IMC Weekly Archives 2009 Vol.1 by IMC Club International, Inc.

Archive Collectio Collection

2009

IMC Club Mastering the Art of Instrument Navigation

The latest of what you want to know

Vol.1, No.1, August 25, 2009

IFR Cross Country Will Be Allowed for All Commercial Pilot Certification SEL Requirements As reported by the Society of Aviation and Flight instructors the final rule was announced by FAA changing the training, qualification, certification, and operating requirements for pilots, flight instructors, ground instructors, and pilot schools. These changes are needed to clarify, update, and correct the existing regulations and are intended to update and clarify the training and qualifications rules for pilots according to the FAA – and to a better understanding of these rules that relate to aircraft operations in the National Airspace System. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is amending several regulations to respond to recent technological advances in aviation. The essence of these interlocking changes is pilot, flight instructor, and pilot school certification. The instruction and training taking place in pilot schools is for many their first exposure to recent aviation, technological, and industry changes. For the above reasons, the FAA has found it necessary to update, correct, and clarify the rules and requirements. Many of the changes reflect and incorporate comments and suggestions made by trade organizations, flight schools, manufacturers, individual pilots, and others. Among the changes that are taking place FAA will allow “the daytime cross country flight for commercial pilot certification single engine airplane rating to be performed under visual flight rules (VFR) or instrument flight rules (IFR).” This change is applicable to so called Long Cross Country day and night flight experience requirements. Full copy of the FAA document can be obtained at the SAFE website www.safepilots.org

Over Twenty Six Hours of IMC Before Instrument Rating “...at 57 years old, I still dream as though I was in my twenties” Mike Delaria began flying in 1971-1978 as a flight engineer (throttle jockey) for the Navy. “I was actually titled aviation maintenance administration, to put it bluntly a pencil pusher, and to be honest had know knowledge of what being a mechanic did or how to use a

- Why do you want to learn instrument flying? - “The major thing I have noticed is it makes you a better pilot, and better prepares you for the busy skies. As I entered into the training I was not content with just doing simulation, the question what is it actually like to fly actual. Once I had this in my head I was determined that I would have at least 10 hours of actual time prior to my check ride with the examiner, just wanted to make sure I was ready for the real world. As it turns out it looks like I will end up with over 26 hours of actual instrument conditions and I must say I feel ready for the real world. To this I owe my thanks to the weather and my Horizon Aviation instructor Josh and as funny as this may sound, I think it is actually easier to fly actual than simulated.”

wrench, which was one of the requirements, but they saw something I did not, and as time went on was very interesting to say the least. At the end of it surprised myself. This is where I got the bug to fly. After spending 10,000 plus hours in the center seat just knew that I wanted to be the guy in the left seat as pilot in command.” – said Mike Mike originally started his PPL at Centennial Airport in 1997 and due to financial reasons had to stop. He started once again in September 2008 and got his PPL January 17, 2009. “Now I wanted more, so in March 2009 I started on my instrument rating and hope to have that sometime later Aug 2009 or early Sept 2009.”

What do you want to do when you have your Instrument Rating?

“I find this one quite interesting, being asked, what are you going to do once you get your instrument rating (it is like being asked what are you going to do when you grow up) “keep learning” my plan is to move on for my commercial. Who knows after that! I would like to put these ratings to good use some day, and yes at 57 years old, I still dream as though I was in my twenties. My total time accumulated since 1997 is at 250 hours total. By the way, thanks Josh for all of your hard work and patience.”

IMC Club Mastering the Art of Instrument Navigation

The latest of what you want to know

Vol.1, No.2, September 1, 2009

FAA May Establish a Special Flight Rules Area (SFRA) for the Hidson River VFR Corridor

The Federal Aviation Administration convened a New York Airspace Working Group that is reviewing current operating procedures over the Hudson and East Rivers and recommend safety improvements in to FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt. FAA air traffic and safety experts will review and analyze a variety of proposals to change the operating procedures in the Visual Flight Rules corridors over the two rivers. Both fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters currently operate in the same airspace at or below 1,100 feet. “We strongly encourage pilots to use standard practices in that area now, but it may make sense to require them,” Babbitt said. “We’ve heard a lot of other good ideas about improving safety there and I’m looking for a quick, but thorough review by the safety experts.” In the meantime, the National Transportation Safety Board issued five safety recommendations to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) resulting from the Safety Board's ongoing investigation of the midair collision over the Hudson River near Hoboken, New Jersey on August 8, 2009. The collision of a Eurocopter AS350 BA helicopter, and a Piper PA-32R300 airplane caused nine fatalities, including the pilot and five passengers aboard the helicopter and the pilot and two passengers aboard the airplane. The area surrounding the major airports in New York City is designated class B airspace. Pilots are required to get permission from air traffic control (ATC) to enter class B airspace and to follow ATC instructions once there. The collision occurred in the Hudson River class B exclusion area, a passageway through the New York City area class B airspace that permits (non-air carrier) aircraft to fly north and south along the Hudson River without authorization from air traffic controllers. Aircraft, such as the accident airplane, departing Teterboro airport for destinations to the south or southeast must either request ATC clearance to enter the class B airspace or circumnavigate the class B airspace around Newark airport to the west or use the Hudson River class B exclusion area. In the Hudson River class B exclusion area, they are required to remain at or below 1,100 feet. "The FAA has established procedures for operation within the Hudson River class B exclusion area that are designed to minimize the risk of collision, but as this accident demonstrates, there are still situations when these established procedures are not enough," said NTSB Chairman Deborah A. P. Hersman. "Our recommendations suggest operational changes that can make this corridor a safer place to fly." These new recommendations ask the FAA to revise standard operating ATC procedures for the Hudson River class B exclusion area, and to brief air traffic controllers and supervisors about the circumstances of this accident, emphasizing the

requirement to remain attentive when on duty. The recommendations also ask the FAA to establish a special flight rules area (SFRA) for the class B exclusion areas near New York City, require vertical separation between helicopters and airplanes in these SFRAs, require pilots to complete specific training on the SFRA requirements before flight within the area, and conduct a review of other airspace configurations where specific pilot training and familiarization would improve safety.

Fourth Dimension to be Added to the Flight Path

Two Pilots Were Killed Lost Their Lives to Save People on the Ground

The systems that manage flights today employ three dimensions: altitude, latitude and longitude. A fourth dimension – time – will be introduced in demonstrations beginning later this year under a new agreement reached between FAA and Embry Riddle’s aviation consortium. The new technology, called 4D trajectory based operations, will optimize an aircraft’s flight path through its entire flight – or trajectory – by adding the element of time. Time, in this case, means the ability of an aircraft to cross a specific navigation fix at a specific time. This type of precision – knowing an aircraft will be where it’s supposed to be at a certain time – will improve efficiency and capacity in the nation’s skies. It also gets to the heart of the Next Generation Air Transportation System: moving aircraft from Point A to Point B with greater efficiency, saving time, money and fuel.

Two pilots were killed when a Russian-made Su-27 fighter went down while performing Sunday at an air show in the town of Radom, south of Warsaw in central Poland. The video broadcast on the onet.pl Polish News Agency shows the Belarusian aircraft completing a maneuver, and then falling behind some trees in a nose-high attitude. Black smoke then appears from the grove. Neither pilot was able to eject from the aircraft. The Su-27 was one of two Belarusian aircraft participating in the show. The incident is under investigation, and the air show was suspended. IMC Weekly’s source that witnessted the crash is reporting - the airplane’s engines were silent just before the accident. According to the unofficial reports pilots did not eject to save potential causalities on the ground.

