The Salinas, California-based aviation nonprofit focuses on inspiring at-risk youth to  engage in STEM education. The program has a Cessna 152 and Redbird Flight Simulations FMX AATD, which allow students to pursue a private pilot certificate. 

• READ MORE: Paying It Forward

The program also offers students an opportunity at completing ground school utilizing the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) high school curriculum.

The foundation’s $1.5 million donation, which was funded by Tom Siebel, Craig McCaw, and David Leushchen, also includes operational support for the aircraft and guaranteed job interviews for program graduates with industry partners Cirrus, CubCrafters, and Game Composites.

• READ MORE: Bob Hoover Academy Gets Redbird Simulator

“This donation is about providing hope and tangible opportunities for a better future,” Siebel said in a statement. “Salinas is a city where many young people face daunting challenges daily. We are honored to support the Bob Hoover Academy led by impassioned aviator Sean D. Tucker. They are changing lives through the magic of aviation combined with a solid education.” 

The post Donation to Expand Bob Hoover Academy Fleet appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The “parade of airplanes” flyover event, which is sponsored by the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), will begin at 11.30 a.m. EST from Frederick Municipal Airport (KFDK). The Washington portion of the flyover is expected to start around noon.

“The flyover will consist of 15 different ‘chapters’ telling the story of GA in America, starting in the golden age and continuing to the present day,” AOPA said in a statement. “Two dozen groups of aircraft will fly the 88-mile round trip from FDK down the Potomac River. The formation will be led by AOPA president Mark Baker in his historic Beechcraft Staggerwing.”

• READ MORE: ‘Parade of Airplanes’ Over Washington to Celebrate 85 years of GA

Parade Route

Washington has some of the most restricted airspace in the country and includes Prohibited Area P-56, which was created after 9/11. The event required coordination of more than 11 agencies, including the FAA, air traffic control, TSA, and U.S. Secret Service, according to AOPA.

According to AOPA, the flyover route will go past the Lincoln Memorial, down Independence Avenue, and over the Washington Monument.

The aircraft will be expected to fly at 90 knots at an altitude of 1,000 feet, ensuring they are visible from the ground. The flyover will also be broadcast online. 

The post How to Watch ‘Parade of Airplanes’ Over Washington appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

In 1939, Franklin Roosevelt was the first sitting president to recognize GA, according to AOPA president Mark Baker. This year also marks the 85th anniversary of AOPA, an organization created to support GA.

The National Celebration of GA Flyover will be broadcast live on AOPA’s YouTube channel with commentary from longtime “AOPA Live This Week” host Tom Haines and journalist Miles O’Brien. The pair will be on a rooftop providing commentary as aircraft fly overhead. 

Haines noted that he’s spent a good bit of time researching the participant airplanes and was impressed to learn of their rich history.

Logistics

Mike Ginter, AOPA vice president of airports and state advocacy, will serve as the air boss for the event. Ginter said that all the aircraft will be strategically launched from Frederick Municipal Airport (KFDK) in Maryland—the home of AOPA—beginning at 11:30 a.m. EST on May 11. 

The aircraft will be expected to fly at 90 knots at an altitude of 1,000 feet, ensuring they are visible from the ground and online. 

“The goal is to get aviation outside of the airport fence lines,” Ginter said.

For those who won’t be in D.C., pilots are encouraged to organize watch parties at their airports.

Sixty aircraft, representing 20 different chapters of GA, are scheduled to participate. The aircraft and pilots, most of whom are the aircraft owners, were selected months ago.

Baker will be leading the parade, flying his Beechcraft Staggerwing 17, an aircraft synonymous with the golden age of aviation. The round-engine Staggerwing biplane was one of the first to feature an enclosed cockpit. In the 1930s, it was the choice for executive transport and air racers.

“It’s going to be a special time for AOPA and for general aviation,” Baker said. “What a sight it will be to see the history of general aviation flying over the National Mall, as GA has given this nation so much over the past many decades. AOPA is uniquely positioned to plan this complex event and execute it safely and professionally.”

Among the aircraft planned to appear are a WACO UPF-7, Douglas DC-3, a Grumman Albatross, one of the only two Beechcraft Starships still flying, a Robinson R44, and a Piper M700 Fury certified this year.

The flyover will also feature an appearance by the Titan Aerobatic Team.

Parade Route

Washington has some of the most restricted airspace in the country. More than 11 agencies, including the FAA, air traffic control, TSA, and U.S. Secret Service are coordinating for the event, which will include flight in Prohibited Area P-56. The restricted airspace was created after 9/11. 

