Light airplane design and technology is very mature. People have been working to improve the speed, efficiency and safety of airplanes flying from 150 to 300 knots for more than 80 years. As an industry we know how to make good airplanes in that performance range and future improvements will be incremental, a few percentage points at a time, at best.

But electronic technology is still exploding. Nobody can predict what will be possible, and practical, using electronics in the coming years. And it is electronics applied to how airplanes fly that can advance the performance and safety of light airplanes more than any change in design or materials.

It’s already happening in large, fast airplanes where fly-by-wire is the norm for any new design. Fly-by-wire (FBW) uses computers to interpret the control inputs of pilots to then send a command to servos to actually move the flight controls. FBW can be more redundant than conventional mechanical and hydraulic control systems because multiple computers and wire paths can be installed, along with redundant servos to move the controls.

Control redundancy is not a significant concern in light airplanes, but electronic management of how the airplane flies could be an enormous benefit. The FBW computers can be programmed to make the airplane perfectly stable in all flight regimes. That means the airplane would constantly return to straight and level after being upset by turbulence, or maneuvered by the pilot.

An FBW system could also provide envelope protection. For example, let’s say the pilot commands an abrupt attitude change at high airspeed that would threaten to overload the structure of the airplane. The computers would temper the pilot’s input and command only enough control surface movement to take the airframe it its structural limits, but not beyond the limits and break it.

FBW could also prevent the pilot from exceeding both the high and low airspeed limits of the airplane. For example, if the pilot keeps commanding nose up when there is not enough energy available to prevent the airplane from entering a stall, the FBW computers would limit the up elevator travel to prevent a stall no matter how hard the pilot pulls back on the stick.

In its most comprehensive iteration FBW can automatically land the airplane if the pilot were to become disoriented in bad visibility, or if he were incapacitated. Unpiloted UAVs of all sizes make automated flights—including takeoffs and landings—thousands of times a day all over the world. Avionics experts from Rockwell Collins have already configured a Bonanza to land itself, and flown hands off landings. This is not pie in the sky, but technology that is available now and not all that expensive.

True FBW where there is no mechanical link between cockpit controls and the flight controls is unrealistic for a homebuilt at this point, but what is possible, and makes sense to me, is a supervisory electronic system. Computers could generate the commands to enhance stability of the airplane, and to move the controls to protect the flight envelope, while still allowing the human pilot to overpower the servo if the electronic system were to fail.

The FAA is being very cautious when it comes to approving electronically enhanced stability and envelope protection in production light airplanes. Even though loss of control is the single most common cause of serious light airplane accidents, and electronics could help prevent those, the FAA is slow to act. But homebuilders do not have those same FAA certifications restrictions. Builders could include electronic flight control enhancements now because their airplanes are experimental and the electronics can be experimental, too.

Homebuilders are creating a wide variety of attractive and good performing airplanes, and many of those have advanced flat glass avionics. The next step, I think, is to incorporate electronics to enhance the actual flying qualities of the airplane to provide stability not achievable through natural aerodynamic means, and add the safety of protecting the pilot from exceeding the design envelope. Electronic flight control enhancement would always be standing by to right an airplane if a pilot loses control in the clouds, and even automatically fly an approach to a runway.  If builders show the way, maybe the FAA will see the light and help make electronic flying qualities enhancements, and safety, more available to all categories of airplane.

What Pino said is “there is no regulatory replacement for actual experience” referring to the outstanding safety record of the S-76. It suddenly dawned on me that every pilot or aircraft manufacturer knew this years ago, but some have lost sight of this proven fact in recent years.

What makes Pino’s observation even more remarkable is that he presides over a company spending a fortune on developing new technology. Sikorsky won the Collier Trophy last year for its X-2 coaxial rotor helicopter that set new speed records for a helicopter. Pino clearly knows we must constantly search for ways to improve, but he also knows the value of technology proven over decades in service. New rules are necessary, but only experience can work out the unknowable issues.

The objective of every change made to certification rules for any kind of aircraft is improving safety. Regulators are aware of accident causes as we all are, and they attempt to eliminate the causes of past accidents with new rules. In theory, adjusting the certification standards to enhance safety makes sense, and sometimes it works.

