Sign up today

Login to the lounge

Username:
Password:

Forget Your Login Info?

Recent Blogs


No Flat Xtra Premiums On Pilot's Life Insurance

Aug 18, 2010  |   By: No Flat Extra

Why should you be paying more for your Life Insurance premiums just because of your special abilities?

You don’t have to pay more!! We can help!!!

Ø Enjoy simplified commerial aviation rules so that any pilot of a business jet type aircraft would be eligible for Preferred Best Rates

Ø Increased maximum number of annual hours for private pilots without assessment of a flat extra from 200-300 hours

Ø Decreased the minimum number of hours flown to 50 to remove the flat extra on pilots of home built aircrafts.

Ø Decreased the maximum flat extra for certificated ultra-light aircraft pilots from $7.50 to $5.00

Case Example

A 33 year old pilot, with 1500 hours of total flight time, 250 hours annually and a 6-year history of flying the same aircraft, is applying for 30 year Term Insurance policy for $1,000,000. He has no health concerns. He qualifies for a Preferred Best rating.

Contact Courtney Group Financial, LLC at 888-316-7542 Toll Free or Email at courtneygrp@gmail.com and find us at www.internetlifedirect.com

Add Comment

Fine-"Toon"-ing Wake Turbulence Procedures

Aug 09, 2010  |   By: pogmathoin

WARNING: Do not read this lengthy post unless you still think that ATC can protect you from a wake turbulence encounter!

Jeff Mattoon, I am the "offending controller" in the Excel-Jet v. USA case. (I saw you in the courtroom, and I apologize for thinking you were a journalist.) Your interpretation of trial testimony is interesting, to say the least, which is not surprising since PilotMag and Excel-Jet seem to be at least dating, if not bedding down together. The Excel-Jet team, who hoped to gain from the trial, are the only ones with an understanding of the facts who have ever alleged that the rules were not applied correctly in this case. I am absolutely all for pilots understanding where the pilot/controller responsibilities begin and end when it comes to wake turbulence; but you exhibit a fundamental misunderstanding of the 7110.65 and the testimony in the trial, even if you did sit in the courtroom for most of it. I have the entire trial transcript and would be happy to provide it to anyone interested in the truth, including you.
Your blood “boiled” for naught at the trial, since your understanding of my testimony and my attitude is erroneous. Nowhere did I say that it wasn’t my concern. What I said was that I applied the rules correctly and that the pilot is responsible for the safe operation of his aircraft.   I am actually one of the few who do care; I care as much if not more than anyone with whom I have ever worked. Many of my co-workers think I’m a freak of nature because I am so concerned about the details, the safety implications and the potential aftermath for aircraft occupants if the rules are not applied correctly. However, I cannot fly the airplane for the pilot.
The definition of “departure point” may vary amongst controllers, but you tell me which definition would have more bearing on wake turbulence generation: where on the airport the aircraft starts its taxi to the runway, where the aircraft enters the runway (possibly before back-taxiing), or where the aircraft begins its takeoff roll? I choose the latter as my definition because it makes the most sense in a potential wake scenario. In this case, I knew exactly where the DHC-8B began its takeoff roll (south of the 150-foot-long threshold markers), and I knew that the distance was less than 500 feet from the intersection where the Sport Jet was. 
If you want to say that the Dash-8 was cleared “from the end of the runway,” then you must say the same thing about the Sport Jet, because each pilot’s clearance allowed him to depart from any point along that runway, from the approach end to the departure end. The facts are that the Dash-8 did not back-taxi, and the Sport Jet pilot could have back-taxied full length if he had been concerned about wake turbulence; I, in fact, ensured that he had that option by holding him until Runway 12 traffic was not a factor.  If I had been applying a three-minute hold, I would have advised, “hold for wake turbulence.”
I was not required to note the rotation point of either aircraft in order to apply the procedures correctly; that notation would in no way enter into the process. ATC procedures are not intended to “separate” aircraft from wake vortices, as you state. That would be an impossibility, since vortices cannot be seen. Order 7110.65 Para. 2-1-20 states, “Because wake turbulence is unpredictable, the controller is not responsible for anticipating its existence or effect;” that is why we are given specific procedures to follow to give the pilots a margin of safety. 
 
However, it is the responsibility of the pilot of the succeeding aircraft, if he feels wake turbulence will be a factor for the safety of his operation, to note the rotation point of the preceding aircraft, rotate behind it, and stay above the flight path - or ask for an alternate clearance.
 
