Anniversary Flight to Shelter Cove

Cessna 172 N4870G

Shelter Cove is one of those destinations that is such a perfect fit for GA aircraft, it's almost unbelievable.  From my home in Sacramento, the drive time to Shelter Cove according to Google maps would be 4 hours and 53 minutes, my leisurely flight time from Sacramento was only 1.5 Cessna 172 hours, and that's including a decent to Fort Bragg for some photos before continuing on to Shelter Cove.  But not only is this a great destination for GA pilots because of the potential time savings, the entire town is small enough that you don't need to worry about a car or  taxi, everything is within walking distance.

In a previous post, I may have mentioned Shelter Cove as it's been a destination that I have already attempted without success.  The first time I attempted a flight to Shelter Cove I had planned on proposing to my then girlfriend, picturing either a bench by the scenic lighthouse, or somewhere on the beach as a perfect place to get down on one knee.  I took off with my girlfriend as eager co-pilot,  but encountered un-forecast cloud cover that quickly descended into a fog bank.  I ended up turning back and landing in Napa where I was still able to pull off a fairly romantic proposal by the Napa River Inn - with a "I Do!!!" from Chanel.

Well this September was our 1st anniversary and when we talked about what to do and where to go, it was Chanel's idea to re-try the Shelter Cove trip.  I was hesitant because I knew that the weather at Shelter Cove is extremely finicky and I'd hate for our 1st anniversary to be remembered as some sort of failure.  However, I have an amazing wife who assured me that if Shelter Cove was fogged in, we'd find somewhere else to land and would have a great time wherever that was.  (I am lucky to have a wife who understands GA flying and is totally on board!).

So, I give you pictures from our 1st anniversary, and 2nd attempt at a Shelter Cove trip:

There is parking at either end of the runway.  We parked at the north end which was only 150' away from our hotel.

Cessna 172 - At Shelter Cove Airport 0Q5

Beautiful black sand beaches:

Black Sand Beaches north of Shelter Cove

The view from our room was unbeatable.  I could spend days, just sitting on that balcony. This was our room at the Inn of the Lost Coast.  Can't wait to go back!

Inn of the Lost Coast

 We both had a sense, that this was quite possibly one of the quietest, most serene ocean towns we've ever been in.  Inn of the Lost Coast is the building on the right - also the hotel we stayed at:

Inn of the Lost Coast

Shelter Cove

Cape Mendocino Tea House

Shelter Cove Airport

There are essentially three main restaurants, a few delis, and there are maybe 5 hotels to choose from.  I don't remember seeing an actual gift shop, however some of the hotels and grocery stores sell Shelter Cove keep sakes, caps, and sweaters.  There is really very little to do in Shelter Cove - which is perfect.  This is where you go to read a long book, or simply soak in the crisp ocean air.  So here's why you go to Shelter Cove, you go because it's a getaway, you go because it's beautiful, because it's not over-run by tourists, you go because you're a pilot and this place was built for you.  And for my wife and I, we already have our second anniversary destination picked out.  It was a truly perfect getaway weekend! 

Before becoming a pilot, and during my flight training, I knew that GA pilots do a lot of local pattern flying to stay current, however I imagined that a much greater percentage of my flying would be longer distance destination flying.  For me so far, that has not been the case.  Almost all of my flights are local flights, either to take a friend on a quick scenic flight around our city, or just hopping up in the pattern to log the required landings.  Yet I still hold onto the notion that young low time pilots can still experience the benefits and pure joy of traveling by small airplane and am always looking forward to my next opportunity to make it happen, though roadblocks come from quite a few directions.

My main access to aircraft is through a flying club, a good one I might add, but even with an effective booking system and plenty of aircraft available, to find one airplane open for an entire weekend, you have to plan months in advance.  Once I find a weekend that both works for personal scheduling as well as for the club, as a VFR pilot, you can only hope and pray that the weather will hold up on that same weekend.  Unlike VFR pilots who own their aircraft who could potentially push back a trip by a day to wait for better weather, a pilot who is renting an airplane for a weekend has a strict window of opportunity and must have the plane back for other pilots to use after that window closes.  I don't want to sound like I'm complaining as I understand that flying is a huge privilege, however the challenges in making a cross country weekend trip like this Shelter Cove trip happen as a renting pilot just makes it all that much more rewarding when everything comes together.

This weekend in Shelter Cove was amazing because I got to spend it with an awesome girl, it was amazing because of the incredible views that Shelter Cove offers, and it was amazing because we flew there.  I've mentioned it before, but regardless of the destination, when you get there by small airplane, it feels more special, it feels like an adventure and something big.  Shelter Cove by car may have just been another stop on a long drive.  By air, this was almost by default a special and memorable experience. When I think about why I became a pilot, and what I always wanted to do with my license, this is what I imagine.  If you are a pilot, and live anywhere on the West Coast, you owe it to yourself plan a flight to stay a night in Shelter Cove - you'll be happy you did.