An example of a certification change that added safety is in fuel management. Airplanes certified in the 1950s and 60s could have multiple fuel tanks, including main tanks and aux tanks and restrictions on when to use each, and strict requirements for pilots to monitor fuel status and select the proper tank.

In tip tank Cessna twins, for example, the tips are the mains and aux tanks are in the wings. When you switch from main to aux the fuel “vapor” return from the fuel injection system goes back to the main tank even though you have selected the aux tank. So when flying on the aux tank the main tank will actually be gaining fuel because of the vapor return. Does that make sense to anybody?

Some airplanes were approved with a single fuel gauge for more than one tank. But that gauge didn’t necessarily change its reading to match the selected fuel tank. You could be drawing fuel from one tank while the fuel gauge was showing the level of another tank. Is that a potential pilot trap? I think so.

Current certification rules don’t allow the complex fuel management systems that we once took for granted and one more opportunity for a pilot to make a mistake has been removed. That’s a good thing.

But other certification changes added complexity to perhaps avoid something that may happen, even though it hasn’t. For example, some piston airplanes now must have a means to break out a window to escape after a crash in case the airplane is inverted or the door jams. Could that happen? Of course. Has it been an issue? Not that I know of.

The reality is nobody can predict what problems will really arise in any airplane or helicopter until it is out in service. All sorts of methods have been devised to perform accelerated testing that simulates actual use but the tests have been only a little helpful. Regulators try to predict how pilots or maintenance people will perform in the real world, but with limited success. So far nothing replaces time and experience, except time and experience.

So when an aircraft like the S-76 has been flying in all sorts of conditions, all over the world, and with an enormous variety of pilots and maintenance people involved for more than 30 years, we learn where the real safety issues are. And they get fixed.

I am not anti-progress, and I love to see newly designed aircraft come along, but I know that an evolutionary design is hard to beat.

At one time nobody wanted serial number one, or 10 or maybe even 50. Some manufacturers of all sorts of products have even faked it a little by starting production with a higher serial number. I understand.

Jeff Pino is a helicopter pilot, of course, but also owns and flies warbirds so he has an appreciation for the importance of historical aircraft and the experience of owning and operating them. And he also knows that helicopters, even more than airplanes, benefit from years, even decades, of refinement of a solid basic original design. After all, I believe the original design of the Sikorsky S-61 helicopters that carry the president may be older than this president. Experience does matter.

My boss, EAA president and CEO Rod Hightower, likes the word aviator. And also aviate. I am pleased that Rod thinks of me as an aviator. But, as usual, some have groused about use of the title aviator and would rather think of themselves strictly as pilots.

Actually, pilot is an older title and predated aviation by many, many years. In its most common application, pilot is and remains the title of a person who guides a ship through the tricky conditions of a harbor. To this day all ships above a certain size are required to take on a pilot who has the local knowledge of the harbor that the ship’s captain couldn’t possibly have.

The pilot actually takes over responsibility for guiding the ship into the harbor and to the dock. When a ship sails a pilot is onboard to navigate it safely back out to open water.

A pilot can also be a device to show the way in other endeavors. For example, many airplane kits have pilot holes drilled in components. When the pilot holes are lined up the components are correctly in place and the remaining holes can be drilled and fasteners attached.

In the late 1800s France was the hotbed of aviation and people were flying all sorts of lighter than air machines. A descriptive term for the people who operated these aircraft was needed so aviator, from the French aviateur, was coined. Pilots were guiding ships into and out of harbors, but aviators were operating aircraft.

Aviator was commonly used even after the Wright brothers and others developed airplanes. Flying was a unique activity, to say the least, and it must have made sense to use a new and unique term to describe the people who operated aircraft.

Nobody knows for sure when the term pilot began to become synonymous with aviator, but I think it may have happened in the 1920 and 30s when governments began to license and regulate aviation.

Maritime pilots were already certified so it probably made sense, when it came to creating a licensing system for aviators, to call those people pilots, too. Many of the operational techniques and standards we use in aviation trace their routes to maritime traditions and standards so the idea of a captain being in command, or a pilot in command, made sense in aviation.

But aviator continues to have a broader meaning than pilot. For example, it would be correct to call a navigator or flight engineer or bombardier an aviator. I also think it is a compliment to call a pilot with well rounded and broad experience an aviator, something more than simply a pilot.