The route takes the aircraft past the Lincoln Memorial, down Independence Avenue, and past the Washington Monument.

GA, By the Numbers

Parade aircraft were selected to showcase technological advancements in aviation and demonstrate the ways GA has improved its safety records over the years.

According to AOPA, the GA industry enjoys the safest record ever due to better aircraft, navigation systems, flight training, and better, more engaging ways to stay proficient. General aviation aircraft fly more than 26 million flight hours each year, including about 30 million takeoffs and landings.

AOPA officials said they hope the event will help spread the word that general aviation often comes from small towns with small aircraft manufacturing facilities, such as Yakima, Washington; Vacaville, California; and Vero Beach, Florida. 

More information on the event, route, and planned aircraft can be found on AOPA’s GA Flyover campaign website.

The post ‘Parade of Airplanes’ Over Washington to Celebrate 85 years of GA appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

In an online forum Tuesday, GAMA provided an industry update on the initiative to Eliminate Aviation Gasoline Lead Emissions, or EAGLE.

The forum included representatives from the FAA and GAMA.  Eric Blinderman, senior director of communications for the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), acted as moderator, introducing the co-chairs of the EAGLE initiative that represent supply chain infrastructure and deployment; research, development and innovation; unleaded fuel evaluation and authorization; regulation policy; and programmatic activities.

• READ MORE: EAGLE Initiative Shows Measured Progress, Fuel Contenders Say at Oshkosh

Curt Castagna of the National Air Transportation Association (NATA) said fulfilling the EAGLE initiative will require a continued effort to educate users and other stakeholders— including the FAA—”to work as fast and as safely as we can.” Castagna said the goal is “to eliminate the use of leaded aviation fuels for piston engine aircraft in the United States by the end of 2030 without adversely impacting the general aviation fleet.”

Several speakers noted that the safety considerations and liability involved with the production of aviation fuel dictates that a considerable amount of testing be involved in the creation of unleaded (UL) products.

The UL100E unleaded fuel testing protocols include:

• Determining fuel compatibility with materials used in aviation, from the metal of the wings to fuel bladders, hoses, aircraft sealants, and elastomers.
• Determining engine performance for rated power as compared to the same engines running on 100LL and determining if detonation is a factor. The tests involve hundreds of engines. The impact of vibration of the aircraft propellers attached to those engines is also being studied.
• Determining the durability of the fuel and its effect on engine parts, especially testing for deposits that may form after hundreds of hours of operation.

The fuel tests will take place both on the ground and in the air under a variety of conditions, including cold soak and high temperatures and humidity.

The testing will involve multiple engines and multiple aircrafts. According to a graphic provided during the stakeholder meeting, this work has just begun, with the exception of the testing involving a Continental TSIO-550K.

“After testing, the engines are torn down to look for damage,” said Tim Owen, who has spent several years in product development at Continental Motors Inc. and been part of the Piston Aviation Fuels Initiative (PAFI).

Supply Chain

In addition to the development of a replacement fuel for 100LL, a seamless transition to UL fuel must also be developed. A support policy and regulatory proposal for maintaining 100LL availability is also needed, as are safety measures to prevent improper fueling during the transition.

Stakeholders noted during the meeting that many FBOs are already looking into means to accommodate both 100LL and UL fuels, such as acquiring a fuel truck for UL. In addition, there will be more training required for line crew and placards in aircraft to prevent accidental misfueling.

• READ MORE: The EAGLE Has Launched to Get Lead Out of Avgas

Discussions are underway with FBOs in remote areas, such as in Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico, to determine how fuel can be economically delivered to these locations.

It is still incumbent on the FAA to authorize the use of a new unleaded fuel in GA aircraft.

That can be done one of two ways: through the fleet authorization process established by Congress and in conjunction with the PAFI, or through the FAA’s traditional aircraft type certification/supplemental type certification (STC) process.

In March 2023, the FAA issued a Fleet Authorization Policy Statement, which describes the process to obtain a fleet authorization of a qualified unleaded fuel candidate.

“The FAA anticipates that approximately 68 percent of the [GA] fleet will be eligible to use UL 94/UL 91 fuels,” according to the EAGLE industry partnership.

Stakeholders also noted that the adoption of unleaded fuels will likely require extra placards on aircraft and extra pages in the pilot’s operating handbook (POH) to advise pilots of the changes, but that is likely years away.

The FAA is expected to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) and accept industry comments before EAGLE becomes law.

