start to be filled with premium autofuel, rather than sit empty.

What if you can't run on autofuel? Lots of aircraft can't, like 2007's best-selling new aircraft, the Cirrus SR22, for just one example. Cessna's new 350 and 400 can't either.

Companies like Continental will be very happy to sell you a jet-fuelled retrofit diesel engine a few years down the road. Hopefully you won't need one before they have them available. Many aircraft types will eventually have diesels available under STC. The folks at SMA diesels already have some STCs for their one product, the 230hp SR305 engine. It has been available for the Cessna 182 for a few years. There have been few takers, because of the cost.

If the cost of the SMA conversion is any indication then be prepared to pay around $100K for the conversion to jet fuel. The added bonus will be lower fuel consumption and longer range as a result. Of course for many older aircraft this cost will be several times more than the aircraft is worth. Also the removed gasoline engine will not fetch much when there is no fuel for it - perhaps scrap value.

I don't think used avgas-only powered aircraft are going to fetch high prices at that point.

So what can the lowly aircraft owner do in light of Ross's comments? Probably make like Boy Scouts and "be prepared". You now know what is going to happen when the 100LL taps run dry, so make a plan. Will you run on autofuel? Will you retrofit a jet-fuel burning diesel. Will you transition to rubber band power?

Just don't be surprised on the day when Ross's prediction happens and general aviation is "forced out" of 100LL.

Falling Like Flies?

2008-02-13T16:53:00.002-05:00

What is happening to aircraft manufacturers? We seem to be losing them at a rapid rate these days, especially start-up manufacturers of light aircraft.

Let's look at the recent score sheet:

Symphony Aircraft of Trois-Rivières, Quebec. Manufactured the Symphony SA-160, completing about 18 aircraft. Started production in May 2005, bankrupt in January 2007.

Tiger Aircraft of Martinsburg, West Virginia. Manufactured the AG-5B Tiger, produced 51 aircraft. Started production in 2002, bankrupt in January 2007.

Adam Aircraft of Centennial, Colorado. Manufactured the A500 twin, produced seven of them. They were also flying the single prototype of the A700 twin-jet. Started up A-500 production in 2005, bankrupt in February 2008.

Let's consider the details:

Symphony Aircraft

I actually visited Symphony Aircraft on 10 August 2005 to interview their CEO, Paul Costanzo. You can read my review of the aircraft on the COPA website.

At that point production had just begun and he was very confident that they had sufficient capital to see them through the start-up phase. His priorities at that time, with customer deliveries of the certified SA-160 already under way, were certifying the BRS parachute installation and the Avidyne glass cockpit installation. Customers wanted both those items and work was progressing on them. He had orders and he had skilled workers building planes.

Costanzo was very upbeat about the company at that point. He was convinced that many new aircraft manufacturers fail because they don't have sufficient capitalization to get through the certification and start-up of production to the point where they can create cash-flow by getting customer's aircraft out the door. He was confident that his company was more than adequately capitalized.

I think he was right about the first point, but he was obviously wrong about Symphony being adequately capitalized because they ran out of money and just couldn't raise any more. Costanzo was quoted as saying that the venture capital market in Quebec was "dismal".

Costanzo had plans for a four-place Symphony and also a floatplane and a diesel version, but work hadn't really started on those projects, awaiting the money to do that.

Tiger Aircraft

Tiger had actually started producing AG-5Bs in 2002. Again it was not a lack of orders for the aircraft or skilled workers, but it was financing to get through the start-up and certification period. Like Symphony, Tiger was working on certifying a glass-cockpit installation for the AG-5B when they ran out of money. Customers wanted them in the Tiger, but they couldn't find the financing required to get over that hurdle.

Adam Aircraft

This company had been around for ten years when it finally closed its doors on February 11th, 2008. They had a real attention-getting product, the twin-boom, push-pull A500. Heck it was even in the 2006 film version of Miami Vice, because it was so stylish-looking.