The new technology is expected to be used on flights in medium-density markets such as Orlando. These 4D trajectory based operations will help us determine the impact on traffic capacity and efficiency of operations

IMC Club Mastering the Art of Instrument Navigation

The latest of what you want to know

Vol.1, No.3, September 8, 2009

Hudson River VFR Airspace Changes to be Ready for the New Chart The FAA expects to complete and publish any changes in time to have them in effect by November 19, so that they can be incorporated on new, standardized aeronautical charts WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is planning to modify the airspace over the Hudson River by revising procedures. It would restructure the airspace, mandate pilot operating rules, create a new entry point into the Hudson River airspace from Teterboro, standardize New York area charts and develop new training for pilots, air traffic controllers and businesses that operate helicopters and aircraft in the area. If adopted, it would divide the airspace into altitude corridors that separate aircraft flying over the river from those operating to and from local heliports or seaplane bases. It would establish a uniform “floor” for the Class B airspace over the Hudson River at 1,300 feet, which would also serve as the “ceiling” for the exclusionary zone. Between 1,300-2,000 feet, it would require aircraft to operate in the Class B airspace under visual flight rules but under positive air traffic control, and to communicate on the appropriate air traffic frequency. Between 1,000-1,300 feet, it would require aircraft using VFR to use a common radio frequency for the Hudson River. Aircraft operating below 1,000 feet would use the same radio frequency. New pilot operating practices would require pilots to use specific radio frequencies for the Hudson River and the East River, would set speeds at 140 knots or less, and would require pilots to turn on anti-collision devices, position or navigation equipment and landing lights. They would also require pilots to announce when they enter the area and to report their aircraft description, location, direction and altitude. The FAA expects to complete and publish any changes in time to have them in effect by November 19, so that they can be incorporated on new, standardized aeronautical charts that will replace existing charts. The charts will highlight the Class B VFR corridor, encouraging more pilots to exercise the option to fly over the Hudson River under air traffic control, instead of entering the congested exclusionary zone. Finally, the FAA intends to develop training programs specifically tailored for pilots, air traffic controllers and

fixed-base operators to increase awareness of the options available in the Hudson River airspace, and better develop plans that enhance safety for the intended flight.

Five People killed in a Foggy Conditions A small plane on its way to Dallas for the University of Oklahoma football game crashed into Chandler Park amid foggy conditions Saturday, September 5 morning, killing all five Tulsans aboard. Their plane, a six-passenger Piper, left Jones Riverside Airport at 10:37 a.m. and crashed within minutes after it hit a cable coming from a tower in the park, said Lt. George Brown of the Oklahoma Highway Patrol.

The conditions were extremely foggy, and the tower wasn't visible from a distance. Stephen Lester, the owner of the plane, was piloting, according to the OHP. Witnesses in Chanlder Park in Tulsa said they heard a sound like a loud 'pop', and saw the aircraft tumbling through the air. It hit the ground and caught fire. Authorities said two of the occupants were ejected from the aircraft as a result of the impact. Fog and "almost zero visibility" likely contributed to the accident. The tower is between 150 and 200 feet tall, and was obscured by low clouds. It is unknown at this time if the airplane was on an IFR flight plan.

IMC Club Mastering the Art of Instrument Navigation

The latest of what you want to know,

Vol.1, No.4, September 15, 2009

Take an airplane that you have become accustomed to flying and throw in the G1000 (Part One) by Victoria Kuo, CFII What is so special about the G1000 glass cockpit? Take an airplane that you have become accustomed to flying and throw in the G1000 cockpit. You still have the same airplane that flies the same way. The first time that I flew in a small airplane with the G1000, I will have to admit, I relied on the old-fashioned stand-by steam gauges to fly by. I was unfamiliar with reading the airspeed and altitude “tapes” or indicators. As far as the attitude indicator was concerned, I just looked outside. It was confusing at first to identify all the new engine gauges. I just wasn’t ready for the change. I knew the old system and it worked. Besides, I told myself, what if the electrical system that the glass cockpit so heavily relies on fails? I would have to rely on the old gauges to fly the airplane. So why bother? Early March 2009, I was asked to ferry a Cessna 172S with a G1000 glass cockpit from Venice, Florida up to Providence, Rhode Island. What an opportunity to see the eastern coast of America. How could I pass this up? Well, I couldn’t. There I was, sitting in row 2, window seat of a Southwest Airlines flight on my way to Tampa International. I had three hours to review the Cessna 172S Nav III POH, checklist and G1000 handbook. The previous few days I had the opportunity to review the G1000 simulator and had become familiar with the different keys and buttons. I didn’t feel as nervous as I thought I might have, only excitement. It’s amazing; pilots will tell you that change is very slow in aviation. My perspective is different: I started flying in November of 2006 and all I see is change. To me change is part of life. I label it neither good nor bad, but constant. With that in mind, I was ready to learn how to fly by glass. What I hadn’t prepared myself for was the eye opening experience that I would have over the next few days as the G1000 revealed itself. Stepping out of the Southwest jet into the warm 80 degree weather of Florida was refreshing. I had just come from temperatures below 35 degrees up north in my winter coat and jeans, but I knew I would be flying into cooler weather up the coast as the day progressed. After I took care of physical factors like hunger, I quenched my curiosity as I stepped into the old familiar Cessna 172, but less familiar glass cockpit. The aircraft was shiny and beautiful with clean modern lines of technology. But that is being rather superficial. It wasn’t until the end of my first training flight from Tampa International to Hernando that I realized the potential benefits of not only the G1000 but the KAP 140 autopilot. Wow! I would like to think that I, like anyone else making this transition, was a bit flustered trying to read and understand information that was normally intuitive and easy for me to obtain. Luckily, the landing and the flying was all the same. It was interpreting data that made me feel a bit out of my shell. However, before the half hour flight was over, I began to get more and more comfortable with the new format of information. It is no different

than jumping into a friendâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s car, or even a rental car that you have never driven before. Where are the lights? Where are the turn signals? Nope, that was the windshield wipersâ&#x20AC;Ś And how do you adjust the seat? Yes, eventually you get it. This is how it felt when I first flew the G1000. All the information that I wanted was there, just maybe in a different location with a different looking gauge. I could go crazy detailing the integrated system of the flight display, but instead highlighted are things that impressed me most. Two side by side screens identical in the off position made me think of two words: dual and redundancy. If one should fail, I had a backup. It was easy to find any buttons that I might need in an emergency because they stood out in red or another color. I could display the identical information on both screens or use one to display my primary flight instrument and the other to show the moving map, traffic, weather, and engine performance data. I preferred to have more information once I became familiar with the organization of the primary flight instruments and radio display and controls. As long as I knew I could aviate comfortably, I was ready to explore the endless amounts of data. I found it very surprising that all the buttons and knobs were exactly where I would expect them to be. I found the G1000 set up fairly intuitive.

NTSB Chairman Deborah A. P. Hersman testified on the status of the ongoing investigation over the Hudson River Washington, DC - NTSB Chairman Deborah A. P. Hersman testified on the status of the ongoing investigation into the mid-air collision over the Hudson River. The collision occurred on August 8 between a helicopter and an airplane. All 9 persons on board both aircraft were killed. Chairman Hersman provided an overview of the ongoing investigation based on facts that have been identified to date. The testimony did not provide any analysis or conclusions on what may have caused the accident.

At the hearing before the Subcommittee on Aviation on Transportation and Infrastructure, Hersman noted that the Safety Board has identified some areas of concern that have prompted the Board to issue safety recommendations early in its investigation. "We issued early recommendations prior to the conclusion of our investigation because this accident demonstrated that there is a need for new procedures to be put in place to minimize the risk of collision," said Chairman Hersman. "The Federal Aviation Administration has taken quick action to address operational changes in the Hudson corridor. We are reviewing their proposal to determine if it meets the intent of our recommendations." Also during her testimony, Chairman Hersman presented an animation depicting the accident sequence. The animation was created based on radar data and audio from Air Traffic Control communications.

