Two Weeks for Two Aircraft

Right after the rollout of the G650, Gulfstream’s biggest and fastest jet ever, the world-renowned producer whose name has become synonymous with luxurious globe-trotting, along with partner Israeli Aerospace Industries, rolled out the G250. The big jet will compete head-to-head with other heavy hitters, such as the Bombardier Global Express and even offerings from Boeing and Airbus, while the G250 replaces the G200 at the “lower end” of Gulfstream’s lineup (while competing with the larger Hawker and Cessna Citation jets).

With competition ranging from the Global Express to the 737, Gulfstream needed something bigger and especially something faster. Not only is the G650 the fastest Gulfstream ever, but as it currently stands, will be the fastest jet you can board without a G-suit. Normal Cruise: Mach .9; Range @ Mach .85: 7,000 nautical miles; Number of years on minimum wage needed to work off to own one: 1,001.6 years.

Subscribe to PilotMag for more of the story.

What’s the Hold-Up?

It was all said and done. Northrop Grumman thought they had won the bid to produce the Air Force’s newest aerial tanker, dubbed the KC-45.But after protests to the Government Accountability Office made by Boeing, Defense Secretary Robert Gates canceled the program in September 2008. But just a year later, the Air Force asked for new bids from both companies. Many experts believe Northrop Grumman will retain the upper hand after the long wait, but Boeing is betting on a new trick up its sleeve.

Northrup Grumman proposal, based on Airbus’ A330 Multi-Role Tanker Transport (MRTT), itself based on the popular airliner, was the winner in the last round. Now with an improved A330F freighter around the corner, Northrop Grumman hopes to further improve upon the features that made this plane a top contender. Boeing’s previous proposal was based on the popular 767-200 airliner, of which tanker versions already fly for Italy and Japan. While borrowing features from the 767-400 for improved gross-weight performance and more gas to pass, this proposal, now known as the smaller half of Boeing’s “KC-7A7” family is still on the table. But Boeing has something else cooked-up to fight size with size. Their newest proposal is based on the largest twin-jet now flying, the 777. Boeing feels that it was simply outsized last time, so now they’re playing Northrop Grumman’s own game - and playing it in spades. The large sibling of the “KC-7A7” family, this monster will hold 300,000 lbs of fuel and be able to carry up to 320 troops.

Easy to Miss, Hard to Replace

With the oldest frames now a decade old, low cost carrier AirTran is now contemplating replacements for its fleet of Boeing 717s. A leftover by-product between the merger of Boeing and McDonnell Douglas, the 717 proved to be a popular, albeit accidental, niche-filler for LCCs like AirTran. But with the airframe out of production, AirTran will either have to upgrade to bigger aircraft, or downsize to the increasingly popular and expanding line of large regional jets.

The Boeing 717 started life as the McDonnell Douglas MD-95, a 90s update of its popular DC-9/MD-80 series of airliners. When Boeing merged with MDD in 1997, it was stuck with the now rebranded airliner and a sales threat to its own 737 line. Still, Boeing marketed the airliner anyway, and after a short while many airlines loved the reliability and performance it offered. Airlines saw it as a good performer for low capacity routes. (Boeing even studied stretched designs) However, as airliner orders stopped trickling in, the 717 was formally canceled in 2005. Therefore some other front runners emerged. AirTran already operates a fleet of 737s, but most people feel that its simply too big for the type of routes the 717 was assigned to perform. Popular with regional carriers and majors alike, the Embraer E-Jets looks like “big” airliners but are perfect for smaller routes. Many feel this is AirTran’s best bet. And then there is the new design aimed squarely at the E-Jet’s success, the C-Series promises the latest and greatest in technical innovation but for now is stuck being a “paper” airplane.

FAA Considers Clearance for Internet-Only Flight Training

You remember yours? I remember mine. Every pilot remembers ground school.

Mine was in a dingy and dark corner at the low-rent district of our Florida airport. The three-classroom facility smelled like stale coffee and mildew. The air conditioning worked fine, at least when the owner of the Part 141 school felt like turning it on. There is nothing like sweating over a whiz wheel.

This familiar scene could, however, become a thing of the past. The FAA is considering requests by several “online” universities to offer Internet-based flight training. Students would satisfy the ground school requirement by logging onto their computers, grabbing a beverage, and “attending” online classes. I do not buy into the hype surrounding Internet education. I never have. Online education is not effective. It’s unsupervised. It lacks the give-and-take among students and instructors that makes a classroom environment successful.

Also absent from online classes is confrontation. A classroom environment should put students on the spot. They must be required to defend their positions, the facts they believe, and their views on issues. Instructors should be able to engage them, to question them, and to confront them when appropriate. The flight deck is not a passive, docile, and forgiving place; nor should the classroom be.Kent Grayson, CFII, ATP, and the dean of Morton Aeronautical University, agrees. Despite the excellent revenue potential of online flight training, Mr. Grayson said his institution will not consider it. “Flight training needs personal interaction between the student pilot and instructor,” he says.