The U.S. Navy never shelved the term aviator and continues to call its pilots Naval Aviators, and flying activity Naval Aviation. Perhaps that is because the Navy was using pilots for hundreds of years before the first airplane flew and wants to emphasize the difference between maritime navigation and flying. I’m sure some Naval Aviator will set me straight on the real reason.

Of course there are several other terms for a pilot. The military typically calls the PIC an aircraft commander. If you were called the pilot on a Space Shuttle, you were actually the copilot to the commander. There is a pilot in command (PIC) on any airplane, and if there is only one pilot onboard, there is no question who holds that title. But when more than one pilot is in the cockpit, or even onboard the airplane, it is essential that only one be designated PIC and that person is called captain. Copilots are normally called first officers. First typically means head of the line, but in this case the first officer is second in command (SIC).

Then we have instructors and examiners who are also pilots in their own right, but we don’t usually refer to them as pilots. For many years large airplanes carried flight engineer who were most often pilots, too, but they were called FEs, not pilots.

My point is that flying titles are sliced and diced in all manner of ways, but there is one term that describes anyone qualified to participate in the safe and effective operation of any type of aircraft and that is aviator. We all hold different pilot certificates and ratings, but if we are good at what we do in an aircraft we are aviators, and that’s what I have always wanted to be.

 In Italy several years ago a U.S. military pilot flew into a ski lift cable system and a number of people on the lift were killed. The Italian government sought to prosecute the pilot. In Brazil an Embraer business jet on a delivery flight back to theU.S. collided with a Boeing 737 airliner causing the Boeing to crash killing all aboard while the Embraer crew was miraculously able to get the badly damaged business jet safely to a runway. The Brazilian courts prosecuted the Embraer pilots for a criminal act.

 In theU.S. we have created a system that treats accidents as accidents, at least in the criminal sense. There is financial liability involved after most crashes, but the actions of those involved are treated by the government as mistakes, not willful actions that could be a crime.

This attitude toward accident investigation has helped make the U.S. aviation system the safest in the world. Everyone involved in the post-crash investigation knows that they can cooperate without fear of jeopardizing their freedom. It takes cooperation from all to uncover the chain of events that lead to crashes, and by knowing what caused an accident we can help prevent the same occurrence in the future. That’s one of the essential reasons that NTSB findings are not admissible in courts. The NTSB must remain independent so all involved in an accident are encouraged to cooperate fully in the investigation.

 But now a prosecutor and grand jury in Massachusetts are charging the pilot of a Cessna 310 with involuntary manslaughter. The pilot crashed the piston twin short of the runway in darkness killing his daughter, the only passenger.

 The NTSB has not completed its investigation and issued a probable cause of the accident that happened in January of 2011, but it is the facts in the case that have driven the prosecutors and grand jury to bring charges.

 The pilot/owner of the Cessna 310 did not have a multiengine rating. The NTSB reports the pilot had about 500 hours of total experience, and he had gone through a period of six or seven years of no flying before he purchased the 310. The NTSB believes he received approximately 50 hours of multiengine instruction but never attempted the check ride necessary to earn the multiengine rating.

 Commanding an airplane that you are not rated to fly violates the most fundamental FAR. It is not possible the 310 pilot could not have known that he was not FAA approved to command the piston twin flying solo, and certainly not with a passenger.

 The other basic rule that was broken is lack of night currency. The pilot had not logged the required three takeoffs and landings at night within the previous 90 days that are necessary to legally carry a passenger when flying in darkness.

 The reality is that almost every accident involves at least some violation of the rules. After all, it is essentially illegal to crash. But is this accident different? Are the rules violations involved so willful and premeditated as to rise to the level of a criminal act?

 We all deplore the actions of the 310 pilot and nobody can condone flying—much less carrying passengers—without being approved to do so. But I hate to see any aviation accident enter the nether world of the criminal court system.

 To my thinking criminal sanctions are intended to deter others from committing the same illegal act and to punish the criminal to help prevent the convicted from breaking the law again. The criminal just system is designed to protect the rest of society from harm. And I am sure that the grand jury and prosecutors in this case believe they are issuing both a deterrence message and punishing the pilot.

