Slashdot Mirror

That's what's usally called ineptitude, but those FAA guys like to spin it round so someone else, or circumstances beyond their control, are the problem.

Their not happy until your not happy! You can't blame them for living their moto.

In all seriousness, the FAA is in the middle of a huge political game right now, which is actually very complex to explain. They are working overtime trying to get out from under Congressional oversight. I wouldn't be surprised if they're looking the other way in an attempt to juice their lobbying. Obviously they can't secure things if their budget isn't drastically increased. And the only way they can do that is to be empowered to both raises taxes and collect them any means they see fit while endangering the skies for everyone. Basically everyone credible (both Rs and Ds) has stepped forward and stated the FAA's proposal is bad for everyone and they can't even make their current funding with their proposal. Only the FAA and *cough* the major carriers support the FAA's plan.

http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2008/081002faa.html
http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2009/090507trustfund.html

Do some searches. Its actually pretty scary. The FAA is working hard to become their own taxing authority, independent of Congressional oversight, while becoming buddy-buddy with the major carriers. Mmmmm....isn't that a good recipe for safety. And did I mention every year they are unable to account for millions even with oversight. Even worse, Obama is demanding legislation be put forward which supports this disastrous model. And worse yet, such legislation would be horrific to our economy; more accidents: fewer fliers; cost to fly, from drastically higher taxes, goes through the roof: less revenue at airports; less revenue at airports means fewer jobs; fewer jobs: loss of up to hundreds of millions to local economies (even loss of hundreds of thousands to millions at smaller airports) all over the country.

The TSA is also working to make life harder on GA pilots operating under Part 91 flight rules, making them deal with the same security rules as commerical carriers:

http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/gasecurity/gasecuritybrief.html

The issue

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) proposes to apply commercial air carrier security measures to general aviation aircraft weighing more than 12,500 pounds, regardless of the type of operation. The proposal is burdensome and costly, calling for crewmember criminal record checks, watch list matching of passenger manifests, biennial third party audits of each aircraft operator, and new airport security requirements.
Why is this important?

The proposal fails to recognize the inherent differences that exist between private and commercial aviation and attempts to impose costly and unnecessary security regulations without justification.

It's a 1976 Cessna 150M. The engine was overhauled a few years back and only has a bit over 300 hours on it. It has a TBO (time between overhaul) of 1800 hours. So, it should last for many more years given that.

Maintenance varies depending on the condition of the plane. I was fortunate to find one in great condition. So, it's not as big of a cost as one might be with a little less care given to it.

The annual inspection, which is required to maintain airworthiness, typically runs $300-500. You could tack on another $500-1000 for miscellaneous items that might need to be repaired throughout the year. My insurance renewal back in November was about $700 for the year.

Most people think that private planes are a big chunk of cash. The reality is that the average private plane costs much less than the average bass fishing rig. Mine was $28k, but you can find many for less than that. The great condition of mine pushed the price up.

Still, even the lower priced one's are airworthy. The FAA requires high standards of maintenance for planes to remain so. That's why you can buy planes that are decades old and they're still in great shape. And, the nice thing about them is that if you keep them maintained and flying, their value increases. I'm not saying you can expect to make money on it, but it's a hell of a lot better deal than some luxury car. And, the funny thing is, people look at it as being more special despite the fact that you've spent much less on a plane than some guy in a new 3 series BMW.

I used to think the same thing about the costs, and I ignored my dream to fly for years. Then, when I finally did the research I was shocked that I had wasted all that time on motorcycles or cars. New planes ARE expensive. But, there's no need to buy one unless you just like to spend money and have plenty of it. A new Cessna 172, which seats 4, cost upwards of $280k. You can get a 80's model in great shape for less than $50k. Or, if you've got the $280k to blow, keep half of it and buy a used DC-3 where you can take the all of your family and friends. :)

The expense is only perception. If you're really interested, check out the AOPA. Flying is in just about anyone's reach. If you can afford a Harley-Davidson, you can afford an airplane.

It seems reasonable that the government could rationalize subsidizing the costs of the "satellite-based avionics" required due to the fuel and time savings gained from decreased congestion. That would get rid of that controversy.

Perhaps a more fiscally responsible approach would be front the money for the avionics switch, but levy a tax (proportional only to the actual increased efficiency) on the airports/major-carriers/other-major-beneficiaries.

http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2008/080828vor.html

Then, yes, we really WILL be dependent on our GPS "nav-computers"

It becomes apparent that we are somehow talking past each other.

ToMuchToDo's original post linked to http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/trend.html. The phrase you quote appears nowhere on that page. Furthermore it's very explicit in discussing accident counts, not accidents per hour. If nothing else, just look at the numbers. It says that there were 1,607 general aviation accidents in 2007. If this were per 100,000 flight hours, this would be an average of one accident every 62 hours. I don't know about you, but if flying were that dangerous I think I would quit.

I think you need to re-read the article mentioned in ToMuchToDo's original post. While it is true that they are comparing years, the accident rates quoted are "per 100,000 flight hours (the 100,000-hour measure being the statistical standard)".

I stand by my statement that reduced flying will increase those rates.

See: http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/trend.html

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/trend.html

The number of general aviation accidents was down slightly (2 percent) for the fourth quarter. In year-to-date comparisons, general aviation accidents saw an increase as compared to 2006 figures (6 percent).