The post Forum Stresses More Work Needed to Meet GA Unleaded Fuel Goals appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Anatomy of a Flight Review

According to FAR 61.56, the flight review consists of a minimum of an hour of ground instruction, including a review of the current general operating and flight rules of Part 91, and one hour of flight with a “review of those maneuvers and procedures that, at the discretion of the person giving the review, are necessary for the pilot to demonstrate the safe exercise of the privileges of the pilot certificate.”

Flight instructors who have renewed their certificates within the preceding 24 calendar months need not do the hour of ground. That means for the active CFI the flight review will consist of an hour of flying to satisfy the regulatory requirement. Pilots are expected to fly to the level of their certificate as determined by the airman certification standards.

Carefully Plan the Flight

The FAA recommends referring to advisory circular (AC) 61-98D for guidance on administering an effective flight review and encourages the flight instructor administering it to work with the pilot to develop a plan of action around evaluating the pilot’s knowledge and flying skills, rather than focusing on meeting the regulatory minimums.

• READ MORE: Who Is Teaching? Low Time and Social Media Make for a Bad Combo

The AC suggests that regardless of the pilot’s experience, maneuvers considered critical to safe flight include takeoffs, stabilized approaches to landings, slow flight and stalls, recovery from unusual attitudes, operating aircraft by sole reference to instruments under actual or simulated conditions, and operation of aircraft automation. You won’t find a minimum number of takeoffs and landings, nor does it suggest emergency approaches without engine power, but you’d be wise to include them.

Perhaps you could be under the hood for the flight to the practice area (many CFIs don’t get much IFR experience), go visual, and do a chandelle up to altitude for slow flight and stalls, followed by an emergency descent, then back to the pattern for specialty takeoffs and landings.

Last-Minute Scramble

You may have to schedule your flight review around your regular hours at the flight school, but sometimes your plans can be thwarted by aircraft scheduling, maintenance issues, or weather.

Talk to the chief CFI or owner of the school in advance—if you have to fly during regular business hours to avoid turning into a pumpkin, they will be losing two instructors for at least an hour that day, and if you work at a small school, this can be very challenging.

Add a Rating

Many CFIs opt to add another certificate or rating to satisfy the flight review requirement. If this includes a check ride, make sure the designated pilot examiner (DPE) understands you intend this to be a flight review and make sure they are OK with that. The same goes for endorsements, such as complex aircraft, high-performance, or tailwheel.

• READ MORE: Practice Crosswind Landings Whenever You Can

Checkouts in aircraft with new-to-you avionics are also a popular option. If you are a round-dial pilot, get some time behind a glass cockpit design. If you’ve never flown anything but the Garmin G1000, find a round-dial panel and suitable instructor and see what you’ve been missing.

When a CFI Needs a CFI

The CFI administering the review needs to observe the rating limitations of FAR 61.195, which states that the instructor must hold a flight instructor certificate with the applicable category and class rating. FAA Advisory Circular AC 61-98D states: “For aircraft in which the flight instructor is not current or with which he or she is not familiar, he or she should obtain recent flight experience or sufficient knowledge of aircraft limitations, characteristics, and performance before conducting the review. In any case, the flight instructor must observe the rating limitations of 61.195.”

The phrase “sufficient knowledge of aircraft limitations” can send you into a gray area. What if you have never flown a Cessna 170 before? It is single-engine land, and if you have that on your certificate, you should be OK, right? There are CFIs who may be asked to administer a flight review for a tailwheel pilot even though the CFI does not have that endorsement or is not tailwheel current. According to the FAA, this can be done legally provided “the person receiving flight instruction pursuant to a flight review would have to be current and qualified under Part 61 [including 61.31(i)] and must act as pilot in command [PIC] during that flight.”

Is It Instruction?

Ask that question in front of a pack of CFIs and you may get divergent answers, possibly stemming from the fact the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) endorsement that CFIs are required to give to new people seeking instruction is not required for flight reviews, leading some to conclude a flight review isn’t instruction.

According to the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) guidance on the TSA endorsement, “flight reviews and instrument proficiency checks do not fall under the TSA definition of flight training as the TSA has also interpreted the definition of recurrent training to

‘not include any flight review, proficiency check, or other check to review rules, maneuvers, or procedures, or to demonstrate a pilot’s existing skills on aircraft with a MTOW of 12,500 pounds or less.’”