Mr. Stewart, the Sport Jet pilot, had absolutely no concept or concern about what had just taken off abeam his position on the parallel taxiway; his situational awareness appears to have been lacking, and he completely ignored my “caution wake turbulence” warning. This seems to be a habit of his because, according to his testimony, he hears it too often, and so it is “meaningless.” The fact that you, as well, seem to think this warning is “all to (sic) common” is telling – are you just trying to ally yourself with Messrs. Stewart and Bornhofen, or do you really think we should not be warning pilots that they are in a situation where wake turbulence could be an issue? I can’t imagine that “caution wake turbulence” would ever become a “din in the background” for a prudent pilot.
Shall we also get into Mr. Stewart’s questionable qualifications as “flight test pilot” (I am because I say I am), and the fact that his “minor head wound” was sustained because he left a 20+ pound battery lying unsecured in the aircraft, in violation of the FARs? Or the fact that the aircraft had been flying left-wing-low and two adjustments had been made to the left aileron linkage just prior to the accident flight? You want to talk about junk science? How about the idea that, after two minutes, there could be a remnant of the left wake vortex (somehow transported north along Runway 17R with the airport wind out of the east) which would be strong enough to flip the Sport Jet’s right wing up and uncontrollably roll the aircraft to the left? Were you there for that part of the testimony?
Bottom line, the overwhelming evidence showed that this was not a wake turbulence accident, but probably caused by an aerodynamic stall. Don’t be so quick to blame ATC - sometimes it’s not the government’s fault. After 25 years, my skin is thick enough to take anything you want to throw at me, but you do no service to the flying public when you are so wrong about something so safety-related.
The final five sentences of your blog entry are actually something I can agree with. Complacency and aviation don’t mix very well. I would hope that pilots would learn this in their training, rather than to have to read it in a blog.
Jeanne C. Gardner, ATCS, COS ATCT

Add Comment

Bose A20 Aviation Headset – Bose’s new aviation headset

Aug 09, 2010  |   By: banyanair

 The Bose® A20™ Aviation Headset is the most technologically advanced Bose® headset ever.Bose was the first to introduce active noise reducing headsets to aviation more than 20 years ago, forever changing the way pilots fly. Now, the Bose A20™ Aviation Headset introduces an entirely new standard. It’s been engineered for significantly increased noise reduction in even louder environments. With an improved degree of comfort you’ll appreciate. All without compromising the clear audio you expect from Bose. Plus, a Bluetooth® communications interface, auxiliary audio input and priority switching. It’s made in the U.S.A., and meets or exceeds all TSO requirements. No other headset can deliver this advanced combination of benefits.

The new Bose A20 Aviation Headset

Some of the additional benefits of the Bose A20 are:

Significantly greater noise reduction for pilots than currently available.
Improved level of comfort achieved through choice of materials, distribution of weight throughout the headset,  1/3 less clamping force than most conventional noise reducing aviation headsets, and additional room for the ears.

  • Clear audio for enhanced communications.
  • Now available from Bose for the first time: Bluetooth® communications interface
  • Also included by Bose for the first time: auxiliary audio input.
  • Priority switching so pilots can decide which audio source they want to hear.
  • At least 40 hours of typical headset use from just two AA alkaline batteries
  • Made in the U.S.A.
  • Meets or exceeds all TSO standards.

All this, and these headsets still weigh only 12 ounces.

For more information or to purchase a Bose A20 Aviation Headset, visit Hangar63 – Banyan’s Pilot Shop or online at www.tropicaero.com.

Add Comment

iKneeboard for the iPad...

Aug 02, 2010  |   By: PostImagineering

iKneeboard for the iPad

iKneeboard is an application that helps pilots perform flight management tasks more easily and efficiently with less paper. 


iKneeboard provides the ability to download important airport documents and then save them to PDF files for retrieving during flight when not connected to WiFi or 3G.


Documents that can be downloaded include Airport Data, Airport Diagrams and Airport Weather.


iKneeboard supports basic calculators including an atmosphere calculator and density calculator.


iKneeboard also contains the VFR, IFR and IAP Aeronautical Chart Symbols information for reference. 

 

For more information, click on the link below...


www.tinyurl.com/iKneeboard

Add Comment

Prop Washing of the Hands

Jul 19, 2010  |   By: AirToon

WARNING: Do not read this lengthy post if you have a COMPLETE understanding of how you will be protected by ATC from a wake vortex encounter.