General Aviation Accidents

According to the FAA, there were a total of 315 general aviation accidents in the fourth quarter of 2007 (down 2 percent from 2006). This figure is the lowest total for the fourth quarter. Accidents for the past several months showed a continued improvement of the GA safety record. Year-end comparisons show a 6-percent increase in general aviation accidents (1,607 in 2007 vs. 1,518 in 2006).

Our school gets a bomb threat, and the teachers and administrators are freaked out. They move us all, I kid you not, to the football field where we are fenced in by chain link fence, about 1/3 of which is covered by barbed wire.

That kind of dumb response happens at higher levels. A few years back, there were three incidents where the U.S. Capitol was evacuated because a light aircraft had entered the Washington area without authorization. I was amazed at that response. The official response to an air raid is to send everyone outside? Not down to the basements? (Especially since the U.S. Capitol has plenty of basement space, plus tunnels to most of the neighboring buildings.)

Worse, if it's a real attack with a light aircraft, it has to be chemical or biological. A light aircraft just isn't big enough to cause substantial damage to a big stone building, even if it has explosives. Remember, there'd been an anthrax attack on the Capitol (we still don't know who was behind that), so that possibility was more than theoretical. But no, they send everyone outside to be sprayed.

Of course, it turned out that, each time, it was some inept pilot noodling around in a small plane, flying VFR and totally lost. One of the pilots responsible is even suing to get his pilots license back.

(NORAD actually did something intelligent about this. It's always VFR pilots who cluelessly wander into the Washington air defense identification zone, usually on clear days. IFR-qualified pilots know how to use their navaids, plan where they're going, file flight plans, have transponders identifying them on radar, and are in constant contact with ATC. So NORAD set up a laser system with several sites in the Washington area. Aircraft in the wrong place and not in contact with ATC get flashed with a bright red-red-green signal to tell them to get out of there, before they meet up with an F-16 in their face. This has been reasonably effective in getting clueless VFR pilots to turn around.)

"I'm just observing that the car industry has seen lots of progress, in terms of efficiency and reliability (maintenance intervals are 10x longer now than then, plus breakdowns are basically nonexistent)"

Most routine maintenance on aero engines is undertaken at similar intervals to that of car engines, and that which isn't is usually mandated at a shorter interval by the manufacturer in the interests of safety. Oil changes in aero engines, for instance, are typically done every 50 hours. That's only about twice as often as a car would have its oil changed were the standard-since-forever 3000-mile "severe duty" interval followed, assuming the car averages 30 MPH overall in city driving. Oil changes are a fairly simple and low-cost procedure in both cars and aircraft, so I think it's valid to say this interval is "similar". Spark plugs in aero engines, on the other hand, are usually changed out every 100 hours per the manufacturer's maintenance schedule; modern cars get new spark plugs only when they're tuned up, which is often every 100,000 miles (or about 3000 hours, sticking with our 30 MPH average assumption).

One key difference between car maintenance and aircraft maintenance is that car maintenance intervals are _recommendations_, whereas aircraft maintenance intervals are _mandatory_ in order to comply with the aircraft's type certificate. If the aircraft isn't maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's schedule, it isn't airworthy and isn't legal to fly. This isn't being done to keep A&P mechanics or oil companies or spark plug manufacturers in business; it's being done in the interest of safety.

Modern cars that are properly maintained almost never break down, that's true. But modern cars aren't typically subjected to the stresses of constant high-RPM, maximum-power operation for hours on end. Aircraft engines that are properly maintained almost never break down either. (If that article requires a login, I apologize. It deals with the world record for endurance for a propeller-driven aircraft, set in 1958 by a Cessna 172 that spent nearly 65 days airborne over the desert Southwest without a landing, and -- obviously -- without shutting down the engine for ANY maintenance at all. I suspect the main reason no one has tried to break it since 1958 is because no one relishes the idea of spending two or three months living in a flying phone booth.) They do occasionally break down, at a rate that seems no worse than that of auto racing engines, which are being subjected to similar demands for peak power production. (I don't have any statistics on engine failures in auto racing for comparison, but the various classes of car and motorcycle racing I follow with a passing interest seem to experience at least one engine failure per race.)

Keep in mind, too, that *all* modern auto engines are liquid-cooled, as are the overwhelming majority of motorcycle engines. By helping to equalize temperatures throughout the engine, liquid cooling helps to improve reliability of the cylinder head, engine block, pistons, and crank, but it also introduces a great deal of complexity and further points of failure. "Further points of failure", to a pilot, mean "more potential emergencies to plan for". The loss of coolant from a liquid cooling system *will* result, within minutes, in the loss of virtually all power from the engine as temperatures soar and manufacturing tolerances are exceeded. I personally experienced this in a "modern" car, a 1992 Honda Accord that had never missed a single recommended maintenance item in the 11 years before this happened. The water pump experienced catastrophic failure, a common problem with that engine, and dumped all the coolant on the highway over the course of a minute or two. Had that engine been in an airplane, I would have been looking for a place to land immediately, and that place probably would not have been an airport.

You're still making the patently unfair comparison between

"A plane like a Cessna 310 twin engine airplane first flew in 1953 with engines that are extremely inefficient and underpowered relative to today's engines."

