Cessna Aircraft, a division of Textron, continues to drag earnings for Textron down as the company continues its efforts to restructure.  So far over 4,600 of the 6,200 persons laid off by Textron have been at Cessna Aircraft as demand for its aircraft continues to decline.

If memory serves me right general aviation has usually been the last to feel the effects of an economic slowdown, and the last to recover.  I would guess that this is because of the long lead time between aircraft sales and aircraft deliveries. Aircraft manufacturers are not able to produce vehicles as quickly as say an automobile manufacturer.

Sales at Cessna have fallen by some 38% while the Bell helicopter unit of Textron continues to experience growth, in large part because of military helicopter acquisitions. 

In the meantime the CEO for Piper Aircraft, James Bass, said the effect of the U.S. government’s “assault” on general aviation will linger much longer. His remarks, made Tuesday at the Sun ’n’ Fun Fly-In in Lakeland, Fla., were a biting criticism of government officials and media outlets that are spreading the off-base message that “private aircraft equal corporate excess…that’s the new equation, and Washington has made it a sound bite that no politician seems able to resist.

Given the excesses by our government and its leaders it is difficult to swallow the criticism of a critical part of our transportation system. Political retoric to curry favor with an unsuspecting public to carry out the redistribution of wealth in the United States by an out of control administration is leading our country down a path which many believe will result in the United States losing its leading role in the world economy.

Just last night President Obama stated again that this is "the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression", a statement which is completely false.  Unemployment is no where near where it was in the Great Depression, and while economic growth is negative interest rates are no where near where they were under Carter.

It is time for more conversation about facts and less false statements to further frighten an already frightened public.  Someone please stand up and tell the truth!  We need general aviation, and so do the airlines. There are not enought pilots in the military to replace all of the retirements coming, so don't be surprised if the new wave of pilots for the airlines are not Americans.

Until next time keep your wings straight and level Hersch!

JetAviator7

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return."

The accidents in Buffalo of a Dash-8 Q-400 aircraft and the Pilatius PC-12 near Butte, MT do not appear to be as simple and straight forward as some of us originally thought. 

It appears from the flight recorders of the Dash 8 that all aircraft systems were operating normally, including the stick shaker and the deviation of flight controls.  Even though ice was present on the airframe it does not appear that alone can account for this accident.

With respect to the PC-12, the mystery starts with why the aircraft diverted from Bozeman, the original destination, to Butte where the accident occurred.  Out of CG and over gross seem to be ruled out despite the fact that there were 14 on board this 10 place seating as 7 of the passengers were small children.

We can expect that the NTSB will blame the crew, at least in part, for both of these accidents.  The NTSB may also never know what the cause of the accidents were, but they will certainly try.

All of this brings to mind the fact that aviation is a dangerous endeavor.  I remember when we first started flying business jets it was easy to become complacent because we had a lot more power than we had in piston aircraft, and the performance of these aircraft were spectacular compared to piston twins.  Staying alert and focused was sometimes easy to ignore.

The truth is no pilot would ever endager passengers, let alone him/herself, so we can be confident that if crews make mistakes it is not on purpose.  I hope the NTSB can figure out what happened, and that we can all learn from those results.

Until next time keep your wings straight and level Hersch!

JetAviator7

The three worst things to hear in the cockpit:
The second officer says, "Oh shit!"
The first officer says, "I have an idea!"
The captain say, "Hey, watch this!"

— anon.

One of the problems with airframe icing and the FAA definitions is - how do you know the difference between intensities in flight?  The definitions are unclear, and lead to confusion on the part of pilots. 

For example, if an unprotected aircraft gets into icing does the pilot continue to fly until a problem or hazard occurs?  How can pilots tell the difference between trace and light icing if neither presents a problem or hazard for at least an hour?  How would a pilot know if the intensity changes?

If deicing boots are used and ice removed, how do pilots determine what the next icing condition, if any, is?  How can icing ever be severe for aircraft certified for flight into known icing conditions when such certification means the ice protection equipment will not be overwhelmed?

When it comes to 14 CFR Certification and Operating Rules there is a problem between the presumption of flightworthiness of aircraft that are certificated for flight into icing conditions?  14 CFR 135.227(d) permits aircraft to fly into severe icing conditions if the aircraft is certificated for flight in known icing conditions.  However, according to the definition of severe icing considers such icing to be impenetrable, even for protected aircraft.

Present icing intensity definitions contain nothing that can be calculated or measured.  Therefore they are practically useless.

In the final analysis anyone flying in known icing conditions is on their own.  The pilot in command is ultimately responsible for the safety of the aircraft, passengers and crew, so if a problem arises and there is injury or death to passengers and/or crew, the pilot will surely be blamed, at least in part.