             Everyone knows the precautions to take to prevent a wake turbulence incident on takeoff, right? As pilots, we’re taught from nearly day one of ground school how to stay out of trouble. What if we’re departing from a controlled airport? That means we have extra help in the form of ATC to watch our backsides, right? WRONG.

Let’s use a crash of a number of years ago involving a VLJ as an example of my point.

On June 22, 2006 a single-engine very light jet proof-of-concept, built by Excel-Jet crashed on takeoff at Colorado Springs Airport (KCOS). All involved survived and only a minor head wound was sustained by the pilot.

It didn't take long for lines to be drawn and fingers to be pointed.

On one side was the builder of the aircraft, Bob Bornhofen and his assertion that the aircraft, piloted by Col. James Stewart (USAF, Ret.), encountered a wake vortex from a larger aircraft, which had previously departed from the same runway.

The other side of the line was populated by air traffic control personnel, who insisted they had followed established clearance procedures, holding no culpability in the crash.

As a result of all this, Excel-Jet filed suit against the government, citing negligence on the part of ATC for an improper takeoff clearance, one that only separated the two aircraft by some one-and-a-half minutes.  At question was whether the proper type of hold procedure was implemented.

The burden of proof rests with the party doing the suing and as a result, Excel-Jet failed to sway the judge and she subsequently ruled in favor of the government.

Among other things, after spending nearly everyday in the courtroom of this two-week trial, I learned once again that “facts” as presented in courts often bear no resemblance to truth. It’s pure brinkmanship and to the winner go the spoils, and, in this case, junk science risks polluting the ocean of aeronautical knowledge. I’ll not deal with the pollution in this post, but when I do, it will surely stimulate some and bore others.

The following description of some of the facts should cause ALL pilots of light aircraft, or really for any pilot of lighter aircraft taking off behind larger aircraft, to sit up straight in their chair and take notice.

Beware of the Wake

All pilots know that the correct procedure for avoiding wake turbulence from another aircraft when taking off is to wait two to three minutes before rolling or to rotate before the point the preceding aircraft rotated, climbing above the vortex or turning away from it after airborne.

The procedures air traffic controllers follow is governed by a document entitled FAA Order 7110.65. In this document are guidelines prescribing procedures and phraseology for those providing air traffic control services. Specifically, sections 3-9-6 and 3-9-7 deal with departure procedures designed to separate aircraft from the wake vortex generated from the preceding aircraft.

Particularly germane to this case are those guidelines relating to two aircraft departing from the same runway in the same direction, but with one particular distinction: the larger aircraft, a twin turboprop Dassault DH-8-200 (Dash 8) in this case, was cleared from the end of the runway and the Sport-Jet was cleared from an intersection; “an intersection departure.”

This is a vital consideration for pilots to understand. According to the guidelines that ATC personnel follow, if the intersection of the second aircraft is less than 500 feet from the “departure point” of the first aircraft, then no hold is required on the part of ATC.

Did you get that? NO HOLD REQUIRED. Not three minutes, not two minutes, not one second.

The reason for this is simple. The farther down the runway from the threshold you enter, the closer you are to the potential wake turbulence. If you start your roll from the same spot on the pavement as the preceding larger aircraft, presumably you are farther away from danger and you have more options.

What WILL You Do?

This means if you roll up to the hold line at an intersection point on the runway (presumably not at the threshold), you could be given a simple warning of wake turbulence accompanied by a takeoff clearance. What now will you do?

You know from your basic pilot training you are to rotate before the rotation point of the previous aircraft, but what if, for some reason, you don't know where that point is? If you're in danger of an encounter, the controller will issue a three-minute hold, won't they? The answer is “maybe.”

What I learned in this trial is that some controllers follow the letter of the guideline, while others follow the spirit of what’s written. Not always, but often, those who follow the letter are not pilots, whereas those who follow the spirit of the rule typically are. There is a third group: those who make up their own spirit. These are potentially the most dangerous.

This is the exact place where I’ll say what you might expect: the vast majority of people working in the air traffic control system are solidly competent and dedicated people. I trust them with my life.

Without delving into esoterica, and trying not to bore you, there are countless subtleties to all the guidelines ATC personnel follow, and I, quite frankly, never want their job. As a pilot, if you casually read the FAA Order 7110.65 document, you’ll notice that many wake turbulence separation procedures deal with smaller aircraft behind heavies, and since most of us utilize non-commercial GA airports, those heavy instructions can be disregarded.