Bullshit. For all practical purposes, the horizontally opposed piston engine that's in an aircraft now is exactly the same as the one that was put in a new aircraft 50 years ago. The Cessna 310 was originally certified with Continental O-470-B engines producing 240 bhp each (31 hp per litre). The very last Cessna 310 to see production, the R model, was introduced in the late 1970s with Continental IO-520-M engines producing 285 bhp each (33 hp per litre). The only _major_ differences between these two engines are the displacement (470 cubic inches versus 520, accounting for most of the difference in power) and carburetion versus fuel injection (accounting for most of the rest of the difference).

The Cirrus SR22, by *far* the most popular GA piston aircraft in terms of sales numbers over the last three years, uses a Continental IO-550-N engine producing 310 bhp (34 hp per litre). The IO-550-N is pretty much the current state-of-the-art in terms of gasoline-powered normally aspirated aircraft piston engines, and it's making about 10 percent more specific power (power per displacement) than its 1953 predecessor was.

So that pretty much blows up your "underpowered" argument -- at least relative to the engines themselves, which seemed to be your whole point, after all -- and it's a good start on blowing up your efficiency argument.

To finish off your efficiency argument fully would require some numbers on BHP-specific fuel consumption, or BSFC, which I'm not exactly inclined to go dig up, but I do know that you aren't going to find any great gains there either. Maybe 10% or so at *best*, probably not that much.

If you want real improvements in efficiency, you want a diesel engine, and new aircraft are being certified with diesel engines all the time. There are Supplemental Type Certificates (look that up sometime; you don't appear to have any clue what it means or that such a thing even exists) for retrofits of several Cessna models with Thielert Centurion diesel engines that cut the average fuel burn in half with almost no sacrifice in performance.

The bottom line, though, is that despite what the auto companies might like you to think, there have not been any truly revolutionary developments in the design of the reciprocating internal combustion engine in well over 50 years. There's a reason most GA aircraft still use an engine design that was pioneered in the World War II era: it's the most efficient way to package that power and reliability. It has nothing to do with the FAA making certification difficult or expensive.

"Everybody (pilot, owner, passengers, world) would be better served by replacing the original engines with some that are of newer design that are safer, more powerful and burn less fuel"

I've already addressed the latter two. I'd now like to ask you what exactly you think is "safer" about a new Continental IO-550-N installed in a Cirrus SR22 relative to a new (and yes, you can still get one) O-470-B that is original equipment on that 1953 Cessna 310. They're both piston engines and they both have to be treated right or neither one is going to last until TBO.

I'll toss some more facts and figures at you, from the 2007 Nall Report (available at AOPA's Web site along with archives of past reports). For all aviation accidents in 2006 where the NTSB reached a determination of probable cause, only 17 percent were due to mechanical failure of some sort. Nine percent were "unknown", while a staggering 74 percent were the result of pilot error. Considering only fatal accidents gives an even lower percentage due to mechanical failure: just 10 percent.

Not every mechanical failure is engine-related, and of all accidents due to mechanical failure in 2006, only 44 percent were due to engine or propeller malfunctions. That means just nin

Our house was hit by a drunk driver - one of those interesting tidbits they had to disclose when we purchased it. For a 'flying car' to qualify under sport aircraft regs, they are limited to 1,320 pounds maximum takeoff weight - that includes fuel and 1-2 people. My 1962 Stitts Playboy, which now qualifies as a light sport aircraft, weights in lighter than my old FJ-1100 motorcycle by comparison. Point being, sport aircraft don't really have the mass most autos do if they hit something. An impact with a 'flying car' (under these sport rules) scares me far less than the typical car -- never mind the behemoth SUV's and trucks.

...all you need is a little $30-40K Piper Cherokee or Cessna 172 and go fly yerself practically anywhere in the USA you damn well please. Instead of driving a brand new car every year and living in some yuppie condo/townhouse, I drive an 10 year old car, live in an older house and bought my own small plane and became a private pilot instead. I can fly three or four hundred mile trips in literally half the time it takes to drive, and roughly about the same net end-to-end amount of total time it takes to fly commercially, or sometimes even quicker than driving or commercial airlines since I can get into smaller airports much closer to my final destinations.

Drawbacks are: Sometimes obtaining ground transportation from a small Hickville airport is a bitch, and bad weather can keep you from flying a small plane like mine at all unless you've got a deathwish.

Benefits are: I can generally just hop into my own plane and go on my own schedule. Nothing feels better than flying over a traffic-jammed freeway and looking down at all the cars, except maybe flying over a highway patrol trooper that's got some poor schmuck pulled over on the side of the highway with his foot propped up on the car bumper and scribbling on a ticketbook while I glance over at my GPS groundspeed showing me cruising along at over 130 MPH :-)

Every Slashdotter who ever had any thought at all about learning to fly should get over to their nearest small airport that has a Learn to Fly Here program and at least take an introductory flying lesson for $99 or less.

Stop Dreaming. Start Flying.

And we could also adopt Eurocontrol's IFR procedures as well, where I have to file a possibly multi hundred dollar instrument approach into a major airport at which I do not intend to land in order to fly a few hundred feet off of the ground under the clouds in order to (hopefully) get to the airport at which I do intend to land.

Sounds like a much better system than the US, where I can file a safe, free, radar controlled instrument approach into the airport of my choice. And if the weather is worse, I can divert to another airport without having to make the decision as to whether my life is worth the $$$$ for the approach.