Note: I received a great comment from  Hans who had this to say:

Because of the dynamic changes in the local weather, aviators can now see the real-time sky conditions at Shelter Cove via a number of webcams. These cams were sponsored by the Lost Coast Aviators, the local EAA Chapter. The cam images are available during the daylight hours and can be viewed at northcoastaviation.com.

Thanks for that info, I didn't know about the webcams - that would certainly help during the pre-flight weather planning.

The New Boeing 787 Dreamliner, Why is it Important?

On Aug 26th, the FAA approved Boeing to begin producing the new 787 for commercial airline use, and that makes me extremely excited.  But why?  You may say "it's just another jet I'll have to pay too much for, only to be delayed hours on end before squeezing in a middle seat between to oversized line backers.”  Well it's true, the 787 won't cure any existing airline problems, remove delays and flight cancellations or get you to your cross country destination in less than an hour, but I truly believe that the 787 promises both the airline industry and the traveling public a new and fresh option in air travel.  

The sense of adventure in airline travel has been all but lost in the last 10 years as security measures have seemingly squeezed any remaining joy out of flying commercially.  The act of taking off ones shoes and walking through a full body scanner makes one feel much more like cattle walking through the maze of metal pipe-work, leading the unknowing cow to its demise, than an excited world traveler off to their next multinational adventure.  The airline industry needs any and every burst of life and energy it can get its hands on, and the Boeing 787 offers airlines and travelers a new design that will hopefully bring a little excitement back into traveling.

To many, the 787 will look like every large airplane they've ever flown in.  The 787 has the now standard 2 engines slid neatly under the wings, windows above not below the wings, and all the standard proportions most have come to expect.  In fact, many would have a hard time telling a 777 and 787 apart, can you?

                          787                                                                                  777

So what makes this new airplane so special?

• For Pilots, a revolutionary flight deck - normally only seen in top biz jets such as the G5
•  The most advanced aerodynamic technology available on any commercial airliner (my opinion)
• Full fly by wire technology with all the computerized safeguards. (Airbus has been using this for years though it’s somewhat new to Boeing)
• Highly fuel efficient General Electric or Rolls Royce engines
• 20% reduction in overall operating costs
• Dynamic LED interior lighting
• Lower cabin altitude
• Modern Design 
• Cool Factor

For me, as a pilot, the first thing that really caught my eye was the cockpit with its ultra-modern flat screen computerized control panel.  For many veteran pilots I'm guessing the over computerization of the cockpits is seen as simply getting in the way of the actual flying, however, I know that behind the pretty screens, lies a wealth of information including weather avoidance, anti-collision tech, digital charts including both taxi diagrams as well as approach procedure charts, terrain avoidance, and so much more.

The airline industry has been a seemingly terrible place to point career goals over the last ten years.  In fact, Captain Sully Sullenburger has noted that many current airline pilots wouldn't reccomend a career as a pilot to their children.  Many of my friends seem to question my airline career objectives as they are already quickly climbing up corporate ladders, myself, still trying to find a way to pay for instrument and commercial flight training while working a stagnant job. For me, the 787 is proof that all is not stagnant in the airline world, it offers me something to aspire to as a young aviator.  Maybe life on the line will be the same in the 787 as in any other airplane, but somehow I get the feeling that with the introduction of the 787 to airlines, we are entering a new era in aviation, where long standing rules are changing and new ideas are making their way to the consumer in tangible form.  In a way, airline travel seems to be both at its worst point ever, and also on the verge of improvement.  

The combination of a series of highly publicized airline crashes, coupled with a TSA regulatory structure that has gone far beyond invasive, has led to a slow, though real re-vamping of the airline system.  To quickly list a few of the recent and upcoming changes to the airline system . . . here we go:  

·         Airlines are required to pay steep penalties if passengers remain grounded in the airplane for more than three hours prior to takeoff

·         Airlines will soon be required to include all extra fees and taxes into their total advertised flight price as well as clearly estimate checked baggage total trip costs

·         Airlines will soon be required to ensure their pilots receive a proper sleep period between each work day and will be more limited as to how long a pilot can remain on duty during the day

·         Additional pressure on the TSA to develop passenger screening systems that can work towards bringing dignity back to the security process

·         Industry-wide pressure on the government to stabilize jet fuel prices so the industry doesn't continue to have  bust-survive-bust cycles.  

·         New security lines for trusted travelers as well as airline crew that will help reduce the queue for all travelers

 

For me, the 787 represents the newest thinking in commercial aircraft construction and takes to the skies at a time when a lot of new thinking is coming to the airline process, combined, it could create a significantly improved experience for travelers in the future. 

 

Passengers, even those who will never truly appreciate the freshness of design that the Dreamliner represents, will benefit from the improvements that Boeing has brought to the aircraft design.  Boeing has worked hard on many changes to the passenger experience, including larger windows with fading glass similar in technology to prescription glasses that darken in daylight, helping to reduce glare as well as keeping temperatures down, LED lighting that the cabin crew can change to the airlines color & design goals, and a greater cabin space due to a new fuselage design.  But those improvements are just little extras.  