The latest of what you want to know

Vol.1, No.5, September 22, 2009

Website Gets over 11,000 Hits After AOPA Includes Club in Email News Shortly after AOPA included the IMCCLUBS.ORG in its newsletter our website received a record amount of hits. The days following have kept the local club busy with requests to open new chapters, helpful ideas and many new potential members from surrounding states in New England. In response to heavy demand, in the next few days IMCCLUBs will be upgrading the site to allow interested pilots to start new chapters, including downloadable materials, agendas and missions checklists for each new chapter.

Take an airplane that you have become accustomed to flying and throw in the G1000

(Part Two)

For Part One Click Here

"I became addicted to the G1000" by Victoria Kuo, CFII

After the first flight, I was well versed with the KAP 140 autopilot. I engaged the autopilot after takeoff during my climb to traffic pattern altitude. It captured wings level in the ROL mode and my current vertical speed. I pressed the heading (HDG) button so that the autopilot would hold my heading input, which I activated by dialing the heading bug to the direction I wanted to fly. I pressed the altitude button to check the vertical speed (VS); I wanted a climb rate that would give me best rate of climb so I set the vertical speed to 500 fpm and cross referenced the airspeed indicator. I then selected my cruise altitude with the autopilot knob. I sat back and scanned outside for traffic before coming back inside to evaluate the engine gauges. Nice I thought. I was amazed with the ability of the autopilot to reduce my workload by reducing the mundane task of keeping the wings level and changing or maintaining altitude and heading. This increased my ability to plan the next phases of my flight.

With a good checklist, my pre-flight and start-up was all encompassing and easy. Granted, with additional equipment, there were additional checks, but nothing surprising. I felt it was important to understand the airplaneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s systems and limitations because if I took care of the airplane to the best of my abilities, the airplane would be able to take care of me in I was finally becoming familiar with the G1000 screen. I the air. As I started up the coast going into my second hour, I

understood how to use the airspeed and altitude “tapes” compared to the old radial gauges, and no longer fixated on them. I enjoyed the BIG attitude indicator. There were so many ways to customize the screen to my liking. I preferred the directional gyro in the standard 360 view verses the simplified arc mode because I could get more navigational information from the horizontal situational indicator (HSI) and the radio magnetic indicators (RMIs). The first few things that I fell in love with were the heading bug button and the wind vectors. I remembered how I used to have to rotate the heading bug to my current heading, but here, the heading bug automatically centered on my current heading with the push of a knob. Don’t be surprised when you find yourself smiling over it. And wind vectors? There was no more question as to what my approximate headwind or crosswind component was. As I changed my course or altitude my headwind/tailwind and crosswind component was always on display. Again the G1000 had plenty of options to personalize the display screen. I really liked having the two vectors instead of a single inclusive vector. I loved information, and there was an abundance of it. I found that I could declutter the screen and format it to make it simple. I had to be careful to continue to be vigilant for traffic outside, while I explored the plethora of information provided by the G1000. I was able to get current weather and aircraft performance. I could locate TFRs, special use airspace, wind vectors, winds aloft, areas of precipitation, freezing levels, sigmets and airmets, airport information, current METARs and so much more. This gave me the ability to make more informed decisions and to continually evaluate alternatives during the flight. But ahhh, the engine indication system made me happy. With three main engine pages, I had a clear picture of how the engine and electrical system was performing. On one page, I could get a quick overview of the aircraft’s systems; I could check fuel flow. I could verify that the amps and volts, oil temperature and pressure, CHT and EGT were within acceptable limits. On another page I could get exact values so that I could see trends in changes during my flight. On a third page I could monitor all four EGTs and CHTs and lean the airplane according to the POH. I had the ability to detect problems early which made me very happy considering that I was going to be travelling twelve and a half hours up the coast back to Providence.

was feeling more comfortable with the G1000. There were times that I was slow to find the knob I needed to adjust my heading bug or change my altitude bug, but that was normal. If you bought a new microwave, you’d take more time initially in locating all the buttons, but with time, you eventually know where they all are. During my second flight, I used the Primary Flight Display with no problems and incorporated the autopilot from just after takeoff to just prior to landing. I was already familiar with the GNS 430, so learning how to use the G1000 GPS system was fairly simple. Breaking it down for those unfamiliar with it, I would describe its use by comparing obtaining information by going to one of four main chapters and within those chapters, are pages of more specific information. But I will save that for another time. On flights with stops in Grand Strand, Ocracoke, and Ocean City, I was able to monitor engine and electrical systems, determine where to stop and get fuel, avoid restricted airspaces, and determine METARs and winds at different altitudes. I also could use the information on the MFD to determine how much wind correction was necessary to keep me on course. Yes, I became addicted to the G1000. It wasn’t until I began transition flight training into the G1000 with my students that I became additionally aware of the benefits of the G1000. Flying instrument in an airplane with the G1000 verses a round gauge panel reduces the workload tremendously because you no longer have to scan multiple gauges to obtain the same information.

The latest of what you want to know

Vol.1, No.6, September 29, 2009

Am I a good pilot? Let's see if you can say 'yes'

By Rick Durden It afflicts each of us. Every pilot who has pushed a throttle forward for takeoff has, at one time or another, wakened in the chill of the pre-dawn hours nurturing that very private uncertainty: “Am I a good pilot or do I just think I am?” Some pilots are incapable of the necessary introspection and self-evaluation required for the answer; some deal with it by deciding not to care, too often proving their disregard by creating the most foolish of impacts with the earth; and the majority of us are willing to pursue the question and want to find a working definition as to what a good pilot is so that we might enter that most exclusive of human fraternities. As a start, one may seek out the practical test standards issued by the FAA, reading the standards for the successful completion of a flight test. Yet, they are only a beginning in the search, for those standards are, by federal law, just the utter minimum for passing a particular flight test, not a measure of what a good pilot truly is. We all know pilots who have demonstrated the ability to fly to the practical test standards at some time during their lives and with whom we would not risk our own hides by riding in an airplane with their clammy hands on the yoke. So we continue the search and find that, over the years, some very good pilots have passed along objective guidelines for determining whether you are, indeed, a good pilot. So let’s view some of the available measuring sticks, recognizing that they are not perfect or all-inclusive. And, as you look at those measures, keep in mind the sage advice of the greats of aviation who have gone before and who made it clear that a truly good pilot is, first of all, honest in self-appraisal. Therefore, are you honest enough to evaluate yourself as ruthlessly as does Mother Nature? She is a hanging judge. Violation of one of her laws of physics or aerodynamics results in instant conviction without appeal, and punishmentundefinednot probation or a suspended sentenceundefinedfollows in seconds should you demonstrate hamfistedness and absence of judgment by stalling an airplane while turning at 300 feet above the ground or attempting to cause an airplane and a cell phone tower to occupy the same airspace. The vast majority of pilots have a passion for the world aloft that cannot be hidden and are thus viscerally determined to fly well. It is something taken most seriously and quite personally. Accordingly, your evaluation of your own skill and judgment is a very private sort of thing; so read the following alone, with no one looking over your shoulder as you ride the commuter train home from work. What do you know? When considering the airplane you are about to fly, can you diagram the fuel and electrical systems from memory, and do you know the airspeeds for best rate of climb, maneuvering speed at your weight and 1.3 VSO? Can you recite the first five items of the emergency checklists for engine failure and fire in flight? Do you know how much weight you can place in the cabin when the fuel tanks are full, and do you have the judgment to not exceed that weight? When taxiing, taking off, or landing, crosswind or no, if there is a marked centerline, are you always at least straddling it, if not precisely centered, and are your ailerons correctly positioned for the surface winds? On a crosswind takeoff does your downwind tire leave the ground before the one on the upwind side, so that you are positioned to establish the appropriate crab angle to keep you tracking above the runway on climbout? On takeoff, do you raise the nose of a nosewheel airplane within five knots of the speed published by the manufacturer? Do you decide on a speed for each section of your climb to altitude and then hold it within five knots, or do you just let the airplane meander upward without clear guidance from you? When in cruise are you always determined to fly precisely and, if the air is reasonably smooth, able to hold your desired altitude within plus or minus 50 feet without fixating on the altimeter? Do you seek a clearance from an air traffic controller, and never “instructions” because you are the pilot in command of your airplane and the controller cannot tell you how to go about flying it, only how to fit into the traffic flow? Do you keep your

