Buttonville Closure Announced

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

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

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

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?

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

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?

 

“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

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

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

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

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

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"

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?

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 406 MHz ELTs

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

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?

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?

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!"

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

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

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!

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?

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?

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?

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"