He continues, “Our purpose is not just to impart facts and figures. The job of the institution is to build a student pilot’s confidence and character. This is not an easy job and we are not willing to entrust it to impersonal and unsupervised online classes.” Dean Grayson specifically mentioned lessons relating to flight planning, critical thinking, aviation weather, emergency procedures, and go-no go decision-making. “These do not lend themselves to an online format. These areas deserve narrative, discussion, personal context from the instructor, and a hands-on approach.” Indeed, if your flight training experience was anything like mine, you probably learned as much from your CFI’s war stories and bull sessions as during formal study. Internet-based ground school students will miss a lot of that.

As a college professor myself (I teach contract law at Holmes College), I am very sour on Internet-based programs and curriculum. Online education has not lived up to its billing. Such programs usually attract the lowest quality instructors. And, it should therefore be no surprise that they attract the least qualified and least ambitious students; ones not willing to dedicate the necessary amount of time or money to a proper educational experience.

Now 15 years into the internet education fad, most of us know what it really means to “graduate” from an online “university.” We know what an Internet-only degree is worth. And, when we get résumés from job seekers who selected such programs, most of us weigh them accordingly.

Do we really want to entrust these same “online universities” with the task of training the next generation of pilots?

The FAA has accepted comments on this proposal through November 30, 2009. You can send the FAA your comments by logging into www.regulations.gov. You will need to enter the docket number for the proposal: FAA-2008-0938.

J. Christopher Robbins is an aviation attorney. He also teaches a course on contracts and legal transactions at Holmes College. You can email him at chris@floridalawyer.com.

Subscribe to PilotMag for more of the story.

It’s All On The Wing

The modern GA pilot has much to be excited about; aw-inspiring speeds for pennies on the mile, glass cockpits that do everything but hand out the peanuts, flight into known icing capabilities on the even the smallest aircraft, life-saving parachutes, and the list goes on. However, let’s take a look at the basis from which all this cool stuff stands and understand why this very platform is often overlooked or taken for granted. The humble wing. One of the simplest, yet most influential creations ever dreamed up by humankind or, more accurately, copied, continues to evolve quietly in the background. Helping aircraft to go faster and fly safer.

Early Kites employed flat-plate technology

I know what you are saying, ‘Damn it, Jim, I’m a pilot not a philosopher’. I thought this was supposed to be aerodynamics article. Not counting birds, which nature invented 150 million years ago, the first wings were Chinese kites that flew around 500 BC. These early kites, lacking any sort of camber or curvature of the wing, employed flat-plate technology to fly. They forced air to change direction and thus provided lift perpendicular to it flow. For kites, a positive angle of attack is necessary to fly; thus, the long streaming tail which provides ballast to hold the nose up.

Massive wall projects aside, we fast forward a couple thousand years. Sir George Cayley, unveils one of the first, truly modern wings and gliding aircraft in the early 1800s. Considered the mack-daddy of modern aerodynamics, Caylay was also one of the first to understand the significance of adding camber to a wing to create lift; even at zero angle of attack. By forcing air over a wing that had more curvature on its topside than its bottom, air molecules are forced to run faster over the top, consequently lowering their pressure in order to meet their other molecule buddies who chose the southern route to the wing’s trailing edge. (The air molecules moving along the top side actually arrive before their bottom dwelling friends, but that’s a whole other subject.) We know all about this stuff from Bernoulli's Theorem. It explains this concept mathematically and is a tenant of Aerodynamics 101. And while Bernoulli’ notoriety in ground school is at its height, we now understood that a majority of a wing’s lift is created by Newton’s Third Law of Motion – for every action there is a equal and opposite reaction. At the end of the day though however, it all comes to drag. A cambered wing can provide a lot more lift for less drag than a couple of 4x8s glued to a fuselage.

Straight wings evolves

With a slight grasp of wing camber and an understanding that the amount of lift created is the square of its velocity, engineers have been able to focus on wing shape and construction, rather than a proportional relationship of the two, and provide unique capabilities to aircraft based on individual, mission profiles.

The original straight-wing, which typically meets the fuselage at a right angle working quite well in the early years as it provided high lift while going slow. It was easy to construct and provided excellent strength. However, due to the low airspeeds achievable on early aircraft, most required a dual straight-wing or bi-plane design to provide the necessary lift.