There was little indication of problems at Adam until early in the New Year 2008. The aviation media carried stories about Adam trying to raise US$75M-150M to complete the certification of the A700 jet and get the A500 into full production. In the end their closing press release indicated that the reason for the failure was "due to the inability of the company to come to terms with their lender for funding necessary to maintain business operations."

What is going on here?

It is easy to read these three stories of new aircraft manufacturers and think that the problem could be summed up as "under-capitalization" - not enough money to get them through the the certification and start-up process and into production. Smarter companies would have had more money, right?

There are indications that even the most heavily capitalized companies are having problems getting through the costs of certification. Eclipse Aviation, makers of the best selling Eclipse 500 jet that is just starting to come off the production line, have been asking their customers to advance a bigger down payment to the company to help it get all the components certified and production ramped up. The customers have put up an additional US$30M too. Hopefully Eclipse is over the certification and start-up hump now. But if really-well-funded Eclipse has to keep going back for more cash the question remains - is there such as thing as "adequately capitalized" for a new company to start production of a new aircraft?

I don't believe that the real issue here is under-capitalization, I think the real problem is that certifying an aircraft and its systems is far too expensive, and, most of all, that it is not money well spent.

I am not the only one who thinks that certification is too expensive. In a conversation with Zenair principal Chris Heintz a few years ago, just after the company had certified the CH2000 as the AMD Alarus, I asked him how much it cost. He said "Too much.". I asked him if he would certify another aircraft. He was quick to answer, "No".

Talking with the folks at Found Aircraft after they had completed certification of the BushHawk produced the same response - certification was too expensive to make it worthwhile.

The governments of both the US and Canada have created enormously complex sets of rules to certify that aircraft are safe. The rules that a manufacturer has to comply with to build even a small and simple aircraft are bizarrely excessive. Read them yourself on the TC website.

Now I know that there was a good reason to introduce standards for manufactured aircraft in the 1930s. Before we had standards manufacturers produced some very dangerous and badly designed aircraft and sold them to the public. All that ended with the introduction of the first light aircraft certification standards, which were sensible, short and relatively easy to comply with. Aircraft became a lot safer as a result of these rules.

The problem was that the bureaucrats figured even more rules would make aircraft even safer and every year more and more rules were added until we came to the insanely complex rules that we have today. The problem is that beyond the early days the data is pretty clear: they haven't made aircraft safer, just a lot more expensive.

It costs a lot of money to pay to have large collections of engineers in Ottawa and Oklahoma City sitting around making up rules and then enforcing them. The end result is the new manufacturer carnage described above. You just can't have enough money to pay for it all. And new aircraft are not safer than the older ones certified to much earlier and simpler versions of the rules.

The problem is that you can't seem to fire all the certification bureaucrats or even find a way to force them to simplify the rules. Every time an aircraft crashes they add more rules in an attempt to prevent that last accident. If you wanted to certify the Cessna 206H in Canada today it would only be allowed to carry one person - no kidding!

I proposed a few years ago that he CARs be fixed in size and that any time TC wanted to add a new word to them that they would have remove an existing word. People laughed, but I wasn't kidding. You can't have rules that just get more and more complex over time - it destroys creativity in the short term, costs too much money in the mid-term and results in the end of the industry in the long term.

Here is a warning - very soon here we are going to need some aircraft engines that do not burn gasoline, jet fuel or diesel. We are going to realize that we are going to need them quite quickly when the price of oil gets too high and people can't afford to fly or run commercial air services. There will be some great research done on fuel cells, electric engines, hydrogen-burning engines and perhaps other things undreamt of today, but the certification hurdles will stop the innovation needed from happening at all. You can't certify a new type of aero engine today that doesn't run on oil-based fuels, in less than 20 years. The result is not going to be pretty.