comments brief and concise and foreswear the use of inane and redundant terms such as “Roger” or “with you” or “any traffic please advise” when you speak on the radio? Are you always willing to ask a controller to repeat a transmission if you are at all uncertain as to what was said to you? Can you make a 45-degree banked 720-degree turn and hold your altitude within 50 feet up or down? Can you enter and recover from a straight-ahead, power-off stall with full flaps or a full-power stall in clean configuration without the ball leaving the center of the race or entering a bank of more than 10 degrees at the break? Can you fly the airplane within five knots of stall speed and never stall it unintentionally, even when rolling into and out of 30-degree banked turns? Can you enter a spin, make three full rotations, and recover within 20 degrees of your initial heading? And is your judgment such that you will never intentionally perform a spin in an airplane that is not approved for doing so? Can you recover from an in-flight upset beyond 90 degrees of bank by initially pushing forward on the stick or yoke, rather than pulling, and rolling to level flight without losing more than 100 feet? Do you have the judgment and common sense to refuse to perform any aerobatic maneuver in an airplane that is not approved for aerobatics? Do you do what you know? Are you aware in your heart of hearts that there are other airplanes in the sky, and do you spend at least half of the time you are aloft in VFR conditions looking out for them? Are you aware of the deep-seated fears of flying and falling that affect the majority of your passengers? Are you willing to never intentionally frighten a person who rides in an aircraft with you, knowing that those who do so are best branded as sadists? Do you cater to and pamper your passengers, seeking the smoothest ride possible, explaining what you are doing and even bringing along things to make the flight more pleasant for them such as snacks and water? Do you know in the depths of your aeronautical soul that aircraft engines do fail, and do you plan your flights with a healthy respect for that potential? When landing, are you conscious that the greatest risk facing you is not being too slow on final approach, but rather being too fast? Do you always fly the last quarter mile or so of final approach at 1.3 VSO, plus or minus five knots, unless there are gusty winds and then add absolutely no more than one-half the gust factor? Are you aware that the best way to manage the energy that must be dissipated on landing is to touch down at the slowest speed possible for your particular airplane, and do you generally consider a normal landing to be made with the use of all of the flap deflection built into the airplane by the manufacturer for that purpose? Can you make a go-around from a full-flap landing without risk of stalling the airplane? Can you touch down within plus or minus 100 feet of a spot you have selected? Can you do so, two times out of three, after a power-off approach from an 800-foot high downwind? Do you do what you say? Are you willing to make a go-around if things are not exactly right on an approach even knowing that there might be comments from aeronautical idiots who do not understand that a go-around is a symptom of good judgment? If you are instrument rated, are you willing always to remain at or above the published minimum altitude for the approach until you have the runway or the required environmental signposts in sight and not “bust minimums” in hopes of seeing something? Are you honestly able to drive all the way out to the airport with your family, load the airplane, and then cancel the trip or postpone it for at least 24 hours because some element of the weather, the airplane’s condition, or your health does not fall within your personal performance envelope? Can you, right this moment, write down the minimum ceiling and visibility in which you are willing to fly, VFR, day and night; the maximum wind you will tolerate on landing or takeoff; the minimum runway length you will accept for your airplane, at gross weight on a 90-degree F day if there are trees at each end of the runway; what equipment on your airplane you feel is acceptable to be inoperative and still depart; whether you would be willing to fly with your family with an upset stomach, headache, flu, or within 12 hours of consuming alcohol; and, if instrument rated, the minimum ceilings and visibilities you will accept for precision, nonprecision, and circling instrument approaches? Are you willing to avoid flight below 1,000 feet agl in the vicinity of people and houses and busy highways because you know of the horrendous proliferation of towers, the fact that, post 9/11, many people react badly to airplanes flying low, and that almost everyone has a cell phone camera and is using them to help the FAA catch pilots who are dumb enough to conduct public buzz jobs? Are you aware of the noise that your airplane generates and the effect it has on the citizens who vote? Do you make a conscious effort to minimize that noise level by avoiding low flight and waiting until final approach to move the propeller control forward? Are you as good as you think? Can you fly a complete traffic pattern with the airspeed indicator covered, or make a landing at night with no instrument or landing lights? Do you always look up when an airplane passes overhead?

Do you possess a true humility about yourself in the vastness of the sky and recognize that being a good pilot requires always being willing to learn and to practice skills that otherwise quickly erode? Are you therefore willing to take recurrent training on a regular basis, at least annually, and to attend safety classes and Internet sessions to keep your judgment and skills at the high levels your family deserves and that meet your personal requirements? If you can look yourself in the mirror and truthfully say that you can answer at least 90 percent of the questions â&#x20AC;&#x153;yes,â&#x20AC;? then the chances are that you fit the definition of a good pilot, and the eyes of the true aviators who have gone before are smiling down on you. . Used with permission from AOPA Pilot magazine.

Helicopter Crash

LAWSUIT FILED AGAINST

in South Carolina

National Association of Flight Instructors

All three people on board were fatally injured

Injunctive Relief and Damages Sought

The National Transportation Safety Board is investigating the crash of a medical emergency services helicopter near Georgetown, South Carolina. The Eurocopter AS350 B2 (N417AE) helicopter crashed at about 11:30 p.m. ET on Friday September 25th during a positioning flight after dropping off a patient in Charleston about two hours earlier. All three people on board were fatally injured. NTSB Air Safety Investigator Todd Gunther has been designated as Investigator-in-Charge and arrived at the scene. NTSB Board Member Robert Sumwalt will serve as principal spokesman during the on-scene investigation.

LONGMONT, Colorado - Following numerous failed attempts to compel the National Association of Flight Instructors (NAFI) to cease its unauthorized use of intellectual property associated with the Master Instructor Program, Sandy and JoAnn Hill, program creators and founders of Master Instructors LLC, have filed a copyright infringement and unfair competition complaint against NAFI. Documents were filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on September 21, 2009. Adam Thurston, Esq., a founding partner of the Los Angeles, California law firm of Eisenberg Raizman Thurston & Wong LLP (ERTW), stated, "It is unfortunate that NAFI has forced the Hills to resort to the courts to protect their intellectual property rights from infringement. The lawsuit seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief as well as damages arising from NAFI's copying and unauthorized use of the Master Instructor and Aerobatic Instructor program.

On May 21, 2008 the same helicopter was involved in an NAFI's royalty-free, non-exclusive license to provide the accident as the result of the starflex arm being overlooked Master Instructor Program to its members was terminated during a conformity inspection and over flown by 586 hours. earlier this year.

The latest of what you want to know

Vol.1, No.7, October 6, 2009

Newest Chapter Formed at Wilgrove AIRPORT Wilgrove, NC Newest chapter of IMC Clubs.org is being formed at the Wilgrove Airport. The folks at Wilgrove Airport in sunny North Carolina are slated for their first IMCCLUBs meeting. They have already selected some of the choicest approaches in the local area to challenge their club members with. If you are in the area be sure to join them on October, 8th at 7:00 PM. Bill Heybruck â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the IMC coordinator for the Wilgrove Airport Chapter will happily answer any questions you may have. To setup your own chapter you will need to gather a group of Instrument rated pilots and at least one FAA Certificated Flight Instructor Instruments (CFII) in your area. It is a good idea (but not essential) to work with an existing flight school. Be sure to explain the value proposition associated with the IMCCLUB. That is simply; since the schedule of missions requires both planes and CFII's (after level one). It makes good sense for the flight school or flying club to support a chapter of IMCCLUBs.