Do watch http://www.aopa.org/faafundingdebate/media.html, Euro fees fears is very informative.

There currently is zero contention on where the funds will come from. Under current fee schedules, the FAA with have some 120 million extra in their coffers AFTER they complete their ADS-B deployment.

How do I know this? Because it's in the public record. The airlines and their lobbyist have been spreading misinformation and FUD on a make believe funding crisis. They have been doing this to take control of the FAA. What? Ya, sounds odd, but here are the details.

Right now, ever ticket sold has a tax which pays for infrastructure costs. Plus, every gallon of fuel sold (per gallon tax) pays for infrastructure costs. The airlines, by far, are the largest users of FAA services. What they want to do is to have the per ticket tax waived, pocket it, reduce their tax on Jet fuel and increase the taxes on the planes that hardly or rarely use FAA services. On top of that, they then want to create a "user fee" system where the FAA is free to set their own rates. The want to charge for items such as weather briefing, landing fees, IFR (instrument flying) service fees, in route update fee, etc. This means two things. One, and most importantly, the FAA would no longer have to own up to Congress on how and where they spend their money. Which is sad because right now they can not even explain where some 20 million went. And two, the small guy would be expected to pay the airline's share in taxes. Worse yet, even by the FAA and airline's own admission, they would suddenly create a significant funding short fall.

In a nut shell we have:
o Airlines want per ticket tax waived so they can pocket it (ticket prices would not be reduced)
o Airlines want a tax reduction forcing small guys to carry the airline's tax burden
o The airlines/FAA and crying the current infrastructure will not pay for new tech deployment
o Both the FAA and airlines have finally admitted their scheme will fall short of the existing taxes by hundreds of millions. AOPA has been saying this for a long time using the FAA's and the airline's own numbers with VERY conservative accounting.

Contrary to the assertions made in the article, there are fewer planes flying now than there has been since the 1970s; which is the US's peak in aviation. Even the current infrastructure can handle the load. The FAA's concern is a new category of jet has been created; the Very Light Jet (VLJ). The problem is projections indicate the FAA's current tax schedule will be able to handle the growth until at least 2030.

Long story short we have the airlines and the FAA working to break free of Congress' funding oversight. Currently, the US's FAA model is considered the best model in the world for both funding and safety, bar none. In all other places in the world where user fees have been implemented, GA has been destroyed, costing thousands and thousands of jobs. Worse, most analysts exist aviation safety will begin to decline almost immediately as pilots will now be reluctant to use federal services because it costs a per use fee. This means more pilots in higher densities without being in contact with each other. Worse, this means more pilots flying into unknown weather conditions.

Long story short, the funding for this system is already well established. Any short falls will be addressed by congress. Their current effort is to break free of congress and create a windfall for the FAA and the airlines; as they would be free to charge anything they want for their services. If they get their way, US skies will very likely become a dangerous place to be, even in commercial planes.

If this concerns you, I highly recommend you contact your representatives and congressman to let them know you expect the airlines to pay their own way and you demand the skies remain the world's example of safety. Tell them absolutely no user fees.

If you want more information, please go to http://aopa.org./

One last note, there is a FAA crisis looming. Right now, there is a mandatory re

Mode-S a very nifty datalink system that uniquely identified aircraft and can beam all sorts of useful traffic and navigation information. It was designed *WAY BACK* in 1975, only to be ignored by the FAA (the airlines the FAA works for didn't want pay for it). So they ignored it until a mid-air collision in 1986 woke up Congress, who mandated it in 1993. ADS-B (the Popular Mechanics article seems to be describing) AFAIK uses Mode-S to broadcast your aircraft's position using Mode-S, but the FAA have started shutting down Mode S transmitters 'because the safety benefits are not worth the cost'. Nice idea, but I hope it doesn't take another costly "wake up call".

http://web.mit.edu/6.933/www/Fall2000/mode-s/today .html http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/air_traffic/tis.html http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2005/051020 mode.html http://www.avionicswest.com/myviewpoint/modestrans ponder.htm

Lots of technogibberish here: Hey, Wiley! When are you writing "Air Traffic Control for Dummies"?

Mode-S a very nifty datalink system that uniquely identified aircraft and can beam all sorts of useful traffic and navigation information. It was designed *WAY BACK* in 1975, only to be ignored by the FAA (the airlines the FAA works for didn't want pay for it). So they ignored it until a mid-air collision in 1986 woke up Congress, who mandated it in 1993. ADS-B (the Popular Mechanics article seems to be describing) AFAIK uses Mode-S to broadcast your aircraft's position using Mode-S, but the FAA have started shutting down Mode S transmitters 'because the safety benefits are not worth the cost'. Nice idea, but I hope it doesn't take another costly "wake up call".

http://web.mit.edu/6.933/www/Fall2000/mode-s/today .html http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/air_traffic/tis.html http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2005/051020 mode.html http://www.avionicswest.com/myviewpoint/modestrans ponder.htm

Lots of technogibberish here: Hey, Wiley! When are you writing "Air Traffic Control for Dummies"?

"Pilots for 9/11 truth" looks to have about 20 or 30 members. AOPA has about 400,000 members which probably isn't half the aviators in this country. Does this mean (by exclusion) that 99.9925% of aviators don't believe in 9/11 conspiracies? What makes your 20-30 so special? If their "pilot sense" makes them suspect something in the "official story", why don't all other pilots? Or is it more simple to believe that these 20-30 are just loons? Anyone can get a pilots license. I know... I have one.