One of the biggest changes to the passenger experience that the 787 will bring comes from the fact that the 787 is almost entirely built out of composites.  In a traditional metal airplane, such as the 737, cabin air is kept fairly dry to ensure that there are no corrosion issues with the metal structure due to moisture buildup. In the 787, the composite construction doesn't have the same corrosion issues so it can maintain a more standard humidity level.  Additionally, the 787 will be able to maintain a lower cabin altitude so there is less ear popping on the way up to cruise altitude.

 I know that for many, this will be just another airplane that they have to board, to get from here to there, but I think it's more than that.  I have to applaud Boeing for the effort they put into this plane to ensure not only that the airlines are profitable based on improvements in fuel efficiency, but for placing so much focus on the human environment to ensure that we are as healthy and rested when we land as possible.  I guess what I'm trying to say, is that I'm excited, and I sincerely hope that I will have the opportunity to fly in one at some point, and maybe, just maybe if I play my cards right, I'll have an opportunity to fly the great Dreamliner one day as well.  Here's to hoping!! 

Related Links: 

 Boeing 787 Dreamliner Website

Boeing's 787 Dreamliner finally cleared for takeoff

Boeing's 787 Dreamliner, Now Certified

Garmin Cockpit Eye Candy & The Best Flight Club Ever?

I've been in love with the Garmin Avionics products since I first had the opportunity to fly a club plane with the GNS 430, the bread and butter GPS system for many training and entry level aircraft.  Garmin has done such a good job of integrating communication, navigation, and obstruction avoidance into even their simpler products that they have essentially become the only real player in the avionics business.  Their direct to D-> feature alone makes the product valuable, add in a great comms system with single button standby/active switching and you've got a winning product.  Those are obviously only the basic elements of the Garmin systems and when you start to drill down deeper into the GPS functionality you realize just how powerful a tool it can be.

But the GNS 430 is old news.  Garmin is expanding their touchscreen product line from only handheld devices to full installed versions with their recent announcement of the brand new GTN 650 and 750 full touch screen product lines offering a host of new fun features including:

• Key pad data entry vs. old scrolling system
• Tap an airport on the virtual map to bring up info and communication frequencies
• Optional flight charts & approach plates
• Taxi & airport navigation assistance
• With Nexrad, you can get streaming convective & lightning strike data on screen with enhanced detail
• And much more I'm sure, I am just starting to get an idea of what this system is capable of.  

Here's an intro GTN video:

Now there are many avionics systems that are far more advanced than this one, but what makes this particular system special to me, is that the flight club I belong to will be installing the system into one of their airplanes. I may actually get to use it instead of just ogle at it in Flying Magazine or something!  Which brings me to the second part of my post.

Cal Aggie Flying Farmers (CAFF) has been around a long time and on the surface seems a lot like your average FBO airplane club.  But They're not. They are actually a non profit flying club dedicated to keeping flying within reach to aspiring aviators.  They proved this to me last month when they dropped the price of the G1000 Cessna 172Sp to $115 per hour from something like $135-140 because they wanted more pilots to be able to experience the Glass Cockpit.  And as far as I can tell, it's a permanent drop in price.  Have you ever heard of a club dropping the rental price of an aircraft, even as gas prices go up?  No, CAFF is not your average club.  I checked at a nearby towered airport and the airport club is renting a non G1000 C172 Sp for $153 per hour. But there's more.  CAFF owns a Cessna 182 RG and they are upgrading the avionics to the brand new Garmin GTN 650 & 750 while keeping the wet rent at $159 per hour and donating their old 430 and 530 system to their twin engine Seminole.  In addition to that, they are in the process of re-painting and re-engining their legacy C-150 and C172s again without increasing their rent from $77 & 94 per hour respectively.  And this is a California based club which is a notoriously expensive state to rent aircraft.

Now I know that may not mean much to you, however I think it's important and noteworthy.  I think it's notable because CAFF is pushing back against the common perception among most aviation businesses that all aviators have deep pockets.  CAFF is different, they know that the aviation community is desperately in need more pilots many of which will be young and less established and need a club like CAFF on their side to stay in the air. CAFF  has managed to keep prices down unlike almost every other club in the region that has continued to jack up their prices far above the current inflation rates inadvertently pushing away many less established aviators.  Somehow CAFF is able to keep prices down while still managing to upkeep and even upgrade their airplanes.  In a word, Amazing!  They are certainly not your average flight club.

So I'm excited.  I'm excited to be a pilot during a time when innovation like the GNT 650 is coming to general aviation, I'm excited to be a part of a great flying club who strives to bring that innovation to their planes, and excited to try out the best and brightest cockpit eye candy that Garmin can make for the little Cessnas I fly. I'm happy because I'm part of a club that remains dedicated to keeping flying fun and in reach of the average aviator and  if you live anywhere near Davis, you owe it to yourself to check out KEDUs Cal Aggie Flying Farmers, I think you'll like what you see! And, my god, for $115 per hour, I owe it to myself to learn the G1000 System!!  Oh Man, and would ya just look at that eye candy!