VFR Communication course Available for iPhone

Hudson River Crash Landing Will be reviewed at the NTSB Course

The Finer Points of Flying (www.TheFinerPoints.net) has joined forces with ForeFlight (www.ForeFlight.com) to develop the iPhone app, VFR Communications. The DVD version is also available. This five-chapter instructional course available for the iPhone and iPod touch contains an hour of high-definition video, computer animation and instruction from Jason Miller, recently nominated FAA flight instructor of the year. Each video provides in-depth coverage of airspace, including dimensions, charting, airspace entry requirements, and real-world cockpit footage demonstrating how a proficient pilot communicates efficiently and effectively in complex airspace. This instructional course is perfect for private pilots brushing up before a biennial flight review or check-out, student pilots that desire a learning tool that goes beyond the content normally presented in a standard instructional flight lesson, or enthusiasts wanting to learn how pilots really communicate when navigating simple and complex airspace. Like nothing you've seen before. It is filmed in stunning 1080i High Definition and completed with Computer Graphic Imaging and a fresh personality. VFR Communications is available at Apple's App Store at iTunes. The DVD version of the course is also available for purchase at TheFinerPoints.net. Preview the content of both at www.thefinerpoints.myshopify.com.

The National Transportation Safety Board is offering a three-day course, "Transportation Disaster response - A Course for Emergency Responders," at the NTSB Training Center in Ashburn, Virginia (near Washington, D.C.) on November 17-19, 2009. The course is being facilitated with the full participation of the New Jersey State Police. This course is designed specifically for local, county, state and federal emergency responders, planners and managers as well as members of organizations and agencies with accident response roles. NTSB specialists and speakers from the FBI, the New Jersey State Police, and other emergency response agencies and organizations with response roles in recent accidents will discuss the operational and organizational challenges encountered in responding to large-scale, highprofile transportation accidents. Topics will include the incident command system, events involving terrorism and/or hazardous materials, interaction with the news media, communicating with the local community and families of the victims, assistance to family members, forensic aspects of recovery and identification, and long-term issues facing the affected community following a major disaster. Case studies will include: Crash of Colgan Air Flight 3407, NY and US Airways Airbus crash landing in the Hudson River

The latest of what you want to know

Vol.1, No.8, October 13, 2009

Know Your "Known Icing" Based on The Letter of Interpretation on Known Icing published in the Federal Register

Rather than specifically defining "known ice," the FAA defines ''known or observed or detected ice accretion" in the Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM). In paragraph 7-1-22of that manual the agency defines "known or observed or detected ice accretion" as "actual observed visually to be on the aircraft by the flight crew or identified by on-board sensors." Actual adhesion to the aircraft, rather than the existence of potential icing conditions, is the determinative factor in this definition. The FAA believes the term "known or observed or detected ice accretion" to be synonymous with the term “known ice" and that the agency's definition of that term is non-controversial. The formation of structural ice requires two elements: 1) the presence of visible moisture, and 2) an aircraft surface temperature at or below zero degrees Celsius. The FAA does not necessarily consider the mere presence of clouds (which may only contain ice crystals) or other forms of visible moisture at temperatures at or below freezing to be conducive to the formation of known ice or to constitute known icing conditions. There are many variables that influence whether ice will actually be detected or observed, or will form on and adhere to an aircraft. The size of the water droplets, the shape of the airfoil, and the speed of the aircraft, among other factors, can make a critical difference in the initiation and growth of structural ice. Most flight manuals and other related documents use the term "known icing conditions“ rather than "'known ice," a similar concept that has a different regulatory effect. "Known ice" involves the situation where ice formation is actually detected or observed. "Known icing conditions" involve instead circumstances where a reasonable pilot would expect a substantial likelihood of ice formation on the aircraft based upon all information available to that pilot. While "known icing conditions" arc not defined by regulation, the term has been used in legal proceedings involving violations of FAA safety regulations that relate to in-flight icing. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has held on a number of occasions that known icing conditions exist when a pilot knows or reasonably should know about weather reports in which icing conditions are reported or forecast, in those cases the pilots chose to continue their flights without implementing an icing exit strategy or an alternative course of action and the aircraft experienced heavy ice formation that validated the forecasted danger to the aircraft. The Board's decisions are consistent with the FAA's long-held position in enforcement actions that a pilot must consider the reasonable likelihood of encountering ice when operating an aircraft. Notwithstanding the references to "weather forecasts" in various NTSB decisions, (…) area forecasts alone are generally too broad to adequately inform a pilot of known icing conditions. Such forecasts may cover a large geographic area or represent too long a span of time to be particularly useful to a pilot. The forecasts in the cited decisions involved very specific information that alerted pilots to a substantial danger of severe icing. Any assessment of known icing conditions is necessarily fact-specific. Permutations on the type, combination, and strength of meteorological elements that signify or negate the presence of known icing conditions arc too numerous to describe exhaustively in this letter. Whether a pilot

Pilots should also carefully evaluate all of the available meteorological information relevant to a proposed flight, including applicable surface observations, temperatures aloft, terminal and area forecasts, AIRMETs, SIGMETs, and pilot reports (PJREPs). As new technology becomes available, pilots should incorporate the use of that technology into their decision-making process. If the composite information indicates lo a reasonable and prudent pilot that he or she will be operating the aircraft under conditions that will cause ice to adhere to the aircraft along the proposed route and altitude of flight, then known icing conditions likely exist. If the pilot operates the aircraft in known icing conditions contrary to the requirements of § 91.9(a), the FA A may lake enforcement action. Flight in known icing conditions by aircraft not approved and equipped for such operations presents a significant safety hazard because by the lime the ice adheres to the aircraft, it may be too late for the pilot to lake actions to assure the further safety of the flight. (…) As a result, flight which results in the formation of ice on an aircraft is not the sole factor the FAA will use in determining whether enforcement action is warranted in any particular case. In determining whether enforcement action is warranted, the FAA will evaluate those actions taken by the pilot (including both pre-flight actions and those taken during the flight)to determine if the pilot's actions were, in fact, reasonable (…) The FAA will specifically evaluate all weather information available to the pilot and determine whether the pilot's pre-flight planning took into account the possibility of ice formation, alternative courses of action to avoid known icing conditions and, if ice actually formed on the aircraft, what steps were taken by the pilot lo exit those conditions. (…) The definition of’ “known icing conditions" currently found in (…) the AIM defines that term as '"atmospheric conditions in which the Enforcement action could also be taken for operation of an aircraft into

has operated into known icing conditions contrary lo any limitation will depend upon the total information available to the pilot, and his or her proper analysis of that information in evaluating the risk of encountering known icing conditions during a particular operation. The pilot should consider factors such as the route of night, flight altitude, and time of flight when making such an evaluation.

icing conditions that exceed the permissible icing certification limitations of the aircraft. Meteorological information that does not evidence known icing conditions, or the extent thereof, may regardless support a finding that a pilot's operation under the circumstances was careless if a reasonable and prudent pilot would not have operated the aircraft in those conditions under similar circumstances.â&#x20AC;?