 But I think this is a bad trade. It’s true the pilot’s willful disregard of the rules helped put his passenger’s safety at risk, and also increased the risk of people on the ground near the flight path. On the other hand, the cooperation of pilots and all others involved in accident investigations is so fundamental to improving safety that punishing one bad actor can have a chilling effect on all pilots and thus cause greater harm to overall flying safety.

 This pilot killed his own daughter and I can’t imagine a punishment more severe. As for prosecution acting as a deterrence I think it will only deter all of us from working to promote safety by uncovering all of the details of the chain of events that lead to most accidents.

 Bottom line this was a terrible piece of flying, and that’s true of many accidents. We must work to improve all of our flying abilities and procedures, not threaten to jail those who screw up. Safety will suffer.

The Garmin GTN 750 touchscreen flight management system

Garmin is all in on touchscreen avionics. It will no longer build its wildly successful GNS 430/530 flight management systems which have been replaced in production by the GTN 700/600 series units that have touchscreen control. Garmin also has the G2000, G3000 and G5000 integrated flat glass systems that span the spectrum from piston single to the fastest business jet all using touchscreen control units.

And Garmin is by no means alone. Avidyne has announced development of touchscreen navigation and flight management control units. So has Bendix/King. And one of the biggest players of all, Rockwell Collins, has added touchscreen capability to its Fusion advanced flat glass avionics system for turbine airplanes.

We’re living in a touchscreen world given the overwhelming acceptance of smart phones, iPads and all manner of personal electronic devices. Even a new refrigerator and clothes dryer has a touchscreen pad to command its operation. Why would aviation not join in the touchscreen revolution.

Garmin was first to market with an installed and certified touchscreen system when it introduced the GTN 750/650 about a year ago. Garmin had been showing me developmental versions of touchscreen avionics for a few years so I wasn’t surprised. The GTN 750/650 was the product of extremely intensive research and development by Garmin because, well, they were betting the farm on superseding the GNS 400/500 series, the most successful avionics units in history.

From the first time I heard about, or thought about, touchscreen avionics I had two big concerns. The first was how well could we pilots operate a touchscreen device in turbulence. And the other thought was how long would it take for us to break the decades old habit of having knobs and buttons dedicated to performing the same function all of the time.

My concern about using a touchscreen in turbulent conditions is, I think, unfounded. My fear was based on some push button avionics systems from the late 1970s that, when mounted in a vertical position on an instrument panel, were hard to operate in the bumps. But Garmin addressed most of those issues by designing in a kind of raised ridge around the screen that allows you to grip with several fingers while using one to touch in commands. As touchscreens are integrated into new airplane designs the screens will be tilted off the vertical so your hand can rest on the edge of the screen making operation even easier.

The issue of transitioning from dedicated knobs and buttons to touchscreen menus is actually being resolved by our everyday lives. Most of us are spending so much time using touchscreen devices that it has, or quickly will be, the norm. When I call Exec Air and ask them to fuel the airplane I use a touchscreen. I typically use my smart phone to enter the flight plan into flightplan.com. I use a touchscreen in the car when I drive to the airport. So it’s just natural that in the airplane touchscreens will be there.

The discussion of whether a touchscreen is easier or harder to use in the airplane is almost irrelevant. The real question is do touchscreens allow precise and desired control of our avionics? I think the answer is yes. And what flows from that is all sorts of benefits for the future.

Designing, certifying and manufacturing a touchscreen avionics system initially is probably about as complex, and costs about the same, as creating one with traditional buttons and knobs. But after that initial design, it’s game over for the touchscreen. Almost any changes in avionics operation, or new technology, or new regulation, can be handled via the touchscreen through new programming. If the design of the system, or its menus, or the steps required for normal operation are not optimum, they can be improved as we gain experience. Buttons and knobs lock us into the now—actually the past when the equipment was designed–but the touchscreen keeps the door open for almost continuous change and improvement.

As good as the touchscreen is for performing most avionics functions there are some tasks that just can’t be done better than with a twist knob or button. For example, can any control device beat a twist knob for setting the heading bug? No. Same for dialing in a baro setting, or a target altitude. Those types of simple and direct flying tasks we do dozens of times on every flight and have only a single level of complexity just can’t be improved on, and they won’t take on new forms and functions in the future.