My Take On A Few Aviation Apps

Pilots are continually looking for ways to streamline and simplify cockpit tasks while also maximizing the amount of information available before and during a flight.  While I have only been flying for a few years, my impression is that the number of gadgety options a pilot could choose from began rapidly increasing a couple years ago as GPS, computer, and phone technology became such that an engineer/programer no longer needed to develop both a program and product, but simply a program to be used on existing products.  Apple, while never (to my knowledge) directly involved in aviation tech, has suddenly become a key provider of cockpit toys with the iphone and ipad.

I have been a loyal Verizon customer since I signed my first contract years ago and have been waiting impatiently for Apple to offer an iphone on the V network so I could jump in the happy walled iphone garden.  And now I have.  Now that I have access to the app store, I've been downloading and playing with a bunch of aviation apps and thought I'd pass on what I've found so far.

DTC Duat:
Cost:  Free
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/dtc-duat/id396959302?mt=8

This is a pretty good little program that fairly well mirrors the user experience of the online Duats system.  What I mean by this is that just like the online version, you get a lot of functionality on a somewhat finicky system without much regard for user interface (UI).  However you do get a solid list of functions including:

• TFRs both graphical and text 
• Briefings, route, area, state, and specific
• Weather including radar, winds aloft, and prognosis charts
• Flight plans, you can actually file a flight plan with a FREE App! - Best Feature?
• Flight planner - not user friendly but works
• Charts, airport info with taxi-way data, approach plates (I don't know if Id use the approach plate on an actual IFR - not even sure that it's officially approved for actual IFR use, it seems a little small for reading while flying, however if you find yourself without the correct chart I'm sure you could make it work).

AOPA:

Cost: Free

http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/aopa-airports/id312173435?mt=8

This is a fairly simple App and is a bit more user friendly than the DUATs app for finding airports.  They give really clear information about each airport that you are looking into in terms of frequencies phone numbers for flight service and ASOS, however their airport charts are almost bad with almost no usable info.  Compare the same KSMF chart from AOPA with the one above from DUATs:

The AOPA airports app does a good job of giving you other details about airports you are traveling to including car rental options, local hotels and restaurants as well as FBO contact information.  Had this been a paid app though, I think I would have been disappointed.  At least put the taxi-way designations and maybe a little FBO flag on the chart or something . . .

AeroPlus:

Costs: Free (can you see a trend in my spending patterns?)

http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/aeroplus-aviation-weather/id423548144?mt=8

This is a simple little app that works really well.  I like it.  You open this app to a map screen centered at your location (assuming you've allowed location services on your phone) with green dots indicating all the weather stations near your location.  if you hover over a location it will indicate some basic wind/weather details and if you click on the airport it will open a little box giving more in depth details:

To sum it up.  If you are looking for a quick weather reference to get a better picture of the weather patterns in your area, this is a perfect app.  You can quickly get an indication of weather on a planned route without needing to know the exact weather station identifiers along the way which is the case with the DUATs program.  If the route is VFR the station will have a green dot, if the station is currently reporting IFR, it will be depicted as a red dot.  If it's in between, an orange dot. 

AeroWeather:

Cost: Free

http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/aeroweather-lite/id288286079?mt=8

This is another basic weather program.  The idea here is that you program in a few stations, I'm guessing either local or on a planned route, then the app will list weather and wind in a really easy to read format for each of the airports you have chosen.  Then you can click on any airport to get additional information.  I like that the airport info page shows sunrise and sunset time and really does a good job of listing weather details in plain English. It also has a virtual red windsock on the stations page and VFR/IFR flag for each airport which is handy.  I can't find a mapping feature, however I can imagine that the info provided could still be informative without a map. 

iE6B:

Cost: Free

http://itunes.apple.com/ie/app/ie6b/id286057674?mt=8

So here's an app that really provides a ton of functionality and usefulness at a cost I can afford!   Here's a list of its basic functions:

• Solve for Time
• Solve for Speed
• Solve for Distance
• Wind Correction Angle/Groundspeed
• Headwind/X-wind
• Wind Effects
• Pressure/Density Alttitude (very helpfull)
• True Airspeed
• Programable Weight and Balance Template
• Fuel per Distance
• Endurance
• Volume Weight conversion
• + a host of other unit conversions

The only problem with this app is that the input fields are controlled by a sliding bar not a number pad and the sliding bar is extremely sensitive.  I was trying to get a field elevation of 67 for a density calculation and the closest I could manage was 75 due to the touchy bar. So far I've only used this app for density calculations but I've played with the other features and I think its a fairly quick/easy solution to in flight math.  Note: I've since found that if you tap in the box indicating the selected value (in the wind components image, the "12" would be the value I am referring to) a number pad pops up allowing you to enter a number without worrying about touchy slider input.