However, the FAA tells FLYING, “a flight review is considered flight instruction and is referenced in [FAR] 61.56. Flight training and flight instruction are considered synonymous when meeting a regulatory experience requirement under Part 61. Section 61.56(a) states, ‘a flight review consists of a minimum of one hour of flight training and one hour of ground training. Additionally,

FAR 61.193, Flight Instructor Privileges, notes a person who holds a flight instructor certificate is authorized within the limitations of that person’s flight instructor certificate and ratings to train and issue endorsements that are required for…a flight review, operating privilege, or recency of experience requirement of this part.’”

As outlined in AC 61-98D, 4.4.1, the flight review is not a check ride. Therefore it is not a pass/fail situation. However, “if the review is not satisfactory, the flight instructor should log the flight as ‘dual instruction given’ and not as a ‘failure.’” In addition, the instructor administering the review should offer a practical course of action—be it flight training, ground training, or both for the pilot to regain proficiency and return to the standard.

Many CFIs will go out and practice on their own before a flight review. They don’t want to take a chance on an unsatisfactory grade. Frankly, when you are a busy CFI, flying for yourself is particularly enjoyable. Get out there!

This column first appeared in the January-February 2024/Issue 945 of FLYING’s print edition.

The post Make Flight Reviews for CFIs Worthwhile appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

I was at Sun ’n Fun Aerospace Expo in Lakeland, Florida, working as an aviation reporter. Early that morning I started getting voicemails and emails telling me about the large X’s carved into the runway, rendering it unusable and trapping a handful of aircraft based there.

One of the first to see the damage was a pilot who had planned to land at Meigs but had to divert to another location. He reported the damage to a surprised air traffic controller who, like himself, was not aware that Meigs had been destroyed.

The abrupt closure took airport employees by surprise as well. One of the Meigs tower controllers told a local news outlet that he learned he was out of a job while driving into work and heard a local radio station reporting on the damaged runway.

• READ MORE: ‘Remember Meigs Field’

At Sun ’n Fun, which is the second-largest aviation convention in the U.S., the destruction was talked about somberly. How could this have happened? 

We quickly learned that the heavy equipment operators that came to the airport under the cloak of darkness and dug those massive ditches into the runway were acting on orders from then-Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley. Daley was not the first Chicago politician to propose the closure of Meigs Field.

In the 1980s, Mayor Jane Byrne suggested closing the airport and turning the property into a park. Local pilots, aviation advocacy groups, and businesses that appreciated the convenience of an airport so close to downtown objected to the idea.

In addition, the FAA noted that the airport had received agency grants, and each grant carried an assurance that it would remain open a set amount of time—usually 25 years—so that the grants can be amortized. At the time, the airport had most recently accepted a grant in 1976. In theory, the earliest the airport could be closed was 2001.

Meigs Field History

The airport was built shortly after World War II on Northerly Island, a human-made peninsula minutes from downtown Chicago. The airport had a single runway measuring 3,900 feet by 150 feet. In 1952, the airport was named after Merrill C. Meigs, publisher of the Chicago Herald-Examiner newspaper and an aviation enthusiast. 

The land, which is owned by the Chicago Park District, was leased for the airport. The location being so close to downtown Chicago made it popular for businesses, medical flights, and for a short time, commercial aviation. It was so busy that a control tower and two instrument approaches were added. By the late 1990s, commercial aviation had given way to general aviation and medevac flights. Meigs was also popular in the virtual aviation world, as it was the default airport for Microsoft Flight Simulator.

In 1994, Daley revived the idea of closing the airport and redeveloping its 75 acres into a park. The FAA reminded the city that it had accepted FAA funding for improvements and by doing so agreed to grant assurances that stipulated the airport remain open.

• READ MORE: City Council Votes To Close Santa Monica Airport

Daley continued to push for closure, and in 1996, the Chicago Park District refused to renew the lease for the airport. Large X’s were painted on the runway identifying the airport as closed. 

In response, the Illinois  Legislature and the FAA strongly opposed the action, and the combined pressure resulted in the reopening of the airport. The painted X’s were removed and the airport resumed operations. The understanding was that the facility would remain open until at least 2026.

Aviation organizations loudly defended the airport and its convenience for downtown businesses, yet the threat of closure remained. The pilots attending the Meet the Administrator public forums at EAA AirVenture held up large red-and-white signs that read “SAVE MEIGS FIELD” to get their point across.

Aviation groups such as the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) and the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) continued to watch the airport. The FAA repeatedly noted that it  is in the business of protecting airports, not closing them, reminding the city of Chicago that the grant assurances stipulated the facility stay open. In addition, FAA regulations state that closure of an airport that includes an instrument approach—Meigs had two—requires a 30 days notice prior to shutdown, which was never given.

