Blog Archives - Page 127 of 199 - Golf Hotel Whiskey

FlightPrep iChart for the iPad review

John Ewing has written a lengthy post for his Aviation Mentor blog where he provided a detailed review of FlightPrep iChart for the iPad. He began his review by pointing out that FlightPrep has been selling Windows-based flight planning software and electronic flight bag products for a number of years and now they have joined the iPad bandwagon (they also have plans for an iPhone version) with their FlightPrep iChart software.

John then wrote that instead of offering a whole array of features and capabilities, FlightPrep iChart instead does a few things and it does them well. This includes storing and displaying charts like VFR sectionals and terminal area charts, IFR low-altitude en route charts and terminal procedures. However, there is no support for high-altitude IFR en route charts or for getting weather briefings, route planning or displaying routes on the charts. Nevertheless, John noted that this straightforward and easy-to-use interface approach makes the FlightPrep iChart application easy to use.

At the end of his post, John concluded:

There are iPad EFB apps out there that do more stuff, like display weather, do route planning, georeference your position on the chart, and so on. But those products are also inherently more complicated to use in flight. FlightPrep iChart does a few things and does them well for a reasonable price.

Moreover and if you like the 30-day demo of FlightPrep iChart, you can then choose to purchase a one year introductory subscription for US$49.95.

Why does Europe hate general aviation?

Thomas A. Horne, the Editor At Large for the AOPA Pilot Blog has written an interesting post were he noted that:

I’ve written extensively in the past about European GA, and why Europeans come to the United States to earn their pilot certificates. Why? Because it’s infinitely less expensive and streamlined–compared to the onerous, bloated, and punishingly expensive European path to certificate-hood. You thought Euro-user fees were bad? How about spending $15,000 to get a private pilot certificate across the pond?

He then pointed out that a new European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) proposal would end reciprocation between the US and Europe. Moreover, he pointed out that you might be able to get European validation of your US pilot certificate right now but if you want to fly in Europe in two years time, you’ll have to earn one of the European certificates. He then added:

But wait, there’s more! EASA wants to rid the European Community of N-registered airplanes too. Soon, the common practice of Euro-pilots registering their airplanes with a US N-number will end if the proposals go through. Europeans realize considerable savings by flying airplanes with an “N-reg.” Lord knows they need to save as much as they can if GA flying is to continue, what with $20-per-touchdown landing fees and $8 per gallon fuel costs.
The impetus for all this xenophobic regulatory activity? Why, to garner more fees and pump up an already-Byzantine regulatory culture. Thanks to all those centuries of Kings, Queens, Lords, Barons, Viceroys, Dukes, “vons,” and landed gentry, Europeans seem not able to shake the inclination to submit to the state

Thomas also noted that German aviation magazine, Pilot und Flugzeug, has posted three scenarios on the potential outcome of these new regulatory proposals. Furthermore, we would like to note that General Aviation News has two articles (European proposals could severely affect U.S. pilots and Pressure mounts to ‘park’ EU vote on pilot certification) that are also well worth reading.

Finally, we would like to ask you our readers what you think about these new EASA rules. Moreover, will these new EASA rules impact you or pilots who you personally know?

Are there limits to simulator training?

About a month ago, both Paul Bertorelli (The Limits of Simulator Training)and Mary Grady (Report: Simulator Training Flawed) pointed out an article in USA Today where it was noted that problems stemming from simulator training had been cited as contributing factors in airline accidents that also caused more than half of the 522 airline accident fatalities over the last decade. Apparently, the NTSB cited deficient crosswind simulator training as a factor in the December 2008 accident in Denver when a Continental 737 ran off the runway. In addition, insufficient simulator training for icing was also cited as a factor in last year’s fatal Colgan Air crash while simulator exercises giving pilots a false sense of how the rudder would respond to inputs was cited as a factor in the November 2001 crash of an American Airlines A300 in which 265 people died.

However and in his post, Paul questioned the findings by asking:

Could this really be? To me, it just doesn’t pass the smell test. Further digging into the story revealed that while the NTSB cited simulator training shortcomings as a factor in the Denver crash, it seemed to concede a certain far-outishness to the finding. It gets down to this: To what degree can you expect to train pilots in weird abnormals? Where do you draw the line and simply decide to take your chances?

He further added that:

In any case, shouldn’t a pilot bring to the table certain basic skills—like knowing a stall when he sees one or noticing that his knuckles are being rapped by a stick shaker? Sometimes there’s just not much you can do about ten-to-the-ninth accidents and I’m wondering if these two don’t qualify. Which is another way of saying USA Today has again overstated the case and I feel for the hapless reading public unversed in the finer points of aviation risk.

Paul also noted his experience in a navy flight simulator when he ended up taking off into a ditch due to a navy tradition of setting a 100-knot crosswind for all first takeoffs in their flight simulator. He then pointed out that even when he knew the 100-knot crosswind was coming, he still could not keep the Tomcat on the runway (but the navy already has a solution for this: They simply turn the ship into the wind).