 Images: 

Now, there's one almighty app which is essentially the do-it-all handyman of aviation apps and has gained plenty of deserving attention - ForeFlight Mobile.  It has all the features I could ever want (until more come out of course, then I want those too!) from mapped weather, to current GPS enabled flight path data, charts, plates, taxi diagrams,  full weather briefings, flight plan filing and the list goes on.  I can see why pilots are raving about this stuff.  But here's my problem: at $74.99 for a one year subscription, my meager 12-15 mostly LCL attempts at remaining a current pilot hardly justify an Uber expensive app such as ForeFlight, even though I want it so badly.  But here's what I tell myself: ForeFlight is an amazing app, yet the iphone isn't really the right application for the program and while it would be fun to look at on the ground, the screen is a bit too small to  make it really useful in the air.  When I'm able to afford both the ipad, and more frequent cross country flights, I think spending the extra money each year would be well worth it.  For now, I'll satisfy my appetite for igagety toy apps by downloading ten different cheap or free apps and hope they together will come close to doing what ForeFlight is capable of. I'll note that Garmin also has an app called Garmin Pilot My Cast which is supposed to have similar functionality.  I downloaded ForeFlight on my iphone but planned the timing wrong as I wasn't able to fly during the 30 day free trial period that they offer. But from the ground, it seems user friendly and full of functionality.  

So what's my overall take on the igadgets?  The many weather services available for the iphone make on-the- go and away from the computer weather checks much smoother and quicker.  I'd note that when in doubt, you should always make a phone call to 1800 WX BRIEF to speak with a real human, however the visual sense of the weather in your region via the various apps can really help to give you a perspective of current and forecast conditions as you are getting closing to your flight time.  And the iE6B is a really nice tool that makes my old rotary phone tech E6B seem clunky and outdated.  I have yet to use any of these apps in the cockpit, but I'll make sure to send an updated if I have the opportunity to use these on an actual flight.

While not an actual aviation tool, I downloaded the LiveATC app which is a great little app if you ever feel like listening in on any of the major tower frequencies.  Fun, mostly pointless, but still somehow worth the 3 bucks they charge for the app.  Check it out: 

http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/liveatc-air-radio/id317809458?mt=8

Pilot Takes His Piper Surfing

A 24 year old pilot was flying low along the beach near the Kennedy International Airport and was in contact with Air Traffic Control when he asked the controller if it would be OK to land the plane on the beach.  The controller essentially told him NO as it was a public beach and it would only be acceptable under emergency conditions.  The pilot then mentions that his engine may be running a "a little teensy bit rough" and he would be doing a precautionary landing on the beach - but it's not an emergency.  The controller responds by informing the dim whittled pilot that his request actually constituted an emergency and the controller began alerting the authorities of an emergency beach landing.

Listen to the ATC audio here:
http://www.avweb.com/other/piper-32nd_beachlanding_LiveATC-net.mp3

This guy seems so arrogant in his communication with ATC using language that is completely inappropriate especially in the congested airspace near Kennedy International "I'll get off your grill."  Once on the ground, this pilot refers to the Flying Wild Alaska TV show on the Discovery Channel and says that he was inspired by the off airport landings depicted on that show and thought he'd try is own off airport landing on the beach.  Does this guy realize that the bush pilots spend years training in backcountry flying, only slowly working their way up to making well planned off airport landings, they didn't just one day think, "it would be a great idea to land in the ocean."  What this kid has done, is make both young general aviation pilots as well as highly trained backcountry bush pilots look bad in an act that can be described as both brash and childish.  I hope the general public understands that the aviation community is embarrassed by this pilot and most pilots would never dream of doing something like this.

While most pilots are working hard each flight to ensure they are flying safely and within the limits of their ability and knowledge, this kid is out there practically cracking jokes to the controller by saying "what if I want to hide from you" and seems to think that flying is just a game. Look, I think a lot about how we can get more young pilots involved in aviation as fewer and fewer youth are taking to the skies, but this is not the type of person we need in the sky.  He endangered himself as well as his two passengers and clearly didn't consider the possibility that people could be out on a public beach and decided to land in-spite of the ATC warning that landing on a public beach was not legal.  I hope for the sake of this young pilot, that he had enough with flying and was simply looking for an opportunity to have his certificate taken away - because I doubt he will ever fly again after a stunt like that.

I guess this is similar to the issues involved with video games and guns.  It can be fun to play a video game with guns, as it is fun to watch a bush pilot land on a river bed, but most people can tell the difference between what is happening on the screen, and the actions that are OK in normal life.  Using guns is an acceptable practice if the person using the gun is being responsible and using common sense, and also has practiced using the gun in a controlled environment.  Just because you see it happen on a screen doesn't mean you should try it yourself and I seriously hope that people don't criticize the show as being a bad influence on pilots.  I've watched the show but would never think it would be a good idea to just land on the banks of Folsom Lake for instance.  Just stupid.  Stupid kid.

Here's a tip for anyone interested in trying their first off airport operations, go take some bush lessons before you "try this at home," here are some options:

http://www.abovealaska.com/bush.htm

http://www.andoverflight.com/information_bushpilot.html

This way, you can be like a Flying Wild Alaska pilot but not endanger people in the process.

"There are old pilots, and there are bold pilots, but there are no old - bold pilots"

Flying With Jeanine on a Windy Spring Day

Thanks for coming up with me Jeanine, it was a fun flight!