While a straight-wing works predictably at low airspeeds, it begins to suffer from drag problems as the airspeed climbs. As one nears Mach .8 (Roughly 530 knots at sea level) shock waves, or wave-drag, a boost in drag perpetuates up to four times the force felt at lower airspeeds. Like waterskiing with a square ski, these shock waves and the associated wave-drag are felt along the full length of a straight wing. From root to tip, the wing feels their influence. So how do we deal with this?

Subscribe to PilotMag for more of the story.

Additional Training and Your Insurance

It always seems to be a sticky point between the insurer and the insured when it comes to “required” additional training. That training may be the result of transitioning into a different aircraft, annual flight review requirements, annual instrument proficiency check requirements or an annual or bi-annual formal school requirement specific to your particular make and model of aircraft. No matter which form, many insured’s view it as a sticky subject as it takes time and money to comply with.

With most general aviation aircraft, there is no additional training requirement from most aviation insurance companies. They simply ask that you comply with all the FAA requires. These aircraft are mostly non-pressurized single and light multi-engine aircraft. Pressurized aircraft, turbines, and larger twins will always generate additional training requirements from your aviation insurance carrier. Einstein’s theory of additional training requirements is P (pressurized) = S (annual school). When looking at sophisticated singles, twins and pressurized aircraft, just expect that there will be some additional training requirement from your aviation insurance carrier.

As I have discussed in a previous article, this is not all bad. Yes, it takes time and money to complete this additional training, but it is in your best interest. Insurance companies are motivated by profit, and fewer accidents equals more profit. This results in lower rates towards you. Looking out for their bottom line translates into looking out for your safety.

Now, just because you have an aircraft and insurance carrier that does not require some form of additional formal training, you shouldn’t do it anyway? Many aviation insurance carriers provide additional discounts for all aircraft and pilots that go above and beyond when it comes to safety and training. Many offer discounts for WINGS programs and many other forms of additional training. Make sure your agent is aware of any additional training that you complete and is forwarding that information to your aviation insurance carrier. If you are not communicating this information to your agent, you could be missing out on some pretty good discounts.

Subscribe to PilotMag for more of the story.

From Terrestrial Explorers to Clowns in Space

As the late afternoon breeze kicked up on the James River, the Jamestown-Scotland ferry roared to life from the dock on route to Jamestown and Colonial Williamsburg. With an instant churning of propellers that rivaled an abbreviated rocket-launch, the ferry was on its way to one of the most historical places in American history. With the setting sun at our backs and the vastness of the river landscape, my only thoughts were those of Virginia’s historical roots in early American colonization. Imagining Captain John Smith’s journey up the James River in the Susan Constant, Discovery and Godspeed, establishing the first permanent English settlement in North America, was an extremely impressive feat of exploration.

Since September 1608 until this very day, it seems as if Virginia has been on the cutting edge of discovery. From John Smith’s maps and books that solidified colonization in the New World to NASA’s aerospace development and research, the Commonwealth of Virginia has cemented itself as the discovery capital of our modernized, American civilization. For over 400 years, this area has represented the very best in exploration, innovation and design. With a commonwealth that breeds more mechanical engineers than any other state in the union, Virginia has got the lock on an extremely talented workforce; ones driven to explore.

I don’t think when John Smith landed in this area in 1608 he would ever have imagined that his discovery would have led to further exploration. I’m sure he thought he had completed one of the most difficult passages on the planet, never to be rivaled. Today, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s intention to build an outpost on the surface of the moon – a base camp for formidable explorers to learn more about the moon’s natural resources, make a journey to Mars, conduct a wide range of scientific investigations and encourage participation from the general public through “Space Tourism” – is no doubt something to be rivaled.

The team at NASA’s Langley Research Center is actively testing and constructing an inflation-deployed expandable structure that will become a significant building block for a lunar base. This multilayer, fabric structure will house researchers in a capsulated environment from which they can perform tests and experiments. Once inflated, the unit will likely serve as a dry storage facility and outpost for modern day explorations. The unit was tested in Antarctica in 2008, and it is on its way to becoming the first habitable lunar base. Eat your heart out, Mr. Smith.

At a breakneck pace, NASA marked the agency’s fifth shuttle launch of the year, a flight rate not seen since 2002. With the launch of Atlantis from Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral on November 16th, carrying six astronauts and a slew of large spare supplies to the International Space Station (ISS), the pace comes right as the agency is preparing to wind down its shuttle program and replace the three-orbital shuttle fleet with new spacecraft and rockets by no earlier than 2015. That’s the plan. It is currently under review by the White House.

Subscribe to PilotMag for more of the story.

Aviation’s Harvest Moon

It’s been an interesting past couple of months in aviation. The infamous hoax of a lost boy in a getaway weather balloon grabbed my attention because of the gullible media frenzy given to the story. The mid-air collision over the Hudson River highlighted the inherent risks and unending vigilance our profession requires to prevent such tragedies. The FAA now seems more willing to tackle the tough issues like pilot fatigue, professional pilot training and hiring. Can you believe the airline crew that overflew MSP by 150 miles before they realized it and re-established radio contact? Then there’s the closing of airplane factories around the country; yet, the resurgence of Eclipse owners that never say die.