As for Dr. Jones... somewhere after reading about his involvement in cold fusion and trying to prove the existence of pre-Columbus horses in North America to reconcile with his faith - I stopped reading. No... just kidding.. maybe it was the part about his getting forced to retire because the engineering faculty had a problem with his theories (maybe the engineers knew something about structures that a particle physicist doesn't....go figure). Regardless, for every nut job who happens to be a physicist, I can find at least 100 that don't believe in your conspiracy theories (I am one for instance). I can't wait to see his peer-reviewed paper. Even better, I can't wait to see what organization "peer-reviews" it (I'll bet the word "9-11" appears in the org's title, or maybe "concerned").

Your AE911Thruth link doesn't work - so you've spared me the agony of pointing out how pitifully small their following probably is compared to the body of right-minded engineers and architects. This must be my lucky day... I am also an engineer (at least that's what my diplomas say). Maybe I should start a group called "Engineers, Scientists and Pilots with Who aren't Ignorant" and see how many members I get.

Do more than that. Vote 'em out!* I believe you're still allowed to... Unless their was some signing statement that says otherwise.

* Our little group will have as much influence on this as the AOPA did on keeping Meigs Field open. You all have my heartfelt condolences. Your freedom is on life support. And somebody is about to trip over the cord.

Commercial pilot training is changing drastically. Traditionally, pilots had to have considerable flying experience before moving into the commercial world. Most airline pilots used to be ex-military, and airlines wouldn't even consider training anyone with less than a thousand hours of flight time.

Now there's "ab initio training" - no previous flight experience required. This is still rare in the United States, which has a big pool of private and military pilots, but outside the US, it's becoming more common. Even Lufthansa is doing it.

Then there's ab initio first officer training. This trains co-pilots. Since, in larger aircraft, the first officer job involves more talking to the aircraft computers and not much stick and rudder work, there's a trend to "glass cockpit all the way" flight training. Traditional flight training starts out with aircraft equipped with minimal instruments, and the new pilot is taught to get an intutive, "seat of the pants" sense of flight control. That's changing; today, many of the small trainers have full glass cockpits. Some people think this is bad. Others think it inevitable.

Modern autopilots can manage most of the flight today, including landing. It's common to fly the autopilot, commanding altitudes and headings, rather than the airplane. Most large aircraft landings are still manual, but in low visibility conditions, only the autopilot can land the plane. The day may be coming when, if you're off autopilot on a commercial flight, you declare an emergency.

Go get yourself a pilot's license (http://flighttraining.aopa.org/) and join the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (http://www.aopa.org/). Not only will you learn wonderful skills that will assist you in your everyday life, but you'll be free to travel where you want, when you want.. without the fear of a shoe-bomber, potential of an anal-probing, or long lines and general confusion. Even if you decide that flying is not for you, taking an intro flight will help you gain a better understanding of air transportation in the US (God knows you won't get that from the hysteria creating media).

Go get yourself a pilot's license (http://flighttraining.aopa.org/) and join the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (http://www.aopa.org/). Not only will you learn wonderful skills that will assist you in your everyday life, but you'll be free to travel where you want, when you want.. without the fear of a shoe-bomber, potential of an anal-probing, or long lines and general confusion. Even if you decide that flying is not for you, taking an intro flight will help you gain a better understanding of air transportation in the US (God knows you won't get that from the hysteria creating media).

The theory is that this new class of jet will be what is needed to enable relatively economical air taxi services that fly from point to point (and likely from smaller airports) rather than flowing your through the current hub-based carriers

This morning as I was reading the news about this, and this insightful blog post, I started wondering whether this sort of overreaction is just the thing to give the fledgling air taxi industry a kickstart.

The theory is that this new class of jet will be what is needed to enable relatively economical air taxi services that fly from point to point (and likely from smaller airports) rather than flowing your through the current hub-based carriers

This morning as I was reading the news about this, and this insightful blog post, I started wondering whether this sort of overreaction is just the thing to give the fledgling air taxi industry a kickstart.

Aircraft are regulated by the FAA.

This activity on Los Angeles' part got the attention of a certain pilot's association which apparently put lots of ice on the project.

So it doesn't appear to be flying anywhere above LA County anytime soon...

The Los Angeles Sheriff's Department (LASD) was reportedly evaluating a 4-pound UAV for surveillance use over the sprawling L.A. Basin, which also happens to be some of the busiest airspace in the world. Members were rightly concerned about the risk of a midair collision with the small, radio-controlled aircraft.

AOPA staff promptly raised the issue with the FAA. Not only did that action make sure that a mini-UAV wouldn't be sharing L.A.'s airspace with GA pilots, it will also lead to a better policy controlling UAVs nationwide.

The FAA made it clear to the LASD that as a public operator, it would need a certificate of authorization (COA) and an experimental airworthiness certificate before it could fly a UAV, regardless of size, in the National Airspace System. (National airspace includes Class G, uncontrolled airspace.) Those are the same rules that apply to the larger UAVs being flown by the military and Department of Homeland Security.