Hence, we want to hear what you our readers think – especially anyone who has ever had flight simulator training: Are there reasonable limits to simulator flight training? Moreover, what are your thoughts about simulator flight training for general aviation pilots and how extensive should such (if any) training be? Let us know your thoughts.

What airlines can teach general aviation pilots

Vincent, the blogger behind the Plastic Pilot blog, has written a great short post where he mentioned three key lessons that airlines can teach general aviation. Vincent began his post by first acknowledging that while general aviation’s safety record is generally good, there are still a few things general aviation pilots can learn from airline pilots. He then mentioned the following three areas where there are lessons for general aviation pilots to follow:

SOP, flow patterns and checklists. In addition to checklists, Vincent pointed out that airlines go beyond the use of checklists. Airlines also use Standard Operation Procedures (SOPs) and flow patterns to do all the actions before cross-checking with a checklist.

Briefings. Moreover, Vincent noted that airline crews also run through detailed briefings before each and every flight and he also does the same. Specifically, Vincent’s briefings cover the following items:

Take-off type (standard, performance, soft-field)
Vr, Vx, Vy (and Vmca if flying a twin)
Safety altitude
Actions in case of aborted take-off
Actions in case of emergency after take-off, depending on conditions (VMC or IMC)

Vincent also noted that for an approach briefing, he uses the Jeppesen Briefing Strip on top of the approach chart.

Sterile cockpit. Finally, Vincent pointed out that airlines have a sterile cockpit rule for both departures and approaches and typically when operating under 10,000 feet so that the pilot and crew can be focused on flying the aircraft. Hence and when he is flying with passengers, Vincent tells them when he needs to concentrate on flying and when he can carry on a conversation with them.

Keeping the above safety airline lessons in mind will make you a much safer and more professional general aviation pilot.

What killed general aviation for the masses?

Paul Bertorelli has written a thought provoking post for the AVwebinsider blog about the general aviation recession and how Wonder Bread is to blame for it. In case you do not see the connection between the two, Paul’s point is simple: Wonder Bread was invented as a mass produced version of bread that ultimately did to the local bakery shop what China (along with technology and productivity gains) has done to the consumer electronics and many other industries for that matter. In other words, a far cheaper product that could be mass produced became available and this product gutted the competition (along with everyone’s wages).

Paul then noted that in general aviation, there was a time when a “small contractor, a garage owner or a school teacher” could actually own and fly an airplane (I can attest to this as my father used to fly as a hobby into the early 1980s). During that time, the middle class also had more disposable income but today this class of owner and buyer is largely priced out of the market due to stagnant wages and escalating aircraft costs. In fact, Paul pointed out that:

When I got active in flying again in 1975, the local Cessna Pilot Center rented a 172 for $16 an hour, wet. Run that through an inflation calculator and it’s the equivalent of $63 today. Now it may be possible to find a 172 somewhere near that rate, but it’s more likely to be $135 to $150. Paradoxically, the flightschool or FBO may barely make money even at that rate.
One reason for this is the high cost of new aircraft. In 1975, a Cessna 172M cost about $25,000 or $98,000 in today’s dollars. Yet a new Skyhawk costs two and half times that or about $270,000. The LSA market has chopped the high peak price off certified aircraft, but at $130,000 typically, they’re hardly cheap. Rental rates are in the $100 range, wet.

Paul then commented that while its easy to blame the aircraft industry, he has been to plenty of airplane factories and he can’t see how they could “achieve efficiencies sufficient to lower prices substantially while remaining in business.” Paul’s partial solution (besides somehow addressing the trends impacting the economy as a whole) is to have multi-member partnerships. In other words, its cheaper for four pilots to own and operate an aircraft than one pilot.

Since Paul’s post as already attracted a large number of comments from readers about the costs of owning and operating aircraft, we would also love to hear your opinions as to how general aviation can once again be made affordable to greater numbers of would-be pilots.

More useful aviation acronyms or abbreviations

These useful aviation acronyms or abbreviations come courtesy of Captain Smithy who recently posted them on PPRuNe (Professional Pilots Rumour Network):

TARFUN – Things Are Really F’ked Up Now (Description of a major error or calamity, e.g. new EASA rules, a major navigational error, CAS bust, multiple engine failure etc.)
AFI – Another F’ing Inconvenience (Useful catch-all term expressing generic frustration, e.g. Bad weather, ATC delays, EASA, Volcanic Ash, Enviromental protestors turning up at the airport to chain themselves to the gates etc.)
FUMTU – F’ked Up More Than Usual (Usually the result of Volcanic Ash, new EASA directives etc.)
FUBB – F’ked Up Beyond Belief (Usually with reference to EASA, or the routine result of a license application to the CAA)
FIFI – F’ck it, Fly It (Stupidly heading off into the sky in the face of a number of negative factors whilst SUSFU, e.g. aircraft unserviceability, bad weather, lack of funds etc. – usually leads to a TARFUN or a FUBAR)
GTFO – Get The F’ck Out (A speedy retreat requiring rather quick ambulation in the opposite direction of hostility, e.g. the aftermath of a CAS bust, the aircraft catching fire on the ramp, a fall-out with the CFI, etc.)
CATFU – Completely And Totally F’ked Up (Similar as most of the above)