So, here’s what I am sensing is going on. I have reason to believe that there is a significant amount of quiet action behind the scenes in the aerospace community - the really cool stuff that brings a smile and wind to my wings.

As an example, have you noticed the continuing push for more capable glass displays for general aviation? Wow! They just keep getting better and cheaper, and that’s what excites me. That one-two combo punch will presumably help keep our flying costs down when it comes to upgrades in equipment and capability and reliability. With training, these displays really enhance a pilot’s situational awareness and are a great safety tool to prevent CFIT. The Garmin, Aspen Avionics, Avidyne and Trilogy line of avionics are a great place to start shopping and are truly worth considering for your own airplane upgrades.

Speaking of glass cockpits, kudos to John Baute, a software designer, for compiling free approach plates for you to download. Visit www.pdfplates.com to choose your own free plates for your personal computer (PC or MAC) or iPhone. Don’t forget to offer a small donation in the website’s tip jar to cover the costs of maintaining the site and providing the updates.

As our technically advanced aircraft (TAA) continue their upward trend for user-friendly displays, we also need to continue our personal professional growth to maintain our flying skills through proficiency and currency. To the point, let’s not allow each other to let our guards down and hope that technology will compensate for lack of proficiency and poor judgment. Make the decision ahead of time that you will refuse to allow the availability of an airframe parachute system to justify continuing flight into an area of forecast icing or severe weather. In fact, the latest Nall report reflects the continuing trend that personal flying accidents and fatalities are disproportionately in our collective error. The AOPA Air Safety Foundation does a great job with their road shows to remind us of that danger.

CASE STUDY: What would you do during the takeoff roll on a short runway with crosswinds and gusts when just prior to rotation your airplane suddenly swerves, drifts, and starts heading towards the weeds off the side of the runway?

Subscribe to PilotMag for more of the story.

Between a Tree and Hard Place

Visit photographer's Web Site.

NAVAL SUPREMECY

Visit photographer's Web Site.

A Long Awaited Return to Flying

Twelve years had lapsed since my flight instructing days. During that time, I continued to ask myself why I had allowed so much time to pass, and what plausible excuses I could come up with to make myself not sound as truly delinquent as I was. I did go flying a few times with a friend at the Boulder Municipal Airport in Boulder, Colorado – once in a glider and another time in a PA-18 – but all on the same day. My claim to fame amidst a twelve year dry spell.

Life had gotten in the way of my love for flying

Life had gotten in the way of my love for flying, big time. I got married, got busy with a career in accident investigation with the NTSB and Delta Air Lines, had three children, and then took some time off to raise a family. During that time, I’d occasionally hear the sound of an aircraft’s engine overhead, glance up and wink towards my fellow aviators who had obviously persevered more diligently than I. For whatever reason, the hook had gotten loose for me and I was struggling to reconnect. I know I’m just trying to make excuses. (You’re so on to me!)

My kids’ pleas for an airplane ride during their spring break this year finally broke my non-flying doldrums. At an editorial advisory board meeting one afternoon in mid-March, I happened to run across a fellow aviator who owned a company that operated three LSAs (light sport aircraft) out of an airport relatively close to my house. A painless phone call, a trip to the nearby Erie Municipal Airport in Erie, Colorado, and all would be well with my parental duties, end of story. Or so I thought.

After a few emails back and forth with Christopher Dillis, owner of Skyraider Aviation, in an effort to schedule their joy rides, he was quick to catch on to the fact that I wasn’t much more than a pilot has-been with a big “currency problem,” as he liked to refer to it. The guilt was seeping into my already weakened pores.

Light sport saves the day

First and foremost, I felt obliged to admit that being away from aviation for as long as I’d been, I had no idea what an LSA even was. (Yes, that’s how bad it had gotten.) A few questions later, I learned about the FAA’s new light sport category and sport pilot certificates created in 2004 allowing for ease in restrictions to the private pilot certificate. Half the flight time requirements and therefore half the cost, and no compulsory medical examination.

As defined by the FAA, LSAs have a maximum gross takeoff weight of not more than 1,320 pounds for aircraft not intended for operation on water (or 1,430 pounds for aircraft intended for operation on water), a maximum airspeed in level flight of 120 knots, a maximum stall speed of 45 knots, either one or two seats, fixed undercarriage and fixed-pitch or ground adjustable propeller, and a single electric motor or reciprocating engine, which includes diesel engines and Wankel engines. (Tell me something I don’t already know, right.)

Subscribe to PilotMag for more of the story.