Public and commercial operators aren't flying UAVs for "recreational purposes," so they are not permitted to fly remotely piloted aircraft under the provisions of the FAA's radio-controller modeler's advisory circular.

According to AOPA's FAA sources, the LASD reassured the agency that it will fully comply with all FAA regulations.

"We fly 18 helicopters ourselves. We're not going to do anything that would put aircraft at risk," LASD Commander Charles "Sid" Heal told AOPA. Heal is in charge of technology acquisition for the department.

Meanwhile, the FAA will be working with AOPA to develop guidance and procedures for UAV operations nationwide. AOPA is already part of a UAV advisory group, and FAA officials concerned about UAV operations are scheduled at AOPA headquarters later this month.

The agency will, in the future, issue new regulations concerning different types of UAV operations. AOPA will continue to insist that safety be paramount and that UAVs only be permitted to share airspace with general aviation aircraft when they have a demonstrated and certificated ability to avoid collisions with other aircraft.

Not quite:

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2006/060609 uav.html

The Los Angeles Sheriff's Department (LASD) was reportedly evaluating a 4-pound UAV for surveillance use over the sprawling L.A. Basin, which also happens to be some of the busiest airspace in the world. Members were rightly concerned about the risk of a midair collision with the small, radio-controlled aircraft.

AOPA staff promptly raised the issue with the FAA. Not only did that action make sure that a mini-UAV wouldn't be sharing L.A.'s airspace with GA pilots, it will also lead to a better policy controlling UAVs nationwide.

The FAA made it clear to the LASD that as a public operator, it would need a certificate of authorization (COA) and an experimental airworthiness certificate before it could fly a UAV, regardless of size, in the National Airspace System. (National airspace includes Class G, uncontrolled airspace.) Those are the same rules that apply to the larger UAVs being flown by the military and Department of Homeland Security.

Public and commercial operators aren't flying UAVs for "recreational purposes," so they are not permitted to fly remotely piloted aircraft under the provisions of the FAA's radio-controller modeler's advisory circular.

According to AOPA's FAA sources, the LASD reassured the agency that it will fully comply with all FAA regulations.

A drone has already crashed in the southwestern desert, on patrol for DHS, I suppose. Operations of these unmanned drones have been suspended until safety issues are resolved. See http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2006/060329 uav.html and http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2006/060426 uav.html.

A drone has already crashed in the southwestern desert, on patrol for DHS, I suppose. Operations of these unmanned drones have been suspended until safety issues are resolved. See http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2006/060329 uav.html and http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2006/060426 uav.html.

It's impressive that they're doing this. Moewe has rather low wing area for the slow-speed maneuvering it does in Nausicaa, though. It's certainly possible to make a lively little aerobatic monoplane (the Sukhoi S-26 is one of the best modern ones), but those little wings imply a high stall speed. If you want hang-glider type stall speeds, you need more wing area or less weight. The classic solution for slow flight is the biplane. Take a look at this old Sperry Messenger, which has about the same wingspan as Moewe. The Messenger was a very maneuverable little plane. Sperry himself once landed one in front of the U.S. Capitol.

Moewe's tailless design creates a pitch stability problem from hell, but that's what flight-control computers are for. It's interesting to see what changes they made from the R/C model. The R/C model looks more like Moewe, with straight wings and a huge dihedral angle. The bigger towed model has a bent wing. They're trying for something that wants to fly straight and level.

There's much new interest in light aircraft today. The FAA has created a new category of "light sport planes", heavier than ultralights but lighter than general aviation aircraft, with less restrictive licensing. Take a look at this StingSport, which isn't much bigger than Moewe, even though it's a two-seater.

I expect the Open Sky crowd will build something that looks more or less like Moewe and flies reasonably well. And they'll do it long before Moller gets off the ground.

(deploying the boots early can result in the ice simply forming around the shape of the inflated boots, rather than their deflated shape, rendering the boots ineffective.)

I really hope that no pilots are getting their flying advice from slashdot (just like no lawyers are getting legal advice here), but just in case: the latest research indicates that ice bridging is a myth, and you should use the boots as soon as you detect any icing, rather than waiting for build-up.

http://www.aopa.org/pilot/features/inflight9910.ht ml, http://www.elliottaviation.com/wavelink/1999q1/wav art21.asp and http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/examiners_inspe ctors/8400/fsat/media/fsat9818.doc are good references.

http://www.pilotfriend.com/safe/safety/icing_condi tions.htm is a great article about all sorts of aircraft de-icing and anti-icing methods.

I suspect there are some palces where a precision GPS approach has replaced no instrument approach at all. List of precision GPS approaches:

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/air_traffic/waas-lpv. pdf

All the precision GPS approaches on that list in Alaska are at Anchorage though. I actually found a link to GPS re Alaska Airlines (ick ppt but you can view it in html on Google):

www.navcen.uscg.gov/cgsic/meetings/summaryrpts/37t hmeeting/Brownfield.ppt

linked from

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/air_traffic/waas.html

There are probbaly a number of places where they can get in now that they have a non-precision GPS approach, where no approach existed before.

I suspect there are some palces where a precision GPS approach has replaced no instrument approach at all. List of precision GPS approaches:

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/air_traffic/waas-lpv. pdf

All the precision GPS approaches on that list in Alaska are at Anchorage though. I actually found a link to GPS re Alaska Airlines (ick ppt but you can view it in html on Google):

www.navcen.uscg.gov/cgsic/meetings/summaryrpts/37t hmeeting/Brownfield.ppt

linked from

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/air_traffic/waas.html

There are probbaly a number of places where they can get in now that they have a non-precision GPS approach, where no approach existed before.