The latest of what you want to know

Vol.1, No.9, October 20, 2009

Delta B-767 Lands on Taxiway at Atlanta Hartsfield International Airport The National Transportation Safety Board is investigating the landing of a Delta B-767 on an active taxiway at Atlanta Hartsfield International Airport (ATL). According to preliminary information received from several sources, on Monday, October 19, 2009, at 6:05 a.m. EDT, a Boeing B767-332ER (N185DN) operating as Delta Air Lines flight 60 from Rio de Janeiro to Atlanta landed on taxiway M at ATL after being cleared to land on runway 27R. No injuries to any of the 182 passengers or 11 crewmembers were reported. A check airman was on the flight deck along with the captain and first officer. During cruise flight, the check airman became ill and was relocated to the cabin for the remainder of the flight. A medical emergency was declared and the company was notified by the crew. A determination was made to land at the scheduled destination of ATL.

Garmin G3000

The flight was cleared to land on runway 27R but instead landed on taxiway M, which is situated immediately to the north and parallel to runway 27R. The runway lights for 27R were illuminated; the localizer and approach lights for 27R were not turned on. Taxiway M was active but was clear of aircraft and ground vehicles at the time the aircraft landed. The wind was calm with 10 miles visibility.

Garmin G3000

Night/dark conditions prevailed; twilight conditions began at about 7:20 a.m. EDT and the official sunrise was at 7:46 a.m. EDT.

Are days of classic IFR Over?

A team of four from the NTSB, led by David Helson, is investigating the incident. The issue of runway safety has been on the NTSB's Most Wanted List of Safety Improvements since its inception in 1990.

Runway Incursions Down by 50 Percent

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announced that serious runway incursions were down 50 percent for the most recent 12-month period compared to the previous year. There were 12 serious incursions in fiscal year 2009 which ended Sept. 30, with only two involving commercial carriers, compared to 25 such events in fiscal year 2008, with nine involving commercial carriers. A runway incursion occurs when something or someone intrudes on a runway without authorization. A serious incursion is one in which a collision was narrowly avoided, or there was a significant potential for collision that resulted in the need to take quick corrective action. “The aviation community agreed two years ago at FAA’s Runway Safety ‘Call to Action’ meeting to implement safety improvements at U.S. airports,” said Administrator Babbitt. “Teamwork helped get us to where we are today. But while the 50 percent reduction is remarkable, there is still much work to be done to continue to reduce the potential risk.”

“Wide screen cinema” ORLANDO, FL - Garmin International Inc., announced this week the Garmin G3000, the first touch-screen-controlled integrated flightdeck. The G3000 is designed specifically for Part 23 turbine aircraft. “In 2003, we transformed the general aviation cockpit with the G1000, and now we’re taking the next leap forward with the G3000,” said Gary Kelley, Garmin’s vice president of marketing. “The G3000 is a testament to the culture of innovation that is fundamental to Garmin, and it promises to be one of the most intuitive and powerful flightdeck systems ever designed for Part 23 turbine aircraft.” The G3000 seamlessly integrates numerous Garmin-designed system components into an easy-to-use flightdeck. The primary flight displays (PFD) and multi-function display (MFD) are 14.1-inch diagonal WXGA high resolution wide aspect ratio displays. The large landscape oriented displays make it possible to have an enhanced view of Synthetic Vision Technology (SVT™) that displays three dimensional terrain, obstacles, pathways, and traffic. Situational awareness is enhanced further with a large inset map, and an extended horizon line. The G3000’s large MFD also has split-screen capability so that two separate vertical pages may be viewed side-by-side. Pilots may simultaneously view maps, charts, TAWS, flight planning, weather or video input pages. In addition, aircraft synoptic can be graphically depicted on the MFD to help simplify monitoring and speed troubleshooting.

Close calls in 2007 at some of the busiest U.S. airports prompted the FAA to take immediate action to reduce the risk of runway incursions and wrong runway departures. There were 24 serious runway incursions that year, eight of them involving commercial carriers. FAA management met with aviation leaders from airlines, airports, air traffic control and pilot unions, and aerospace manufacturers to encourage them to take action in areas that would result in safety improvements. As a result, an intense effort was launched to expedite the installation of new technology at airports, complete proper signage and markings at airports and conduct outreach and re-train pilots.

As with the G1000速, the G3000 has full reversionary capabilities, including in-flight dynamic restarts, so that all flight critical data can be transferred seamlessly to a single display for added safety during flight. The G3000 also includes a fully capable three-axis, fully digital, dual channel, fail passive auto flight system. The autopilot includes features you would expect in this class of aircraft such as coupled wide area augmentation system (WAAS) approaches, vertical navigation, and flight level change (FLC).

The latest of what you want to know

What Happened on Flight 188? In its continuing investigation of an Airbus A320 that overflew the Minneapolis-St Paul International/Wold-Chamberlain Airport (MSP), the National Transportation Safety Board has developed the following factual information: On Wednesday, October 21, 2009, at 5:56 pm mountain daylight time, an Airbus A320, operating as Northwest Airlines (NWA) flight 188, became a NORDO (no radio communications) flight at 37,000 feet. The flight was operating as a Part 121 flight from San Diego International Airport, San Diego, California (SAN) to MSP with 144 passengers, 2 pilots and 3 flight attendants. Both pilots were interviewed separately by NTSB investigators in Minnesota. The first officer and the captain were interviewed for over 5 hours combined. The Captain, 53 years old, was hired in 1985. His total flight time is about 20,000 hours, about 10,000 hours of A-320 time of which about 7,000 was as pilot in command. The First Officer, 54 years old, was hired in 1997. His total flight time is about 11,000 hours, and has about 5,000 hours on the A320. Both pilots said they had never had an accident, incident or violation. Neither pilot reported any ongoing medical conditions. Both pilots stated that they were not fatigued. They were both commuters, but they had a 19-hour layover in San Diego just prior to the incident flight. Both said they did not fall asleep or doze during the flight. Both said there was no heated argument. Both stated there was a distraction in the cockpit. The pilots said there was a concentrated period of discussion where they did not monitor the airplane or calls from ATC even though both stated they heard conversation on the radio. Also, neither pilot noticed messages that were sent by company dispatchers. They were discussing the new monthly crew flight scheduling system that was now in place as a result of the merger. The discussion began at cruise altitude. According to them they lost track of time. Both pilots accessed and used their personal laptop computer while they discussed the airline crew flight scheduling procedure. Neither pilot was aware of the airplane's position until a flight attendant called about 5 minutes before they were scheduled to land and asked what their estimated time of arrival (ETA) was. The captain said, at that point, he looked at his primary flight display for an ETA and realized that they had passed MSP. They made contact with ATC and were given vectors back to MSP. At cruise altitude - the pilots stated they were using cockpit speakers to listen to radio communications, not their headsets. When asked by ATC what the problem was, they replied "just cockpit distraction" and "dealing with company issues". FAA and The Safety Board are interviewing the flight attendants and other company personnel today. Air traffic control communications have been obtained and are being analyzed. Preliminary data from the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) revealed the CVR recording was 1/2 hour in length. The cockpit area microphone channel was not working during this recording. However, the crew's headset microphones recorded their conversations. The CVR recording began during final approach, and continued while the aircraft was at the gate. During the hours immediately following the incident flight, routine aircraft maintenance provided power to the CVR for a few minutes on several occasions, likely recording over several minutes of the flight.

The Flight Data Recorder captured the entire flight which contained several hundred aircraft parameters including the portion of flight where there was no radio communication from the flight crew. Investigators are examining the recorded parameters to see if any information regarding crew activity during the portion of flight where radio contact was lost can be obtained.