When you read about smalls behind larges (what most of us encounter) you will come away with a warm fuzzy feeling that all is well in separation land.

With paragraphs like Chapter 3-9-6 “Same Runway Separation,”  Section i stating “Separate a small aircraft behind a large aircraft taking off … by 3 minutes unless a pilot has initiated a request to deviate from the 3−minute interval. In the latter case, issue a wake turbulence advisory before clearing the aircraft for takeoff.”

Chapter 3-9-7 “Wake Turbulence Separation For Intersection Departures,” Section a stating: “1. Separate a small aircraft taking off from an intersection on the same runway (same or opposite direction takeoff) behind a preceding departing large aircraft by ensuring that the small aircraft does not start takeoff roll until at least 3 minutes after the large aircraft has taken off… 3. Separate a small aircraft weighing 12,500 lbs. or less taking off from an intersection on the same runway (same or opposite direction takeoff) behind a preceding small aircraft weighing more than 12,500lbs. by ensuring the following small aircraft does not start takeoff roll until at least 3 minutes after the preceding aircraft has taken off.”

But then there’s this seemingly innocuous paragraph: 3-9-7, b. The 3−minute interval is not required when: 2. “The intersection is 500 feet or less from the departure point of the preceding aircraft and both aircraft are taking off in the same direction.”

This is critical, but I’m not going to go into detail here. Why? Because you only have to know one thing: Different controllers use different methods and interpretations of “Departure Point,” and at best that’s bad, but I believe the largest flaw is not in how controllers interpret, but in the guideline itself.

The logic behind this is that since the distance is less than 500 feet, it’s practically the same as a non-intersection departure. So, at that point (and in this specific case), 3-9-7, b. 2. should refer back to 3-9-6, i, which requires a 3-minute hold.

I'm Not My Brother's Keeper

Now, to what really boiled my blood at the trial. When the controller-in-question was interviewed on the stand, some of her answers concerned me deeply.

What follows is my impression and not necessarily a statement of fact of the personality of the “offending” controller. Most people who can read other people well would size up this person fairly quickly. This controller is an intelligent and “precise” sort of person, who might find it difficult agreeing that they were wrong about something – after all, before utilizing a procedure, this person seeks to understand all the necessary details so they might be fully equipped to offer sound and discerning judgment when needed.

On a personal level, I can live with a controller interpreting in ambiguity, but one thing that rings from my early training are the words of my instructor, “An attitude precedes an accident.” And that’s what I believe is one of the contributing factors here.

When asked about the reasoning behind the guideline, to separate vulnerable aircraft from wake vortices, and why she hadn’t given a three-minute hold and why she hadn’t observed where the preceding aircraft had rotated and whether she realized she was sending this small aircraft into harm’s way, her reply was that it wasn’t her concern. She followed the guidelines and gave a proper clearance, end of story, wipe my hands.

As stated earlier, I believe this attitude is the rare exception and not the rule, however, if the ambiguity in the guideline is not clarified, then it won’t matter how well meaning a controller might be – someday, somebody will die.

One thing I haven’t talked about is the pilot’s responsibility. It’s true, the ball of responsibility rests in the lap of the PIC. Don’t let the all to common “Caution Wake Turbulence” warning become a din in the background. If your ears hear “wake turbulence” at any time, snap out of it and think carefully. YOU request the 3-minute hold – it’s your option. YOU request the go-around. YOU don’t assume ANYONE’s got your back. Stay safe and stay alive.


Thoughtfully Submitted by Jeff Mattoon

Add Comment

Lounge Photos

Pilot Lounge Gallery

Sponsors

Flight Level Logbook
Zenith Aircraft Company
Lycoming Engines

Recent Members

Upcoming Events

Sporty's Hot Dog Fly-In

    1 Days  5 Hours

Wild West Air Fest

    1 Days  2 Hours

Casa de Campo Fly In

    34 Days  17 Hours

51st Fort Lauderdale International Boat Show

    54 Days  17 Hours

Halloween Lobster Fly-In

    55 Days  17 Hours

Cape Santa Maria Fly In

    62 Days  17 Hours

Fishing Fly-in

    76 Days  18 Hours

Junkanoo Grand Finale Fly-In

    90 Days  18 Hours

Bahama Mama Fly-in

    133 Days  18 Hours

Adventures Fly-in

    182 Days  18 Hours