Aviation advocacy groups were quick to respond to the airport’s destruction. Phil Boyer, AOPA’s president at the time, called out Daley for what Boyer called a lack of honor: “The sneaky way he did this shows that he knows it was wrong.”

EAA president Tom Poberezny was attending Sun ’n Fun when he heard about Meigs Field. Within two weeks, the organization became part of a GA coalition that lobbied the U.S. Senate to support the National Aviation Capacity Expansion Act, which called for the codifying of the historical political agreement between then-Illinois Governor George Ryan and Daley to preserve Meigs Field for another 25 years.

Meanwhile, Daley defended his actions, claiming the destruction was done “due to safety concerns,” citing a potential terrorist attack similar to 9/11 when terrorists used aircraft to attack the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon in Arlington County, Virginia. This story was quickly discounted when the Department of Homeland Security stated that the airport’s proximity to downtown Chicago was not a risk and that no threats had been made against the city.

Daley then told multiple media outlets that the abrupt closure was done as a means to prevent lengthy and costly litigation as various entities fought to keep the airport open.

For several months, pilot organizations and aviation groups lobbied for the repair of the runway and the reopening of Meigs Field, but it was not to be.

Several weeks after the forced closure, which became known as “Daley’s Midnight Raid” in aviation circles, the FAA gave permission for the 16 aircraft left stranded to depart using the taxiway as a runway.

That was not the last time aircraft used the facility, however.

In July 2003 a pilot on the way to EAA AirVenture in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, experienced mechanical trouble and made an emergency landing in the grass next to the remains of the Meigs runway. Daley accused the pilot of intentionally landing there as a publicity stunt to “embarrass him.” The pilot maintained that he had engine trouble, and the grass infield was the most suitable place for an emergency landing. The FAA sided with the pilot’s interpretation.

In August 2003, the demolition of the remaining infrastructure of Meigs Field began. Today, it is a park.

Even in the virtual world, Meigs in MSFS is gone—lost to the ages.

A Cautionary Tale

In 2005, the FAA fined Chicago $33,000 for closing an airport with a charted instrument approach without giving the required 30-day notice. At the time, the maximum fine the agency could levy by law was $1,100 per day. The city of Chicago appealed the fine, and aviation advocacy groups and elected representatives were quick to note its amount. Some $33,000 was “pocket change”’ to many municipalities that wanted to close the local airport.

In response, the Meigs Legacy Provision was passed as part of an FAA reauthorization bill. The provision increased the maximum fine per day from $1,100 to $10,000 per day for illegal airport closures.

In September 2006, the city dropped all legal appeals and agreed to pay the $33,000 fine, as well as to repay the FAA for the $1 million of Airport Improvement Program (AIP_ funds that were used to demolish the airport and build Northerly Island Park.

Meigs Field’s saga serves as a warning whenever other airports are threatened. The message is clear: It could happen here.

“Remember Meigs Field!” has become the battle cry of endangered airports.

Santa Monica Airport (KSMO) and Reid-Hillview Airport (KRHV)—both in California—come to mind. Both airports date to the early days of aviation. When they were built, they were in farm fields away from the city. Today, they are surrounded by industrial and residential development. And both are facing threats of closure from their elected city and county officials.

The post The Cautionary Tale of the Destruction of Meigs Field appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Florida-based pilots Joseph Hurtuk, Ian Goldbaum, and Richard Golightly collaborated in the design of a specialty plate with the theme, “Support General Aviation.” Among their goals was highlighting the economic impact of aviation in the state, which ranks third in the U.S. for the total number of pilots, aircraft, and airports.  

The three pilots worked with Stacey Heaton, AOPA’s southern regional manager, to seek help from elected officials to promote the plate. State Representative Doug Bankson (R-District 39) and State Senator Gayle Harrell (R-District 83) played major roles in legislative efforts to gain House and Senate approval. The next stop for the plate is the governor’s desk, where it is expected to receive approval by the end of March, AOPA said.

“Special thanks go to representative Bankson and senator Harrell,” said Heaton. “The representative’s own passion for aviation and the senator’s recognition of our members’ passion for aviation made this effort possible.” 

After receiving the governor’s signature, the plate still has to go through a process to coordinate its distribution. Presales are set to begin October 1 with a requirement of 3,000 purchases before the state can begin turning out the plates for drivers. Proceeds from the sale of the specialty plates will go toward funding aviation education scholarships for Floridians, which will be managed through the Aerospace Center for Excellence in Lakeland, Florida.