In a way the certification process is making the skies safer, because it is keeping aircraft out of the skies in the first place or at least new aircraft out of the skies. Ironically this means that potential buyers of those new aircraft may just have to buy an old aircraft instead. They may have little choice. You can't buy a new Adam A500 today, no matter how much you would like to, but you can buy a 40 year old Cessna Skymaster.

There have been several attempts to create ways around the huge roadblock that is our certification rules. The Canadian advanced ultralight rules and the American copycat LSA rules are two examples. Amateur-builts are another.

But without wholesale reform of the certification rules and also of the the bureaucracy that they serve, I am afraid that the future of certified aircraft is going to be a short one.

City only knows CYOW?

2008-01-24T22:28:00.001-05:00

How is it that the City of Ottawa's website directs visitors to only one airport, namely Macdonald-Cartier International airport? At the very least visitors to Ottawa should be told of the excellent non-airline airports serving the region, specifically Rockcliffe, Carp and Gatineau airports. As well there other more outlying aerodromes that could be useful to visitors, such as Embrun, Bearbrook, Carleton Place and Smith Falls to name a few. Not everyone that flies to Ottawa does so in an airliner. As it is many pilots land at Rockcliffe Airport to go to the Canada Aviation Museum.

Come on City of Ottawa staff point to all your city's valuable airport resources and reference them in the City of Ottawa's website.

Another area of the city's website that irks me is under Business / Transportation and Parking. It mentions Carp and Gatineau airports, ignoring Rockcliffe Airport. How can such an important airport be overlooked? To add insult to injury, the city's website points at an old email address for Carp. The correct address for carp is http://www.carp.ca, for email try mailto:info@carp.ca.

You can get information on all these aiports at the Canadian Owners and Pilots Associations "Places to Fly" website: http://www.copanational.org/PlacesToFly/

To see what I am talking about point your browser at these pages in the Ottawa's website:

http://www.ottawa.ca/visitors/index_en.html

http://www.ottawa.ca/visitors/destination_ottawa/index_en.html

http://www.ottawa.ca/business/transport/other_airports_en.html

The V speeds - Dah!

2008-01-24T17:54:00.001-05:00

Nothing annoys me more than unnecessary memory work. I believe the entire Vspeed thing is a pain. We clearly need to know the appropriate indicated airspeeds (IAS) to achieve the steepest angle of climb, fastest rate of climb, best glide speed, stall speed with and without flaps and gear down. I don't know if they called them Vx, Vy, etc. when I learned to fly in 1966, my flight training school, Peninsula Air Services in Hamilton, Ontario did not.

In my mind it is much more important to know the appropriate IAS to clear an obstruction than to know that this airspeed is arbitrarily labelled "Vx". These V lables don't add to safety, they add to memory work.

Am I nuts? What do you think?

Richard Collins Scraps His Plane

2007-12-22T14:30:00.000-05:00

Richard Collins has been one of general aviation's foremost advocates for well over 50 years. He is well-known as an editor for Flying magazine and used to manage AOPA Pilot at one time. His father, Leighton Collins, was a well-known aviator and writer as well, having founded Air Facts magazine.

Richard Collins' name is familiar to just about everyone flying in North America, as he not only writes about aviation, but has traveled widely, speaking all over the continent and traveling to most of his speaking engagements in his trusty 1979 model Cessna P210N Pressurized Centurion.

So it came as rather a surprise to open the January, 2008 issue of Flying magazine and learn in his column, On Top, that he had scrapped the plane! For those of you who don't have that issue of Flying handy the story is available on line. It is well worth reading.

This story is an interesting one from several perspectives

Collins bought N40RC in April 1979 as a new aircraft. He even registered it with his initials as part of the "N" number. That is pretty personal. He was the sole owner of that P210N and flew it for just under 9,000 hours over 28 and half years. There is no doubt from his writing that he was very attached to that P210.

So why did he scrap it?