Aviation must necessarily always be a step or two behind the newest technology because we only want to leave the ground using structural material and equipment with proven performance. But now, touchscreen technology is so embedded in all of our lives it’s time for it to move into our cockpits. Garmin has sold more than 90 million various electronic devices for all manner of uses and most of those use touchscreens. Pretty good testing to get ready to fly.

A few weeks ago the Diamond D-Jet got a similar shot in the arm in the form of new company ownership and financing from investors fromDubai. The D-Jet program has been in the works for years and three prototypes have been flying. But like the Cirrus Vision, the D-Jet program had been on the shelf for months awaiting new funding commitments. 

In contrast, Piper spent lavishly on a large redesign of its PiperJet over the past couple of years. Piper created a much larger fuselage for what became the Altaire single engine jet, and predicted a higher cruise altitude, longer range, and higher speed. Piper went so far as to recruit engineers for the program in Wichita, an effort complete with billboards in the Air Capital.

Piper spent lavishly on a large redesign of its PiperJet over the past couple of years but then pulled the plug and canceled the program.

But suddenly, after a large presence at the NBAA show complete with full scale mockup of the Altaire cabin, Piper pulled the plug and canceled the program. The move was so abrupt that advertisements for the jet were still appearing in aviation magazines after the program had been suspended.

The owners of all three single-engine jet programs are now located outside the U.S. with Piper’s parent being based in Brunei, Cirrus in China, and Diamond in the Middle East. That certainly means there is a global view at work when it comes to single-engine jets. But how can three companies look at similar programs and come to opposite conclusions on how to proceed?

While I can’t possibly know how the discussions evolved at each of the three companies, and what factors were considered, I do know what the biggest challenges are for any single-engine jet design. It really boils down to the inefficiency of jet engines – particularly small engines with a modest bypass ratio – when flying below 37,000 feet or even higher, and the 61-knot stall speed limit on single-engine airplanes.

Cirrus and Diamond expect to certify their jets with a maximum ceiling of 25,000 to 28,000 feet. It is extremely doubtful the FAA would ever approve an operating ceiling for a single above 30,000 feet. The reason is that cabin pressurization could be suddenly lost if the engine were to fail. Or even more likely, pressurization would be lost by the failure of any element of the single string pressurization system, including pipes, couplings, valves, and so on. Multiengine airplanes have at least two of everything needed to maintain cabin pressure.

The Diamond D-Jet recently got a shot in the arm in the form of new company ownership and financing from investors from Dubai.

Being restricted to a low maximum cruise altitude means the single-engine jet will have higher fuel flows than a single-engine turboprop, or piston. The extra speed of the jet will help make up for the higher fuel flows, but, still, a single-engine jet will need to carry more fuel for the same trip than a piston or turboprop single.

The weight of the extra fuel increases wing loading, of course, and a higher wing loading leads to a higher stall speed. To meet the 61-knot stall maximum in landing configuration the single-engine jet needs a bigger wing than is desirable for efficient cruise. A very effective wing flap can help reduce the stall speed, but in the end, weight will win out and the single-engine jet won’t be able to carry as much fuel as most of us want to make the nonstop trips we want to fly.

There is also the one turn spin recovery rule that applies to all singles and that can be complicated in any airplane. It’s most likely that a successful single-engine jet will employ a stall barrier “stick pusher” system that actually prevents an aerodynamic stall and thus prevents a possible spin.Pilatus uses such a system on its PC-12, and the big majority of larger jets all have stick pushers.

A stick pusher system adds weight and cost because everything including sensors and the actual stick pushers must be dual. But an even larger penalty for single-engine airplanes is that the pusher must activate at a higher speed than the actual stall so that margin eats into the 61-knot stall maximum at least a little.

The Williams International FJ33 will be featured on the D-Jet and the Cirrus Vision. Altitude certification limits and higher fuel flows means more fuel needed for the same trip taken in a turboprop or piston-driven aircraft.

Then there are all of the typical developmental issues that any airplane faces such as performance goals, flying qualities, dealing with icing, system design, and so on.

Can a single-engine jet be designed and certified? Of course it can. Will such an airplane be accepted by pilots and be a sales success great enough to return the development cost? Nobody knows. But three investor groups have voted with their dollars in the past few months and by two to one, the bet is that a single-engine jet can succeed.