IFR (Instrument Flight Rules) is a set of regulations and procedures for flying aircraft without the assumption that pilots will be able to see and avoid obstacles, terrain, and other air traffic; it is an alternative to visual flight rules (VFR), where the pilot is primarily or exclusively responsible for see-and-avoid.

But we get your point that is elaborated on by patrick24601 below: there are multiple ways of checking where you are. Small planes generally have radio navigation, which includes VOR, NDB, DME, and so on. (See bottom of link given above). GPS is just another navigation tool. In addition, the big guys have inertial navigation devices. One can also ask the controller where you're at if you're really lost. Of course, if the weather isn't bad, one can always resort to using a map and looking out the window. (Actually should anyhow...half the fun is the view!)

If you want to get a better idea of what those pilot friends are doing, take a look at the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) site http://www.aopa.org/ and read some of the stuff for newbies. I believe there are some articles from previous issues that talk about GPS and radio frequency interference of all sorts.

Then I guess you must already be pretty fearful now.

The Gemini goes about data-logging quite differently. When you want to see what's been happening, simply point the supplied Hewlett-Packard HP200LX palmtop at the Gemini's faceplate and the information will be transferred by infrared link. The information remains encrypted in the HP200LX--it cannot be altered by the user- -so it may be more useful to resolve a warranty dispute or to see how renter-pilots are treating your leaseback bird.

Sure -- in General Aviation aircraft. But, GA is a lot different from the airlines. See http://www.aopa.org if you're interested in hearing what the lobbiest I pay for has to say.

Aviators everywhere depend on NOAA for weather all the time and AOPA will never let this bill get passed. AOPA has a long history of protecting the citizens from stupid laws like this so I'm not worried at all.

If you've been out of the action for that long, perhaps you don't understand just how serious the political assaults against General Aviation have gotten. What we DON'T need is more people using "pseudo-aviation" style vernacular when discussing GA because that will only help to further propagate the kinds of mis-information and half-truths that the common media is so full of WRT general aviation. When discussing general aviation, we should always make it a point to always be accurate and technically precise with our terminology. Especially now that the Light Sport Aircraft / Sport Pilot Certificate program is finally in place in the USA and general aviation is poised on the brink of either a fresh revival... or extinction... depending upon the collective behaviour of the established general aviation community and all those new Sport Pilots who'll hopefully be joining our ranks soon. The general aviation community has always had a pretty good record of "policing ourselves" in the past, and we definitely need to keep this tradition going on in our new (hopefully revitalized) future.

PS: Get back into that left seat man....

PPS: To everybody out there in the US who is interested in being a pilot, please consider joining the EAA www.eaa.org and/or the AOPA www.aopa.org
and if you're interested in the new Sport Pilot certificate and light sport aircraft, please visit the EAA's Sport Pilot Website.

The Aircreft Owners and Pilots Association has an excellent Flash presentation on flight procedures in the Washington area, or "how not to get shot down".

I'll just say a big "YES" to that last paragraph, and further advise pilots who might be reading this to, as AOPA says, "talk and squawk" as much as possible. Pick up VFR Flight Following if possible. And for the love of all things holy, take a free online airspace awareness course from the Air Safety Foundation.

Fly safe.

--a CFI

No karma for me, thanks. -MisterLawyer

It just says that the light wouldn't be as intense as in the cases where people have gotten in trouble with their laser pointers.

That seems a little hard to believe at first, since a green laser pointer's power is only something in the milliwatts, and the AOPA article mentioned in another reply (this is a fixed URL, incidentally) talks about a 1.5 watt laser. But that's reflected/diffused to create a 100-foot-wide line of light in a circle 10 miles from the laser, so I guess by sending the light off in all directions (not at all like your normal use of a laser) it's possible that it wouldn't be a problem.

Out here in Hawaii, the summit of Mauna Kea is an "informal" no-fly zone. There aren't any major flight paths that would cross it anyway, and since there are telescopes on it, folks have basically just agreed not to go flying over when we're trying to see things.

This has become a little more important in recent years, since the folks over at Keck use a laser to ionize stuff in the sodium layer of the atmosphere and create an artificial "guide star" that they can then measure the light from to correct for atmospheric interference. This is part of their adaptive optics, I think. That's a 15-watt laser, which could really ruin a pilot's day.

And Gemini North, across the summit from Keck, is about to start playing with a big bright toy too.

They've got a pool of "plane spotters" who spend half a night standing outside on the summit with a walkie-talkie. If they see any planes that look like they might get in the way, they radio in to turn off the laser before anything gets zapped.

I'm going to try to do that, one of these days. Goodness knows I'm up there enough as it is.

I'm not concerned about the legislation at all. Any wireless network will not be operated by the City. It will go to a city contractor--like everything else here in Chicago. You have to remember that Chicago is a city where you have contractors that do nothing but sit in trucks.

I am also not worried about the telco's blocking a city-wide network. If Daley can completely ignore the FAA, I think he can handle the telco's and the FCC.