Vol.1, No.10, October 27, 2009

The Flight Cheetah FL 150 If you are looking for the most compact and affordable display that also has the full list of all the capabilities of the Flight Cheetah line you should be looking at The Flight Cheetah FL 150 Over the years the Flight Cheetah has brought to general aviation a number of notable firsts, including first satellite Data Link Weather and first portable Multifunction Flight Display Many companies specialize in one set of features or another but have big gaps of lacking features in other areas. Because the Flight Cheetah has been around for over 10 years it’s no surprise that it has the most comprehensive list of capabilities (some exclusive) that you will find anywhere else under $15,000.00 Like all Flight Cheetah displays, it is designed in a very modular way so you only need to purchase the options that you currently need, while leaving the door open to add on future capabilities such as traffic, weather or synthetic vision without having to reinvest in a new display every few years. “All the technology in the world is of no use if it’s not easy to use”. The Flight Cheetah comes with easy to follow video instructions. True Flight is the only company that provides free of charge live instructional classes on your home computer. The Flight Cheetah has the most comprehensive list of navigational data that you will find on any portable GPS moving map. Despite this, annual subscriptions are a small fraction of what the largest data provider currently charges. The savings alone on an annual basis can easily run in the neighborhood of $1,000.00. Although not certified the Flight Cheetah has such an extensive list of capabilities it’s a good low-cost supplemental backup. The built in battery backup can provide approximately 4 hours power

The Safety Board's investigation continues. You can post your comments on this subject by visiting IMC Message Forum

even under conditions of a total electrical failure in flight. Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s not uncommon for our customers to say that the Flight Cheetah as a backup provides more useful and easy to use information than their primary certified equipment. To find out more about this Flight Cheetah you can visit True Flight at aviationsafety.com

The latest of what you want to know

Filing an IFR Flight Plan Shouldn't Be Difficult

Vol.1, No.11, November 3, 2009

IMC Clubs Coast to Coast

By Ian J. Twombly Determining the route to file on an IFR flight plan shouldn’t be difficult. But experienced instrument pilots, instrument students, and even CFIIs can get tripped up on this supposedly pedestrian process. And no wonder. There are so many options, from GPS-direct to a full airway routing and everything in between. The correct choice is not always clear, unfortunately. The FAA’s guidance tells pilots one thing, while the part that really matters actually flying within the system works another way. If you begin the search for answers in the federal aviation regulations, you’re going to be disappointed. The FARs say only that we must have a proposed route, not what is supposed to define it. Obviously, the Aeronautical Information Manual is the next place to turn.

Chesapeake, VA - IMCCLUBs is excited to welcome its newest chapter! Julie Charmes at Chesapeake Airport in Norfolk , VA will be hosting their inaugural meeting on Tuesday, November, 10th at 7:00PM. Julie is passionate about aviation and instrument flying as well as contributing to the pilot community in this way. Meanwhile, on the other side of the country, look for Dale to initiate a new IMCCLUBS chapter in Santa Barbara. More information on that in the next issue….

The AIM gives us a bit more information, albeit buried and written for attorneys. Chapters 4 and 5 go into some detail about what to file in the route portion of the flight plan and why. In the most basic terms, the routing of an IFR flight plan is set by long stretches of straight lines and transitions between those lines. Which route to choose is partially based on the navigation capabilities of the airplane in question. Traditionally, the routes are made up of various Victor airways and jet routes, and the transitions are intersections or fixes. But routes can be defined by NDBs, GPS in the form of T-routes, and more. And intersections can be predefined points where VOR radials cross, points based upon GPS, a pilot-defined latitude and longitude, or any other identifiable fix. To define the route, most pilots have historically looked at a low-altitude en route chart, found the straightest line between here and there, and listed that in the route block. So a flight from Craig Municipal Airport in Jacksonville, Florida, to Gainesville, Florida, might be V198 MONIA V441 KGNV. In plain language, that means the pilot will take off from Craig, head northwest on Victor 198 to the MONIA intersection, then follow V441 to Gainesville. Some pilots will tell you that you must file an initial approach fix for the expected approach into Gainesville more on that later. One thing we should always do is file a preferred route. If a commercial flight is going between Chicago O’Hare and Newark, that’s obvious. But with our flight between Jacksonville and Gainesville, where we’re flying lower altitudes between two non-hub airports, the situation isn’t quite as clear. There are some Internet resources and software programs that recognize this and will suggest a routing close to the preferred. In most cases, however, it’s very difficult to look through the preferred routes in the Airport/Facility Directory only to find that one doesn’t exist between your departure and destination, and the one at the hub airport 50 miles away is unrealistic to use. So what happens when a preferred route doesn’t exist? It’s up to the pilot to decide how he wants to get there. To aid in that decision, it helps to know what happens after the flight plan is filed. Around 30 minutes prior to departure a strip will automatically print out in the tower if you’re departing from a towered airport, or in the approach control or center if you’re not. Whether filed through flight service, DUATS, or another provider, the FAA’s computers look at the request, decide if it’s possible based upon preferred routing, and then send it to the appropriate facility. Traffic is taken into account only when there’s a traffic management program in effect. On that strip is the N number, aircraft type, and other pertinent information. Also included is the cleared route and the requested (filed) route. We’ve all heard the one about having to file an initial fix within a certain distance from the airport, say 10 miles. And then there’s the one about having to file an initial approach fix into the destination. Oh, and of course, everyone knows you can’t file GPS-direct more than 100 miles away, right? Wrong on all three counts. When it comes to flying within the system, you might as well file direct every time. It doesn’t matter if the clearance limit is 10 miles away or 800, filing direct is fine, doesn’t hurt the controller’s feelings, and won’t get you in trouble with the FAA. There’s really no human intervention here. But the computer is going to give you what it’s going to give you regardless of the request, and the controller is simply going to read that as a clearance. The issue of filing certain points in the flight plan, such as an IAF, is related to lost communications, not ATC needs. The argument goes that if you file direct and are cleared as such, there’s no way to comply with FAR Part 91.185, which says that in the case of radio failure where a pilot cannot land in VMC, the pilot is to go the clearance limit and begin the approach, if it’s a place where that’s possibleundefinedin other words, if it’s an IAF. The regulation further states that if it’s not an IAF, you are to go to the clearance limit and then go to a place where an approach can be started. Since the clearance limit is usually an airport anyway, that means the regulations require you to fly to the airport and then somehow navigate to an IAF, then fly the approach to land. So why not just file direct and fly to the airport anyway? The issue of filing direct remains controversial among pilots, but controllers seem to be in agreement just do it. In fact, the AIM not only tells us how to file direct, it says we don’t even need to be GPS-equipped. The AIM says to file preferred routes, but then gives guidance on how to file direct even without a GPS.

If the airplane is GPS-equipped, it says to define the route by points within 200 nautical miles of the preceding center’s boundary. It’s easier just to file direct from one VOR to the next, choosing points around 100 miles apart. If the airplane isn’t GPS-equipped, the AIM says it’s best not to make the VORs more than 80 nautical miles apart if flying below Flight Level 180. ATC is so comfortable with direct routing, the AIM even says that ATC may assign a direct routing outside a VOR’s service volume, and the inference is that it’s regardless of equipment suffix. The AIM says you can file direct, and controllers don’t mind, so why would you ever file anything different? For one thing, it’s good practice to plan a flight well and fly the plan. Living in the Northeast, for example, you’re rarely going to get direct for the entire route, so it helps to know ahead of time what to expect. If you’re familiar with the route, you can even have it loaded in the GPS or noted on the preflight paperwork before receiving the clearance. There’s just something satisfying about hearing, “Cleared as filed.” Knowing that you can file any route you wish, the question then becomes how to arrive at the magic “cleared as filed.” First, check the preferred routes for more dense traffic areas, and then review some of the online resources that list the most recent ATC-assigned routes (see “Help Along the Way,” page 99). These are like cheat sheets that give the most recent cleared routes between two airports. And if you don’t get the route you want? Just ask the controller for an amendment, either in flight or before departure. This is especially true if you’re cleared on a long, circuitous route for no apparent reason. Finally, take the time to visit your local ATC facilities, which are more approachable now that we’re years removed from September 11, 2001. Sitting down with a controller can help as he or she explains the routing process. The airlines used to have a program in which controllers could ride the cockpit jump seat for familiarization trips. Those have ended, but GA pilots can offer rides to controllers. So the next time you don’t get the route you want, don’t grumble to the controller about it just ask if he’d like a ride. With modern tools and a little know-how, filing an IFR flight plan routing is easier than ever. Pilots have an immense amount of control over their route if they only know how to use it.