But we can’t hold our breath waiting for the outcome. Diamond has set no firm delivery schedule that I am aware of, and Cirrus recently inferred that first delivery of an SF50 Vision is about three years away so there is plenty of time for more twists and turns before the first single-engine jet is delivered.

A typical NDB antenna installation is as simple as wires strung between telephone poles (background). Often a fan-style marker beacon (foreground) can be found at these sites as well. Courtesy: lancesanders.com

How old is the non-directional beacon (NDB) as an aeronautical navigation aid? Eighty years? 90 years? Or maybe more. I’m not sure. The NDB was certainly around before even the fancy four-course range with its dit-dah left-right guidance along a “beam.” But the four-course range died decades ago while the NDB lives on. What’s up with that?

In most countries other than theU.S.an ADF receiver capable of navigating using NDB signals is still a requirement for IFR flight. Newly designed mega million dollar airplanes are still leaving the factory with an ADF receiver, or more often two of them. That’s like including an Underwood manual typewriter along with every new iPad sold. 

But the NDB and ADF live on because of politics, not technology. The “G” in GPS stands for global, and the GPS signals cover the world with excellent accuracy everywhere, not just over the U.S. But GPS is controlled by the U.S. military and that’s why many – even most – nations in the world are still using NDB signals because the NDB transmitter is bolted firmly to the ground in each country.

Example of an outer marker beacon for an ILS. They are often co-located with NDBs. Courtesy: W3eee.com

There is more than the “not invented here” syndrome at work causing many countries to reject GPS for primary IFR navigation, particularly for IFR approaches. It is theU.S.that set the ball rolling when GPS was initially developed.

The original name of GPS was Navstar and it was totally a military project and was created by funds from the military budget. When the first test satellites were being launched in the mid-1970s the U.S. Air Force was very clear that its worldwide navigation system was first and foremost a military weapon.

The Air Force did relent a little by making an intentionally degraded GPS signal available to the public, including pilots, but made it clear that even that lower level of service could be turned off at any time without warning if the military believed there was a valid reason to do so. The Air Force definitely didn’t want any civilian pilots using GPS for primary navigation, much less for IFR approaches flying close to the terrain in the clouds.

The FAA obliged the Air Force and ignored GPS in its plans for the future. The FAA and European aviation authorities invested millions in a squabble over a microwave landing system (MLS) technology that would guide pilots along curved approaches in three or four dimensions. The Europeans wanted to use a Doppler technique for MLS, but the FAA and its industry supporters demanded a time-reference scanning beam (TRSB) technology. The FAA won the fight, but only a handful of MLS systems were ever installed anywhere. Why do I remember this stuff when I can’t remember what I ate for lunch?

Anyway, the civilians in the federal government saw the waste in reserving GPS only for military use when all taxpayers had chipped in to build it. The government changed the policy and assured civilians that GPS signals would be available, and that the accuracy would not be intentionally degraded. The FAA was ordered onboard and GPS became a foundation for the Nextgen modernized air traffic system.

But the rest of the world wasn’t so quick to accept the 180-degree turn by the U.S. government. After all, if theU.S.could reverse its policy on GPS availability once, it could do it again. So most of the world’s aviation authorities simply refused to certify GPS for IFR guidance, particularly approaches. Without GPS all that’s left in remote areas or in rugged terrain where an ILS is not feasible is the NDB approach.

An NDB beacon available from a Russian firm. Courtesy: Azimut.ru

The anti-GPS attitude is changing slowly because other nations are launching their own compatible satellite navigation constellations. Europe has its Galileo satellites and the Russians have GLONASS, and I’m sure there are other efforts I have lost track of. It’s not really crucial that these additional satellite nav systems add any capability or redundancy to GPS. What’s really important is that the rest of the world feel a part of GPS and have an ownership stake so they will not be victims of a whim of theU.S.

So the NDB and ADF live on because many national aviation authorities don’t trust the U.S. government, not that they don’t trust the technology of GPS. My ADF receiver is long gone and I sure don’t miss it.