This was one of those flights that really makes me think about the decision making process a pilot needs to work through to decide it's safe to fly.  Because there are so many risks inherent in flying an airplane, we as pilots have to pay extra attention to ensure that we are controlling and managing those factors that we can affect or simply decide not to fly if the factors are beyond our ability and experience.  On this day, wind was the significant risk factor with morning wind blowing from the north at around 17 miles per hour gusting to nearly 30 miles per hour - while not strong enough to knock any trees down, certainly enough to blow around a little Cessna 152 making a safe controlled landing more than a small challenge and probably not safe.  Now, you already know I ended up going flying, so how did I come to decide that it was safe?

Chapter one of my Private Pilot Handbook (the pilot version of a college textbook) jumps right into the topic of aeronautical decision making (ADM) and may be one of the elements of flying that can really keep a pilot up at night before a flight where weather is a significant factor.  One of the elements of ADM is communication. For me, I am trying to, and slowly getting better at communicating with those who are flying with me yet am still trying to find the balance of keeping them informed, yet not scaring them with too much information.  In this case, I told Jeanine that we could drive out to the airport, but there was a chance that we'd just stay on the ground because of the wind.  I don't think that's enough communication though, I also try and reassure that a decision to fly will include a good margin of safety and in general, I want to make sure my passengers know they have the power to veto the flight if they are not comfortable.

The wind outlook for the afternoon indicated that the gusts should quickly die down in the afternoon and become steady at 10 - 12 mph.  To help myself out before I left for the airport, I decided that with my level of experience with wind, and the weight and performance of the airplane, that I would not take off if the gusts were above 21 mph, a way to make the go/no-go decision much easier once at the airport, and also a decision that my passenger would have an easier time visualizing as well.

In many ways, the final decision comes down to a combination of the actual weather data - such as my choice not to fly with gusts above 21 mph on this day, but also a proper amount of gut instinct.  Quality gut instinct really comes from experience in similar conditions, which is tough as no flight has exactly the same factors at play.  So you try and separate the factors into individual items which you've seen before and can more clearly analyze.   It's standing at the airport and watching the windsock to see if the wind is generally steady in one direction, or blowing rapidly back and forth, it's getting a second opinion from other pilots at the airport,  it's looking at the sky and the trees to see if birds are having trouble flying, and reading and re-reading the local weather reports, it's taking it slow to build a case for, or against the flight.  I sometimes ask myself if I have to evaluate a flight this much, is it worth the risk - should I just not go?  Sometimes the answer is not to fly.  But in a way, I hope that each time I go flying, I am paying this much attention to all the factors of flight in an attempt to always make an informed and safe decision.  So I took my time at the airport and made sure I was at no point determined to fly as that's a sure way to make the wrong choice.

As it turns out, by the time we got to the airport things were looking better, the wind was blowing steady at 13 mph gusting 20 mph, a flight instructor had just come back from a flight in another 152 and reported that it was smooth up above, and the windsock was blowing steadily from 340 degrees on a 350 runway.  The risk factors were not outside the envelope and by spending time coming to a decision, and by keeping my passenger informed of the risks and (hopefully) giving her confidence that I'd only decide to fly if the risks were within my experience level and the capability of the aircraft, that we could have a great flight without her needing to worry about her own safety.  In this case, I decided to go. 

As it turned out, it was a smooth takeoff leading to a surprisingly smooth flight given the amount surface level wind.  I thought that this flight was actually one of the more beautiful local flights I've been on, with about the greenest farms I've ever seen, a completely clear sky with a clear view of the snow packed Sierras, a full Yolo flood basin below with the wind blowing across the water in a way that looked like little glimmering streamers in the water, just beautiful stuff. Once I was in the air and could tell it was going to be a beautiful and smooth flight, I momentarily felt embarrassed that I had approached the flight with such caution, but like I said, I really need to look at every flight with the realization that there are always risks involved in flying an airplane, and to do your best as a PIC is to understand the factors at play for each flight and attempt to make safe conservative decisions each time you head to the airport.


And now enough with the boring stuff.  Here are the photos:

American Airlines Goes On A Diet

Airlines are taking huge steps to cut fuel consumption as fuel prices start inching up. Airlines are currently running on such slim profit margins that even slight increases in fuel costs can nearly cripple an airline if unprepared for the increase.   Airlines across the board have begun jacking up prices and have already started grounding aircraft to reduce capacity and maximize the usage of the current aircraft (read: extremely full aircraft).  I’ve even heard that some airlines are toying with the idea of offering variable rate tickets to transfer some of the risk of increasing oil prices on to the passenger – although I don’t know who in their right mind would buy such a thing?  I guess people bought variable interest home loans so maybe they will do the same for an initially cheaper airline ticket.