Background: I'm a private pilot who owns a 1946 Luscombe, a plane not considered to be a terribly "safe" airplane by many. But as with any machine, treat it with the respect it deserves and it will reward you. I prefer to program in assembly and C, as well.

I'm not convinced that a "safer" airplane actually makes one safer. Twin engine airplanes have worse statistics for post-engine-failure accidents; the Ercoupe (a stall/spin-proof airplane which was about the only non-tailwheel plane of its time), was designed for a high level of safety but didn't have that great a record (and by the end of its life, had had all the safety features removed save the nosewheel); and the parachute-equipped Cirrus had a horrendous safety record early on.

See, for example,
http://www.aopa.org/asf/asfarticles/2004/sp0402.ht ml

I think that reliance on safety features may tend to lead one into more unsafe behavior than one would otherwise engage in. I can say from personal observation at the AirVenture fly-in (http://www.airventure.org/) this summer that Cirrus corporate demo pilots pushed the safety envelope to the point of being grounded this past year.

It's an old truism that the superior pilot relies on superior judgement to prevent the need of his superior skills. With very, very few exceptions, wings don't fall off airplanes until some time after the pilot makes a bad decision.

Okay, well, instead of simply relaying things as I have been, let me demonstrate that you are wrong by citing another source directly.

AOPA Online: How Safe Is It?, paragraph 2:

"Compared to automobiles, general aviation -- defined as all kinds of flying except for the airlines and military -- has about one-tenth as many accidents on a per-vehicle-mile basis, and the accident rate has dropped steadily since 1980. There are several reasons why the safety record is as good as it is. Training for a pilot certificate is much more rigorous than it is for a driver's license. Mandatory ground and flight training, along with written and practical tests, help to ensure that pilots have achieved a basic level of proficiency. Periodic recurrent training helps to maintain and improve skills."

I do not see why people keep insisting the parent is true, it's not. General aviation is many times safer than driving an automobile.

I'm working on a Private Pilot certificate and eventually a CFI/CFII so I can help teach some of the new crop of sport pilots. (I see money in that! :) Even with the new Sport Pilot rules, they are very, very limited in range and operating conditions. You can only operate under VFR, not at night, and you have to keep your gross weight under 1,320lbs. There are few commerical aircraft available with more than 1 seat in that category, and none of the planes in that group I've seen are intended for regular flight -- e.g. To Be Overhauled times of less than 1,000 hours, or worse yet, kit planes (which, of all aircraft, are likely to be the least safe, IMHO). Not to mention, if you want more than 2 people, you have to shift away from Sport Pilot rules entirely.

For anyone interested in the new Sport Pilot rules, visit the EAA's Sport Pilot website. If your more interested in a private pilots license, I've found Cessna's Learn to Fly site and the AOPA to be very valuable.

Planes have a non-trivial chance of killing you?

Reality check. :)

According to the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, your chances of dying or being seriously injured in an airplane are about 1:4.3 MILLION.

Your chances of dying or being seriously injured in a car, by comparison, work out to about 1:125.

I would say that right now, space flight has a higher than 1:125 chance of serious injury and/or death, but not substantially, and not as the technology matures. I think it will evolve to being quite safe, personally.

The parent poster basically makes one point: it will be hard to regulate, so let's just give up. OMG: there'll be licenses and regulations... just... like... a highway!.

You can't fly too low/high - have you ever seen a speed limit, or minimum-speed on roads today?

Airplanes today already are being shipped with BRS systems - ballistic recovery systems - rocket deployed parachutes for safe recovery after losing control / etc... see: Cirrus Aircraft.

To counter the well-intended, but wrong info in the parent poster: they only have to regulate a few licensed carriers and a relatively small number of private pilots. This is completely false... see the AOPA or Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association - of America. It has over 400,000 active, dues-paying members in the US alone, making up one of the largest active lobbies in the US. General Aviation serves america - making the first critical blood and organ transfer transports after 9/11 - see GA Serving America for more info.

As for good medical history / etc... The FAA just approved a new set of certifications called LSA / Light Sport Aircraft, allowing pilots (with certain limitations) to self-certify their health when flying particularly light (under about 1200lbs) aircraft. This is far higher than the current UltraLight limits - getting well into some of the modern composite aircraft built in Europe - that get better fuel efficiency than cars (per seat mile) and are faster than the US certified all metal birds such as Cessna 150s/152s.

All this said, the FAA (A slow, frustrating organization at times) is making the transition to GPS (w/WAAS/LASS) in the next decade as the primary means of instrument / navigation for air transportation.

One goal of this, already being implemented is mode-S transponders that with new FAA radio/radar systems being rolled out will do to ATC what GPS and SatComm did for the military - provide a complete 3D picture of all aircraft in the sky including position, velocity, trends, and modeled based on aircraft capability - the future potential positions of an aircraft. Not to mention the ability to transfer a flight plan / guidance revision to an aircraft over digital radio.

This is part of the FAA's free-flight initiative - a very slow, future-envisioning research project including providing for fully automated 3D navigation for air-taxi services including collision avoidance with non-automated aircraft.

Finally - a pet peeve of pilots, there is no such thing as a pilot's license... just a pilot certificate - certificated not unlike an aircraft... in that the certificate is only valid given certain conditions (recent flight, bi-annual flight reviews, etc...)

Do me a favor- quit your job. I'm tired of paying you with my taxes and everyone else with what little income I have left.

Sheesh.