The post Sales of Aviation License Plates to Begin in Florida Later This Year appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

President Joe Biden’s 2025 budget proposal would boost the current tax of 22 cents per gallon to $1.06 by 2030, raising an estimated $1.1 billion over the five years. The administration states business aircraft account for 7 percent of FAA airspace workload, but at the present time the current fuel tax only covers 1 percent of the revenue for the federal trust fund for aviation and airports. 

The proposal also includes a major funding increase for the FAA, including money to hire 2,000 air traffic controllers.

• READ MORE: Biden Administration Proposes Fivefold Jet Fuel Tax Hike For Bizjets

According to a background source on Biden’s recent State of the Union address, the administration wants to make private jet operators “pay their fair share.” In the speech itself Biden said he wanted “end tax breaks for big pharma, big oil, private jets, massive executive pay.” 

A coalition of aviation industry groups, however, is pushing back, contending the proposal is draconian and lacks supporting data to justify an increase that would prove detrimental to the small and midsize businesses that rely on business jets.

In a letter sent to Congress on Thursday,  leaders of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA), International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM), National Air Transportation Association (NATA), National Business Aviation Association (NBAA), NetJets Association of Shared Aircraft Pilots (NJASAP), and Vertical Aviation International (VAI) outlined their concerns with the plan.

“According to a 2018 Harris Poll, 85 percent of companies relying on an airplane to meet their transportation challenges are small and midsize enterprises,” the aviation coalition said. “The passengers aboard a business airplane are typically technicians, midlevel managers and customers, not C-suite executives.”

The Biden administration’s budget plan also seeks to modify the depreciation schedule on purchased aircraft from five to seven years to match it to the depreciation schedule of commercial airline aircraft.

“It is incongruous to compare the extensive aircraft fleet owned by a commercial airline and offered to the full marketplace for commercial service to the one or two planes owned by a company of a different industry with a different business model,” the coalition said, noting the five-year cost recovery rule applies to many other business assets.

“Reclassifying noncommercial aircraft without a broader look at all depreciation rules lacks valid policy rationale, would upset decades of sound legal precedent, and would negatively impact American businesses’ access to capital, job creation, and growth opportunity.”

The policy and regulatory proposals from the administration would harm business aviation, which also encompasses nonprofit agencies, agriculture, emergency response and air ambulance services, and law enforcement and government agencies, according to the aviation groups. 
“These vehicles facilitate efficient mobility for businesses to create jobs throughout our nation, particularly in communities underserved by commercial service,” the groups said.

The post Aviation Coalition Pushes Back on Biden Fuel Tax Hike Plan appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Maybe you’ve read Chapter 17 of the Pilot’s Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge and Chapter 11 of the Airplane Flying Handbook, learning about the dangers of spatial disorientation and runway illusions caused by the reduction of visual cues. Most of us read along the way, too, about the black hole approach, where a lack of visual cues on the ground make it challenging for the pilot to find the runway and fly a stable approach. Oddly enough, the other side of the black hole approach—the black hole departure—that can make takeoffs challenging and sometimes downright deadly does not receive the same amount of attention.

Perhaps it’s time that it did.

Accident at KVNC

On April 5, a commercial pilot flying a Piper Cherokee Lance took off from Venice Municipal Airport (KVNC) in Florida, destined for Albert Whitted Airport (KSPG) in St. Petersburg under a full moon. The airport sports two runways, 13/31 and 5/23. Noise-sensitive communities surround the airport, and the recommendation is that pilots use Runway 23 at night and follow a noise abatement procedure that has them maintain runway heading and climb to 1,000 feet msl at best rate of climb (VY) before heading on their way. The airport is located on the west coast of Florida, and Runway 23 puts the aircraft over the Gulf of Mexico.

The weather at the time of the flight was reported as 10 miles visibility and clear. However, security camera footage of the takeoff showed there was no discernible horizon over the dark waters of the Gulf.

According to the data track provided by the FAA, the aircraft reached an altitude of approximately 300 feet and a ground speed of about 103 knots then began a turn to the right and entered a descent. The aircraft hit the water at 136 knots and a vertical descent rate of approximately 3,000 fpm, killing the pilot and all three passengers.

While it will take several months for the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) to determine the probable cause of the accident, the black hole nature of the departure environment is already under review.

“This accident really drove home how insidious VFR night flight can be,” said the late Richard McSpadden, former Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) senior vice president and executive director of its Air Safety Institute (ASI).

Recently, the ASI took an in-depth look at this accident.