In addition to increasing fares and grounding aircraft, American Airlines is working especially hard to be prepared for increased oil prices.  They have put together an entire program called Fuel Smart consisting of fuel saving measures that individually may not have a significant impact, but across a fleet of hundreds of aircraft will begin to add up.  AA is currently working on modernizing a fleet of older Boeing 737 aircraft with weight a primary concern.  Here are the current 737 airplane weight saving changes:

• Replacing all 19,000 drink carts with new 12 lb lighter carts
• Testing a new paint coating that is meant to improve airflow over the airplane body
• Removing seat back phones and their heavy wiring
• Installing lighter seats
• Lighter carryon luggage bins
• Lighter TV monitors

          (not specifically related to the 737):

• Buying more tugs to tow airplanes from terminals to hangars for when maintenance or testing is needed instead of starting the jet engines to taxi

All told, these improvements add up to and estimated $370 million in savings relating to fuel burn.  I’m not sure how that relates to their overall operating budget but I’m sure it makes a difference.

This story gave me an idea though.  AA is investing in tugs to pull aircraft from the terminal to hangars and have apparently done the math to figure out that the extremely expensive tugs are still less expensive than taxiing the aircraft to maintenance hangars.  In fact, AA saved 3.6 million gallons last year just by towing instead of taxiing to maintenance hangars.  I started to think about the savings and wonder, wouldn’t airlines save even more money by towing the airplanes to the run-up area for takeoff? Especially if the airplane is delayed for takeoff. 

Imagine a tow-taxi procedure in operation at the larger airline hubs such as JFK, Atlanta, Dallas, and Chicago among others where departure delays regularly drag on up to three hours, if every jet sat with engines off, being both tugged and cooled via the much cheaper to operate Diesel or electric Tug engine, couldn’t that save the industry millions if not billions of fuel dollars?  I did a little poking around online to see if the idea has already been presented and sure enough, it’s out there - sort of. 

Apparently Virgin Atlantic had been working on this very idea as part of the airlines various “green” initiatives.  Virgin claimed that towing aircraft to a starting pad at the end of the runway could save two tones of CO2 per flight if it normally takes a non delayed airplane 10 minutes to taxi. Obviously a conservative estimate.  The project was gaining steam in 2006 with the first 6 flights starting with a tow to the runway when Virgin received information from both Boeing and Airbus stating that repeatedly towing airplanes at full gross weight would weaken the landing gear and potentially shear it off after repeated full capacity towing.  Additionally, they stated that they would not offer product support to aircraft that had been towed at full capacity. Virgin has since stated that the towing initiative is indefinitely grounded.

My question is this:  If reducing a few jet powered trips to the maintenance hangar saves AA 3.6 million, easily justifying the investment in new tugs, wouldn’t the drastic reduction in fuel consumption from an entire airline industry towing their airplanes to the runway be enough of a savings to justify investment in stronger landing gear that could handle the stress of towing a full aircraft?  I guess I am just surprised that when one airline is looking at even small weight reductions as a means of saving fuel, that there wouldn’t be enough industry pressure on Boeing and Airbus that they could find a solution if the airlines collectively requested a fix.  As it is, I read airline news on a daily basis, and have been for around three years, and had never heard of an airline talking about this solution until I looked for it.  As a note, airlines are not blind to the issue of taxi fuel burn as most if not all request that their pilots taxi using only one engine to reduce consumption, but even on one engine, the fuel burn is significant.

Oh well.  And I though I had a little jewel of an idea too!! 

Here are my links:

American Airlines Gets Creative to Save Fuell

Virgin’s green idea loses its pulling power  

  

Why is the Airline Industry Doing so Poorly?

This is an article I found in the December/January edition of Flightline, the Allied Pilots Association union publication, I found it fairly clearly described some of the reasons behind our poorly performing airline industry.

By Captian Robert Herbst:


One of the most frequent questions I get asked during
interviews is: "Why is the airline industry doing so poorly?"
There can be a long list of answers to that question depending
on if you are the passenger buying a ticket or the employee
working for an airline.
The question actually has an easy answer. Contrary to what
politicians frequently attempt to suggest, airfares on average are
simply too low to cover the ever-increasing and required costs
for safe air travel.
In 1990, the average passenger cost to fly one mile in the
United States was 13.4 cents. Twenty years later, the cost was only
12.7 cents per mile. During the last two decades, the average U.S.
domestic airline passenger fare measured on a per mile cost basis
stayed in a range of 12.0 cents to 14.6 cents. Note: This is revenue
to the airlines and does not include government taxes, fees, security
charges etc. that are now approaching 30 percent per passenger fare.
Comparing 2009 with 1990, the cost of air travel decreased
by 9.9 percent while the Consumer Price Index for inflation
increased by 64.1 percent (cost for air travel excludes government
taxes and fees).
If airline passenger travel costs had kept up with CPI inflation
over the last 20 years, the average fare to fly one mile in 2009
would have been 22 cents per mile, a 59 percent increase over
the actual cost.
Here are a few staggering statistics for the U.S. airline industry:
• In 1990, there were 460 million passengers. In 2009, there
were 704 million passengers.
• In 1990, there were 546,000 airline employees. In 2009,
there were 536,000 airline employees.
• The U.S. airline industry has lost money in 12 of the last 20
years and accumulated a net loss of approximately $29
billion (excludes airline bankruptcy and reorganization
write-downs).
• The price of jet fuel for 2009 was at a four-year low and still
240 percent higher than the airlines paid in 1990.
• Since Jan. 1, 1990, there have been 98 U.S. airlines file
for bankruptcy.
After 20 years of on and off airline industry growth, there
are now 2 percent fewer airline employees responsible for a 53
percent increase in passengers. The numbers make it easy to see
why there are so many complaints against the airline industry.
Sometimes the old cliché: “You get what you pay for,” has
true meaning.
The chart below provides average passenger revenue per
mile for U.S. airlines, commuter rail, and intercity/Amtrak travel
as compared to the Consumer Price Index from 1990 to 2009.