Used with permission of AOPA Pilot Magazine

The latest of what you want to know

Avidyne Release Nine Available on SR20 Cirrus

Vol.1, No.12, November 10, 2009

King Air 200 Crash

Cirrus Aircraft announced that Avidyne’s Entegra Release 9 integrated flight deck system is now available from Cirrus as an option on selected new SR20 and SR22 aircraft. "Cirrus and Avidyne launched the glass flight deck revolution back in 2003. Today, we are making Entegra Release 9 available as a post production option on new aircraft to meet the needs of those customers desiring the next generation Avidyne avionics platform," said Cirrus CEO, Brent Wouters. "Cirrus has consistently been the industry leader in bringing safetyenhancing innovations to general aviation-from the parachute to the first all-glass flight deck for GA-and we are excited to have our Entegra Release 9 system added as a factory option at Cirrus," said Avidyne President Dan Schwinn. "There are over 4,000 Entegra-equipped Cirrus aircraft and prospective owners now have the option of moving up to a brand new SR20 or SR22 with Entegra Release 9." With its fully-modular architecture, Entegra Release 9 represents the next generation of Avidyne integrated flight deck systems for general aviation aircraft. The Entegra Release 9 includes high-resolution IFD5000 displays, dual Air Data and Attitude Heading Reference Systems (ADAHRS), dual-redundant FMS900w systems with a QWERTY keypad, next-generation fully-digital 16-watt VHF NAV/COM radios, and dual WAAS/RNP-capable GPS receivers. Release 9's innovative Page & Tab user interface makes accessing data simple. Designed with a fullyredundant architecture, each IFD5000 is fully capable of performing the functions of the other. With Entegra Release 9, Avidyne has developed a truly integrated system that is specifically designed to eliminate complexity, reduce head-down time, provide a whole new level of redundancy, and dramatically enhance safety.

N337MT Beechcraft Super King Air 200 crashed yesterday at GreenvilleSpartanburg International Airport. It was on a brief test flight because it was about to be serviced by its company. Neal McGrail, chief operating officer for Stevens, said the plane contained three people, including two Stevens’s employees and the pilot, who worked for the plane’s owner, which he did not identify. McGrail said he doesn’t yet know what happened to the aircraft, but that the plane had come to Stevens for some kind of service work and that a decision had been made to fly the aircraft to determine what the issue was, much like a mechanic might take a car for a brief test drive. Stevens is the largest maintenance and repair provider for the type of plane, a Raytheon-made King Air, other than the manufacturer, he said. You can watch video about this crash on IMCTV.

Ten Million Drug Bust at a GA Airport in Michigan Millions of dollars worth of drugs are off the streets after authorities broke up a late night smuggling operation last weekend. Authorities say they made a $10 million drug bust after a small airplane landed at the Sandusky City Airport, Michigan Border patrol agents first noticed the small plane in Port Huron and on a hunch, followed it up to Sandusky. A U.S. Customs and Border Protection helicopter watched the plane drop seven or eight large bags onto the runway. Authorities say the plane picked up one bag and took off. Sanilac County's undersheriff says 32-year-old Matthew Moody and 20-year-old Jesse Rusenstrom were trying to load the bags into a rental vehicle when they spotted the helicopter and fled. They were later arrested, identified as Canadian citizens and were being held in the Sanilac County Jail. "Kind of funny when you get a guy from the DEA walk into a restaurant in Sandusky and he says, 'You see anybody in camouflage walk in, call 911,'" said Nathan Benavides, shift manager of the West Park Inn where one suspect was apprehended Both men face federal drug charges and the eight bags of drugs they tried to smuggle into Sandusky are also in federal custody. The airplane that made the drop has not been found.

The latest of what you want to know

Vol.1, No.13, November 17, 2009

Pilots transiting the Hudson River must fly between 1,000 feet and 1,300 feet The Federal Aviation Administration finalized a federal rule, effective November 19, 2009, that will enhance safety by separating low-altitude, local aircraft flights over the Hudson River from flights transiting through the river airspace. “Better separation of aircraft means a higher margin of safety,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. “These new rules will ensure that aircraft can operate safely in the busy Hudson River airspace.” "These changes will define separate corridors for aircraft operating locally and those flying along the Hudson River area," said FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt. "Separating aircraft on different missions and improving pilot situational awareness will add more layers of safety to this high-demand airspace." CLICK TO ENLARGE

The rule also now requires pilots to follow safety procedures that were previously recommended, but were not mandatory. In a new Special Flight Rules Area over the Hudson and East Rivers, pilots must: Maintain a speed of 140 knots or less. Turn on anti-collision and aircraft position/navigation lights, if equipped. Self-announce their position on specific radio frequencies. Carry current charts for the airspace and be familiar with them. In an exclusion zone below 1,300 feet over the Hudson River, pilots must announce their aircraft type, position, direction and altitude at charted mandatory reporting points and must stay along the New Jersey shoreline when southbound and along the Manhattan shoreline when northbound. Pilots transiting the Hudson River must fly at an altitude between 1,000 feet and 1,300 feet. Local flights will operate in the lower airspace below 1,000 feet. All three updated pilot charts that local fixed wing and helicopter pilots use for navigation will include these airspace changes on November 19, 2009.

"Ice Belongs in Drinks" With the winter flying season already enveloping many parts of the northern United States, pilots need to know how to identify and avoid flying in icing conditions. Ice can form on lift surfaces quickly, often in just a few minutes undefined the time it takes to climb or descend a few thousand feet through a cloud layer. The effects are cumulative, and it doesn’t take much to severely reduce performance. A thorough understanding of the weather factors that can lead to icing conditions is critical to safe winter operations. See “Ice Belongs in Drinks” on page 9 in the November/December 2009 issue of FAA Aviation News.

Total of Ten People Killed in Zodiac Accidents On November 6, 2009, a Zodiac CH-601XL, an experimental amateurbuilt airplane, was destroyed as a result of an in- flight breakup near Agnos, Arkansas, killing the pilot who was the sole occupant. The debris field was scattered over an area more than 600 feet long. Both wings had separated from the fuselage in-flight. In April 2009, the NTSB called on the FAA to ground the Zodiac CH601XL after the Safety Board linked six accidents involving that aircraft model to aerodynamic flutter, a phenomenon in which the control surfaces and wings of the airplane can suddenly oscillate and lead to catastrophic structural failure. Those accidents killed a total of ten people. Preliminary investigation of the November 6 accident in Arkansas reveals a failure mode similar to that seen in the earlier crashes. The Safety Board's urgent recommendation to the FAA was to "prohibit further flight of the Zodiac CH-601XL, both special light sport aircraft and experimental, until such time that the FAA determines that the CH-601XL has adequate protection from flutter." The FAA replied in July that they

Other articles in this issue address the differing vulnerability to ice of different airplanes; the havoc ice can play with lift, weight, and drag; safety on icy or slushy runways; and the dangers of carbon monoxide poisoning during winter. To read this article you can go to IMC Training Library.

lacked "adequate justification to take immediate certificate action to ground the entire fleet." The Zodiac is available as a ready-to-purchase airplane, which is manufactured by Aircraft Manufacturing and Design, LLC, and as an amateur-built plane from a kit available from the designer, Zenith Aircraft Company. The Safety Board's investigation of the November 6 accident is on-going.