The affect on aircraft sales during this recession was out of character as top-end GA aircraft continued to sell while almost all other segments suffered. Courtesy: Piper Aircraft

I’ve been writing this Left Seat blog for EAA with the generous sponsorship of Aspen Avionics for a year. I don’t think it’s my fault, but 2011 has not been the most memorable year in aviation, but there was some good mixed in with the bad. 

The Recession Continues

The most depressing aspect of 2011 is how the economic recession hung over general aviation. Except for the largest cabin and longest range jets such as the Gulfstreams, Falcons and Globals, the manufacturing of new airplanes was down at least a little compared to the terrible year of 2010. The best various categories other than the large jets did was to stay even with the previous year.

I have worked in the industry through many up and down cycles—including the biggest bust of all in the early 1980s—and there has been a pattern to past recessions and recoveries. The norm was for piston sales to slump first, followed by turboprops, and then jets. Recovery would follow in the same order with pistons being first to show positive gains in sales.

But this recession has not followed that pattern. The biggest and most expensive jets slumped the least and are the only category to be at or even above pre-recession levels. Instead of being first to recover, pistons continue to slide. And turboprops languish in the middle.

Everybody has a theory about why this aviation recession is different, and most are probably partially correct. My guess is that at the very top the wealth and success of the individuals and companies who buy those airplanes is so great that the price reflects only a small part of their total assets. But for the pistons, turboprops, and light and medium jets, the cost is very large in comparison to the overall assets of a typical buyer. I think the lack of confidence in the near term economic future has thrown a wet blanket on the small and medium cost airplane buyer, and until some clear global economic trend takes hold, we’re in for more wait and see—but not buy—for all but the most expensive jets.

The BARR Fight

When regulations change it’s usually pretty easy to understand the motives of the government. We may not agree with the rule changes, but those making the changes believe the new rules will make flying safer, or will raise more money for the government, or will promote growth through a tax break. But when the federal government changed the blocked aircraft registration request (BARR) last summer, I and everyone else were left scratching our heads searching for a motive.

For about 15 years the FAA has made its national air traffic activity feed available to the public. Airport authorities, FBOs, weather forecasters, and individual airplane owners welcomed the information on the movements of every airplane in the IFR system. But some airplane owners did not want the exact details of every flight they made posted on the web for the entire world to see.

The FAA reinstated the ability to keep their flights, like this one Mac took last spring, private. Courtesy: Flightaware.com

That simple request for privacy makes sense so the FAA created the BARR. All an airplane owner needed to do was request that flights by his aircraft not be made available to the public, though the FAA and all public safety groups would still have access. The BARR program was administered by the NBAA so there was virtually no cost to the government. And the BARR system was working well with no complaints from either side.

Then, suddenly, the Department of Transportation—the FAA’s boss—announced that BARR would end. The reasons for ending BARR were vague and made no sense. Come to think of it, the reasons were not really vague; there just wasn’t a reason to end a program that granted citizens a normal level of privacy that all other modes of transportation receive. But the DOT simply rammed the change through.

Every aviation group I can think of, including EAA, joined together to demand that BARR be reinstated. The FAA looked on more or less helplessly with its orders coming from the DOT. But Congress did listen and included in an FAA funding bill a demand that BARR be returned. That is something the DOT cannot and did not ignore.

So BARR is back, but many of us are still wondering, “What was that all about?” I’m glad we in general aviation won the fight, but what a waste of taxpayer and airplane owner time and money. I still can’t guess what the heck the DOT was thinking.

The iPad

Portable computers of all types in the cockpit are hardly new, but the Apple iPad hit some kind of previously undiscovered longing in thousands of pilots whether they fly Gulfstreams or LSA. I have never seen anything like it. Pilots just can’t get enough of iPad apps, and with unbelievable speed, the FAA has approved its use for essential data storage and presentation in everything from airliners to light airplanes.

I guess the speed at which the iPad retrieves and displays any kind of text or graphics is new. Its color brightness and clarity is better. And its size is tiny. Pick your own reason, but no electronic device I can think of has ever been welcomed—actually demanded—in more cockpits as quickly as the iPad.

iPads and other tablets are becoming ubiquitous on airplane flight decks big and small.

Synthetic Vision

It’s been several years since a computer-created view of the terrain features ahead were first approved for cockpit display. Early versions were pretty crude with very little detail and only the tallest mountains prominent. But then Gulfstream’s PlaneView cockpit was certified with extremely detailed synthetic vision, and the technology was off to the races.