Night Flight with Joel

So I didn't exactly make it out to the airport before sunset, but I still managed to go flying!  What's more, I was able to get my brother Joel out for the flight which is exciting.  While he had been flying with me before as a rear seat passenger, this was his first time in the front where he could do some of the flying himself.  Here are some of the photos from this evening:








It's hard to tell, but Joel is currently flying the airplane at around 3,000 feet!!




In addition to quickly picking up how to make controlled turns in the aircraft, Joel also managed to smoothly take off at the Yolo County airport with only a little rudder assistance from me, good job Joel!!

I want to go fly in that sky!!

We finally got some good weather today after seemingly weeks of bad weather keeping me on the ground, and just look at that blue sky!!  A pilot couldn't ask for much better weather than we have today, cool temperatures and only the slightest breeze, I have a serious itch to get up there.  It's been since January 14th since I last flew which feels like way too long in my book.  Plus, I've been doing mostly night flights which is great fun in it's own way, but common, blue sky like today deserves to be flow in!!  We'll see, maybe I can pull myself together and make an early evening flight happen.

Rest Rules Could Create Pilot Shortage?

(From a recent AVweb news article)

American Airlines says proposed rules intended to reduce pilot fatigue would require it to hire an additional 2,325 pilots at a cost of $514 million annually, and seemed to suggest the industry-wide effect could be crippling. The rules would effectively decrease maximum time on duty for pilots. In November, American offered public comments on the rules, saying "if AA needs 2,300 more pilots to meet the proposed rules, other certificate holders will need many additional pilots, too." Stakeholders also claim that the regulation's cost will be substantially higher than the FAA's estimate of $1.25 billion over 10 years. 

The Air Transport Association says the rule would cost more than 15 times that figure. As for the total number of pilots needed to meet the requirements of the bill, American said, "The industry figure will be so large as to raise the question of from where they all will come." American wasn't the only carrier to express concern.

Southwest commented on the proposal, saying "we feel than many of the rule changes will impact our operation as dramatically, if not more so, than the impact on any other carrier." The proposed rules call for nine hours rest between shifts and 30 consecutive hours away from work, each week. The proposal arose with support of people who lost family members in the crash of Continental Connection Flight 3407. There were no survivors of that flight, so the exact role of fatigue is unknown. However, the investigation found that neither member of the cockpit crew had slept in a bed the night before the crash, both had long commutes, and fatigue may have affected crew performance. In February 2010, NTSB Chairman Deborah Hersman called the crash "an opportunity to reexamine fatigue in aviation."

Fatigue in aviation has been on the NTSB's Most Wanted List of Transportation Safety Improvements since 1990. The FAA accepted comments on the proposed rules (PDF) through Nov. 15, 2010.

My comments:

Reduced safety due to short crew rest periods and long duty hours has been a major concern especially after the crash of Colgan Air Flight 3407 that killed all on board.  Crew rest was cited as a possible contributing factor as neither flight crew member had what many would consider to be adequate sleep prior to the flight.  

What I hear in this news story is an airline industry unwilling to make small changes to ensure the public receive safe air transportation.  I understand that decreasing the length of time a pilot is allowed to remain on duty, while also increasing crew sleep periods will require an added expense to the airlines, but no airline is being singled out to carry this burden. Rather, the ruling would affect the entire airline industry and the cost would  be passed down to the consumer.

While the airline industry at first, and later consumer advocacy groups may balk at an increase in cost, the public outrage that was voiced immediately after the Colgan crash over the extreme personal loss following a zero survival crash, should be enough to remind us that the consequences of industrywide pilot fatigue are far to great to warrant complaints over a small increases in ticket prices.  

Finally, the airline industry is expressing concern over an inadequate supply of pilots to support a change like this.  In fact, there is likely to be a significant pilot supply issue over the next 10 years.  Here are the numbers, airline industry experts expect airline passenger traffic to double by 2020, mainline carriers are expected to need to train 17,000 pilots a year between now and 2020 - roughly 3500 more per year than we are currently training to fill seats vacated by retiring boomers, as well as the pilot seats of roughly 16,000 aircraft on order through 2020. 

The problem is, it's hard to attract smart college graduates to the airline industry when entry level pay into a regional airline remains somewhere between $20,000 and $25,000 per year, especially when most airlines are willing to publicly balk at the idea of increasing pilot quality of life by increasing rest periods and reducing duty duration to a level that doesn't cause regular and often life threatening pilot fatigue.