First off, he makes the point that he wasn't flying it as much as he used to. In the past Collins would put several hundred hours a year on the plane, getting to places for work and pleasure. In 2007 he was headed for a flying year of well under 100 hours. He says that was due to his age (73 years old) and his reduced work schedule.

Then there were the maintenance problems. Collins is a stickler for proper maintenance and didn't fly the plane with outstanding snags on it. He mentions that the plane has been difficult to keep serviceable, mostly due to the lack of parts. He adds that using reconditioned parts has not been a good experience in recent years and new parts are often not available. The plane was coming up for a few expensive items soon, too, including $13,000 for new deicing boots.

He talked to a Cessna engineer when he bought the plane who told him that the P210 was tested by Cessna to the equivalent of 10,000 hours. There is no life limit on the airframe and no indication that it should be retired at 10,000 hours or at any other time limit.

He does argue that the P210 is a demanding aircraft to maintain and fly, describing it as a "complicated and temperamental" design. He points out that "the P210 has the worst fatal accident rate of any certified piston single" according to his analysis of the NTSB data. He was concerned about selling it to an inexperienced pilot who might have joined the P210 wreck statistics.

He states that at his age he couldn't get liability insurance in the higher limit amount that he wanted and that was with almost 9,000 hours on type.

So what have we got? An older pilot with a 28 year old plane that is a maintenance hog, hard to get insurance for and not using it enough to justify the cost.

Why not sell it?

Actually that was Collins' first inclination. He advertised widely it and only got one serious inquiry, which didn't turn into a sale. The used airplane dealers wouldn't take it either.

As a result Collins decided to scrap the plane. He really didn't have a lot of choice at that point. Perhaps he could have donated it to a museum, if he could find one looking for a P210. I can only assume it had some residual value as parts.

Collins has written on several occasions that he doesn't believe that old airplanes last forever, no matter how well maintained they are. After 28 years, many engine and prop overhauls and almost 9000 airframe hours, he figures he "had about worn the airplane out". He scrapped it "when I thought the airplane told me that it was tired and wanted to go to bed, I had to listen and to agree."

And so N40RC will fly no more, although some of its parts will probably fly again, but that will be as close as it will get. As for Collins he will be renting airplanes from now on.

Here in Canada, we have lots of light aircraft that are flying with many more than 28 years and 9,000 hours on them. Heck a 1979 model like the one Collins scrapped is considered a relatively "new" aircraft north of the US border. Some of those aircraft are maintenance hogs and many of them don't fly enough to justify their costs. Their owners just don't want to add up the total amount spent each year and divide by the number of flying hours to get the true hourly cost.

Collins' action in scrapping his plane and then writing about it challenges aircraft owners to think about their own situation. Today with the high Canadian dollar, used aircraft are very cheap and can be quite hard to sell. Is there a time to scrap older aircraft instead of endlessly passing them onto new owners, some of whom are younger than the aircraft?

I don't have an answer to this question. Feel free to post your thoughts here on the COPA Flight 8 blog.

A Snapshot of Canada's Fleet – What Do You Think?

2007-10-30T19:15:00.000-04:00

In the past I wrote a series of articles on the trends in Canada's private aircraft fleet. Each January I analyzed the numbers from the previous year from Transport Canada's Civil Aircraft Register to see if the number of private aircraft is growing or shrinking and to find out where the growth is. For instance are ultralights growing more quickly than certified aircraft?

When I started doing this exercise about six years ago the private fleet was growing very slowly, with ultralights leading, followed by amateur-builts. The number of certified aircraft in private hands was actually slowly shrinking.

The really low Canadian dollar was preventing people from buying airplanes. The lowest point was in 2002 when the Canadian dollar was at $1.62 against the US dollar. Even an old mid-sixties Cessna 150 with a half time engine was around $30,000 and most older 172s were in the $60,000 range. Fleet growth was between 1-2% per year and certified aircraft were being sold south of the border to Americans with their strong currency.

