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"

Internet Flight Crew Briefings

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?

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?

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

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?

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!

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

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?

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.