Garmin brought excellent synthetic vision to its flat glass displays such as the G1000 and G600. Avidyne and Aspen also developed the technology. Dynon raced ahead with syn viz for amateur-built airplanes. The technology quickly migrated onto portable cockpit displays, and, of course, to apps for the iPad.

Has synthetic vision prevented a single accident yet? I don’t know. It certainly seems like it must have, but I have not seen a report from a pilot who was headed for the hills but pulled up, or turned, to avoid the terrain shown on his syn viz display.

Whether syn viz ever makes a last minute save is not the issue for me. What it really does is complete the transition from the old “steam gauge” instruments to a real primary flight display (PFD) that shows us not only attitude and airspeed, but our overall situation on departure or approach. If I turn the syn viz display off in my airplane—which I never do except as a reminder—it’s almost like flying from clear air into a cloud. We’re not quite to a flying world of perpetual VFR, but thanks to syn viz we can see that world from here.

Rockwell Collins is working on its HGS-3500 system that fits physically and fiscally in smaller airplanes.

What’s Up for 2012?

My great hope is that 2012 will be different than 2011. But my fear is that we will see more of the same. We can still hope for an improved economy, no new onerous regulation, and continuing advances in technology. That’s what this time of the year is for—hope. Happy New Year.

Courtesy: blog.minitab.com

All pilots are amateur meteorologists out of necessity. And one weather fact we think we know is that high pressure systems make for good flying weather. And that’s generally true – but not always at this time of the year.

As you remember from private pilot ground school, high pressure systems typically clear out the atmosphere, bringing good visibility and generally clear skies. The soggy stable air of low pressure systems can collect lots of moisture that leads to widespread clouds and reduced visibility. Lows usually spawn fronts that add their own mix of flying weather challenges. 

But in the winter and early spring high pressure systems can be so strong that they can spontaneously generate flying weather problems that are very difficult to forecast.

The hallmarks of high pressure systems are generally low moisture levels and unstable air. Unstable air means the air cools with altitude at a pretty steady rate, while under low pressure systems the air may actually be warmer aloft than at the surface with that temperature inversion holding clouds and low visibility close to the ground.

However, winter highs can be so powerful that the rapidly rising and cooling air they contain can squeeze what little moisture exists into clouds. Such small buildups are sometimes called “instability showers.” These clouds can form just about anywhere without the need of a front to get them growing. And that makes them particularly difficult to forecast.

When it’s cold at the surface the scattered to broken instability clouds typically create snow showers that can be very threatening to pilots flying VFR. The high pressure air gets the vertical development of a cloud really moving almost like a mini thunderstorm, except the moisture is frozen in the form of snow. The cloud sucks in all of the moisture around so the snow rates can be very heavy right under the cloud. And significant snow knocks flight visibility down to almost zero. You can see the ground below you in the snow, but you can’t see ahead to find a horizon.

The best forecasters can do is note that there is a “chance” of broken clouds or snow showers but they can’t be certain where, or when during the forecast period, the instability clouds and snow showers may form.

In this recent weather snapshot, Jason Warren, a weather enthusiast and Trained Severe Weather Observer for the National Weather Service, predicted that cold air will sweep into northwestern Pennsylvania and use instability spurred on by Lake Erie to produce snow showers over the area east of the lake. Courtesy: Jason Warren

Instability snow showers can be fed by a significant body of water such as a Great Lake or coastline supplying moisture. But the clouds may form some distance from the water body source. And the clouds also tend to cluster in areas or along lines, making it potentially very difficult for a VFR pilot to find a way around them.

Some of the biggest weather scares I have ever had were in those pop-up instability snow showers when I was flying VFR only in my Cessna 140 many years ago. The airplane had only an ancient turn and bank instrument to help me know up from down when I blundered into a snow shower. And often the snow under the cloud doesn’t look from a few miles away like any big deal – until you fly into it. But once in the snow – clear of the cloud but in the snow – the visibility can vanish in an instant.

I don’t know how to tell you to avoid all instability showers, except to say that if it is very cold and the altimeter setting is high, beware of all puffy little clouds and don’t fly under them or you will learn a new meaning to the term “white out.”