Then things started heating up. As most people know our currency started to rebound as US debts running the war in Iraq mounted and confidence in the US dollar slid. As our dollar surged, aircraft, all priced in US dollars, got cheaper and cheaper. Growth in the Canadian private fleet climbed and the trend in certified aircraft reversed.

By 2004 Canadians were going south of the border and buying up American aircraft, especially older certified aircraft. The average import was probably a 1965 Mooney or C-182.

By 2005 the growth in the private fleet was over 2.5%, which is a lot. Airplanes had come down in price, insurance was cheaper as hull values slipped, meaning owners didn't have to buy as much coverage, and fuel, while not cheap, wasn't too expensive. Demand for hangars soared at small airports to take all the new aircraft.

Looking at the pilot population numbers over the last few years the same story wasn't being told there. The pilot numbers weren't growing much at all. It all added up to a picture like this: existing pilots were buying up aircraft through 2004-06 and at an increasing rate each year.

We know that this growth was directly fueled by the low US dollar. That $30,000 average Cessna 150 from 2002 was worth $21,600 when the dollar stalled out around $1.17 at the end of 2006. The $60,000 C-172 from 2002 could now be purchased for $43,300.

The airplane buying spree was probably also fueled by the “pent-up demand” driven by aging baby boomers, the leading edge of which hit age 60 in 2006. These are people who wanted to buy an aircraft in 2002, but couldn't afford it. The climbing Canadian dollar opened the floodgates on aircraft ownership. Between September 2001 and September 2006, there were 2385 more private aircraft added to the register in Canada. This represented growth in the private fleet of 11% over five years.

By 2006 annual fleet growth rate had hit just under 3% per year.

I am planning to look at the year-end numbers as I do every year, because I want to continue to see how the fleet is changing over time. But I also wanted to find out what has happened in the last twelve months, since the Canadian dollar has shot up again, making airplanes very, very cheap. Since January, the Canadian dollar has gained 22% and so airplanes are 22% cheaper than they were at the beginning of the year. I wanted to know if this had driven fleet growth to new heights or not. It should have.

That Cessna 150 that cost $30,000 in 2002 should now cost $17,600 in the fall of 2007. The $60,000 C-172 is now worth $35,300.

So I analyzed the most recent numbers, which were for September 2007, looking back at the same time of year through the past seven years to see what was happening annually. The results were interesting.

The growth increased each year since 2001 as we know, until this year. Here are the Sept-Sept annual growth numbers:

2001 0.83%

2002 1.40%

2003 1.56%

2004 1.96%

2005 2.62%

2006 2.92%

2007 2.49%

As you can see the growth dropped off in 2007 by 15%, even through airplanes have become much cheaper during this period. Normally a drop in price like that would result in increased demand, but it hasn't this year and I am not sure why that is.

Here are a few theories. It is possible that it could be due any or all of these:

Perhaps the pent-up demand is satisfied – everyone in Canada who wants an airplane has pretty much got one now
Perhaps people expect the dollar to go higher – they are waiting for better bargains
Perhaps used airplane prices in Canada have not caught up with the market, are far too high and buyers in 2007 are intimidated by shopping in the USA
Perhaps fuel prices are worrying people – the price of oil has increased from $60 to $93 a barrel this year, although Canadians haven't seen great increases at the pumps recently due to the dollar climbing with the price of oil
Perhaps people are concerned about climate change and owning a gas-burning toy doesn't fit those concerns
Perhaps our aging population means that people are worried about losing their medicals and so aren't buying
Perhaps aging baby-boomers are more concerned about retiring than buying planes since planes have proven to be a really bad investment since 2001. Perhaps these same baby-boomers aren't buying because airplane values may drop even further soon
Perhaps it is some other reason that I haven't thought of.

So here is where you can help!

Post your thoughts here on this blog. Let me know if you did or didn't recently buy an aircraft. If you did, why did you buy recently? If not then what is the reason that you haven't? Are you planning to buy an aircraft?