“The departure is more of a risk than the approach is, because on the approach the pilot is already on instruments,” said McSpadden in October 2023, explaining that during black hole approaches the pilot is carefully watching the airspeed indicator, heading indicator, attitude indicator, and altimeter to maintain situational awareness. “On departure, the pilot may not be expecting to be on instruments, then the darkness comes at them rather quickly—and they are not ready to transition.”

McSpadden flew the Runway 23 departure at KVNC at night to have a better understanding of the challenge. “When you take off, the coastline is at an angle,” he said. “The way the coastline falls away, you are truly completely dark really quickly, as you are over the water.”

Many pilots don’t recognize the challenge of the black hole departure, according to David St. George, the exec-utive director of the Society of Aviation and Flight Educators, a 21,000-hour charter pilot, and a designated pilot examiner. “Taking off into a black hole (dark night) is like flying into the belly of a whale—no references,” St. George said. One of the scenarios he uses for check rides is having the applicant plan a night flight that includes a black hole departure, such as out of Tampa Executive Airport (KVDF) in Florida. “First, to see if they plan a direct flight over water,” St. George said, “second, to see if they detect the hazards of departure. The airman certification standards are all about risk management.”

Over-water departures aren’t the only challenging ones, said St. George, adding that departures over dark and featureless mountainous terrain also pose challenges. McSpadden suggested that instructors prepare learners for these situations by teaching them to use the instruments during night flight because “the lack of horizon can be disorientating, and if it happens at low altitude, you are in serious trouble because the surprise factor limits reaction time.” He believed pilots should practice black hole departures in an aviation training device so they understand how to use the instruments to maintain aircraft control.

Taking McSpadden’s advice, I decided to give it a try. Using the NTSB preliminary report as a guide, I re-created the accident at KVNC in a Redbird FMX advanced aviation training device, right down to the time, date, and weather. I used a large, black tarp to block out exterior light.

McSpadden was correct—when the aircraft passes over the shoreline and the lights fall away, it is disorienting, and you need to get on the gauges quickly, just as you do for an IFR departure.

Practice Going on the Gauges

Spatial disorientation is defined as the lack of orientation with regard to the position, attitude, or movement of the airplane in space. Pilots are prone to spatial disorientation if they rely on their vestibular system (the organs in the inner ear), the somatosensory system (also known as the “seat-of-the-pants” sensation), and visual system without identifying a horizon.

In short, your body becomes confused between acceleration forces that result from gravity and maneuvering the aircraft. This can, and often does, lead to spatial disorientation. You may feel like the airplane is in straight-and-level flight when actually it is nose-high attitude and turning to the left.

Just as pilots train to identify and recover from unusual attitudes, it can behoove you to practice experiencing spatial disorientation and flying the aircraft by instruments. Do this with the help of an instructor and at appropriate altitude. You could put on a view-limiting device then close your eyes and tilt your head forward while the instructor puts the aircraft through climbs, turns, and descents to ensure you’re appropriately disoriented. Then the instructor can have you attempt to hold the aircraft on an assigned heading while climbing at V_Y. An exercise like this demonstrates how the body can lie to you, and it gives you confidence in using the instruments.

• READ MORE: Flying at Night: What You Need to Know

Safely in the Black Hole

There are a handful of tips you can follow to help mitigate risk when you face a potential black hole departure, though these practices and procedures help any takeoff profile. First, before you taxi onto the runway, make sure the altimeter is set to the field elevation.

In your regular flying, practice V_X and V_Y climbs in day VFR conditions, noting the pitch angles on the attitude indicator for reference at night.

Study the sectional, airport guide, and Google Earth images of the area around the airport before you take off for better situational awareness. You can also use tools in apps like ForeFlight and Garmin Pilot to visualize terrain and obstacles in unfamiliar areas. Note the elevation of obstacles near the airport and determine what altitude the aircraft will have to be at to safely pass over them.

This last tip was impressed upon me as a CFI candidate taking off from Norm Grier Field (S36), a nontowered airport in Kent, Washington. The runway, 15/33, measures 3,288 feet by 40 feet with low intensity runway lights. The airport is surrounded by 30- to 40-foot trees, and on the north and south ends there are power lines that run perpendicular to the runway.

“You need to be at 650 feet to clear the wires,” my CFI told me.

He was correct.

Getting Out of the Hole

• Check that the altimeter is set to field elevation before takeoff.
• Practice climbs at V_x and V_y in day VFR conditions.
• Study the lay of the land via the sectional, Google Earth, ForeFlight terrain awareness, or other apps.
• Note the elevation of obstacles and high-terrain points in the departure path—and all
  quadrants in case of an ATC vector or traffic avoidance course change.
• If you have access to a desktop flight sim or AATD, set up a black hole departure at one of the airports noted (KVNC, KSPG, or KVDF) and experience the process.

This feature first appeared in the October 2023/Issue 942 of FLYING’s print edition.

The post Respect the Darkness of the Black Hole Departure appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The study looked at flight training risks and innovations from 2000 to 2019 and took note of the number of accidents and their causes.

According to the report, loss of aircraft control comprises 54 percent of the fatal accidents that occur during instructional flight. Most of those are attributed to stall/spin events and happen in the pattern, often during a go-around, when the aircraft is at low altitude, high power, and high angle of attack. Overshooting the base-to-final turn has also been identified as a situation that puts a pilot at risk.

In both instances, a stall/spin event is not recoverable because of low altitude.

“The aviation industry has done an excellent job of stall/spin awareness when overshooting base to final,” said Robert Geske, AOPA Air Safety Institute manager of aviation safety analysis. “Similarly, we should stress stall/spin risk during takeoff, climbout, and go-around, and emphasize energy awareness and management during those flight phases.”

In the past several years there has been increased awareness of risk factors in aviation, and flight training is getting safer, according to Andrew Walton, Liberty University School of Aerospace director of safety.

“Sustained efforts by the FAA, NTSB [National Transportation Safety Board], manufacturers, and the flight training community have resulted in a fatal accident rate that is now roughly half of what it was at the start of the century,” said Walton, “From 2000 to 2004, the fatal accident rate averaged 0.49 per hundred thousand hours and decreased to 0.26 in the last five years of the study. However, there remains plenty of work to do, particularly in mitigating the risk of loss of control in flight.”

Other Accident Causal Factors

Accidents attributed to a loss of control during in-flight maneuvering continue to be a factor.

“The FAA’s decision to improve stall horn awareness by changing the slow flight maneuver in the airman certification standards (ACS) may have something to do with this,” the study suggested. “Instead of teaching the learner to perform slow flight with the stall warning activated the entire time and terminating the maneuver with a full stall, the FAA update has learners recovering at the first indication of stall, with more emphasis on recognizing the factors that lead to a stall and maintaining control during slow flight.”

Midair collisions were found to be the second-leading cause of fatal instructional accidents from 2000 to 2019. According to the study, 70 percent of those occurred outside the airport environment, with the majority happening at an altitude between 1,000 and 2,000 feet.

However, the number of midair collisions decreased, which researchers noted coincides with the introduction of ADS-B into the training fleet.

Controlled flight into terrain (CFIT) was listed as the third-leading cause of fatal instructional accidents, although it was noted there was a slight decrease in the overall number.

“Reduced visibility continues to play a role in most of the CFIT accidents, with 13 of the 19 accidents occurring at night and/or in IMC conditions,” the study said. “CFIT accidents largely occurred during maneuvering, followed by enroute and approach.”

• READ MORE: Aviation Safety Report Offers Blueprint During Flight Instruction

Other revelations from the research were that the majority of CFIT accidents happened at night in visual meteorological conditions, and when they happened in daylight, it was often due to inadvertent flight into instrument meteorological conditions or when the pilot was practicing emergency procedures or a missed approach and lost situational awareness, specifically their proximity to terrain.

Fuel mismanagement remains a causal factor in aviation accidents, although the study seemed to indicate that low-fuel alerting systems in more technically advanced aircraft have helped reduce the instances of fuel exhaustion. However, engine failure due to fuel starvation still occurred and was the result of the pilot’s failure to switch fuel tanks or not having the fuel selector in the detent, which stopped fuel from reaching the engine.

Accidents due to component failure of the engine ranked fifth on the list. According to the study, there were 14 events attributed to this, with seven being blamed on improper maintenance, including a fuel filter installed backward another attributed to a carburetor’s missing cotter pin, and one due to poor magneto installation. Additionally, two engines failed suddenly—one due to an exhaust valve failure and one because of a corroded mixture cable that sheared during flight.

Changes in Training

The study also looked at the changes in flight training that may have affected the reduction in accidents. For example, the FAA updated the airman certification standards that required applicants to demonstrate risk management and aeronautical decision-making skills.

Ultimately, the results of the study will be used as a means to develop strategies to mitigate risk and prevent accidents in the future.

The complete report can be viewed here.

The post Is Flight Training Getting Safer? appeared first on FLYING Magazine.