So if you fly in icing conditions be aware that you do so at your own peril.  As an FAA Air Safety Inspector told me recently, "We're not happy until you'e not happy!"  Keep that in mind!

Until next time keep your wings straight and level Hersch!

JetAviator7

When it comes to testing new aircraft or determining maximum performance, pilots like to talk about "pushing the envelope." They're talking about a two dimensional model: the bottom is zero altitude, the ground; the left is zero speed; the top is max altitude; and the right, maximum velocity, of course. So, the pilots are pushing that upper-right-hand corner of the envelope. What everybody tries not to dwell on is that that's where the postage gets canceled, too.

— Admiral Rick Hunter, U.S. Navy.

Today China crash landed a satellite on the surface of the moon, the first step towards a manned landing on the moon by Chinese Astronauts in 2012.  After the U.S. landed on the moon we decided to stay in earth orbit, and - hard to believe - it has been 35 years since we were last on the moon.

What ever happened to American ingenuity and our constant push to advance our frontiers?  It seems we have lost our way, and no longer are willing to make serious commitments or take on large challenges any more. 

And this seems to be affecting our passion for flying airplanes.  Student starts are measured by the FAA by looking at the number of 3rd class physicals issued with a Student Pilot license attached.  According to FAA records on its web site, Student Pilot licenses in 2007 were 84,339, the latest date for which records are available.  You can bet they are lower now!

And with Congress criticizing the use of business aircraft and making it a requirement to rid companies taking TARP money of their aircraft, aviation continues to backslide right along with the rest of the economy.  It seems to me that we need to reintroduce positive thinking now more than ever.

What do you think?

Until next time keep your wings straight and level Hersch!

JetAviator7

Tower: Have a good trip.
Pilot: Make that a round trip . . .

— Lloyd Lace, USAAF, 1944. Said before departing on C-46 missions, flying over 'The Hump' (China - Burma - India).

I apologize for not publishing for the last week, but due to an illness I have been unable to provide any posts.  The good news is - I'm back.....

If you haven't had a chance yet, you should take a few minutes and peruse the "No Plane, No Gain" campaign website at:

"No Plane, No Gain"

As I have been saying for some time, business aviation, and business jets in particular, are business tools and not luxuries of the very rich.  Truth be known all CEOs seem to be painted with a rather broad brush while for the most part CEOs are smart enough to know they have to perform or the businesses they are running will fail and they won't have any jobs.  Moreover, the number of CEOs receiving these huge payouts are on Wall Street, not on Main Street.

I know a lot of business owners, and most own corporate aircraft.  My experience is these aircraft are used as tools to grow and manage their businesses, not as toys for the very rich. Most of the CEOs and business owners I know can't and don't spend that much time living the life of luxury.

In fact, you would not envy most of them.  For example, one company President I am doing some consulting for right now works 12 hours a day, 7 days a week.  He has a travel schedule that would kill a man half his age, and he is building his business not sitting on the French Riviera but working hard every day.

So the next time someone complains to you about biz jets tell them to go to the No Plane, No Gain website and see the stories of some of these businessmen who actually use these aircraft.  They might be surprised.

Until next time keep your wings straight and level Hersch!

JetAviator7

The "airport" was a tn stripe
in a field of grass;

I remember pilot that trip
when you flew low for me
so I could see how the confileds
were laid out -

Do you remember pilot my friend
how we skimmed the yellow miles
on the wings of an afternoon,

You shoulting to me in the sun
-isn't it peaceful here
-isn't it peaceful here?

- E.F. Weisslitz

Yesterday I posted an email I got regarding US Air Flight 1549, and as you all know by now there was an accident last night with a -8.  What a tragedy after such a prolonged period without any fatal airline accidents.

Yesterday's post brought a lot of comments, so in that same spirit let me pass on the cover email in which I received that information:

"THIS CAME TO ME FROM A PILOT WHO OBVIOUSLY DOESN'T LIKE FRENCH MADE AIRPLANES..........................  
 
 
The press is having a field day turning "Sully" Sullenberger into a Lindbergh-like hero.  All credit to him, and his copilot, but, and they will be the first to tell you, they just did their jobs.  They did them well, but when your job entails holding the lives of hundreds of people in your hands every time you fly then doing your job well is the minimum acceptable standard.
 
I don't, and I doubt if more than just a handful of other pilots, begrudge Sully his day in the sun. What I am concerned about is how the real cause of this accident is being glossed over and, on the part of Airbus Industries, actually lied about.  There are stories circulating now about how the flight computers helped "save" the aircraft by insuring the ditching was done properly.  The stories themselves are absolute nonsense and the contention that the flight computers ensured the proper attitude was maintained for ditching is pure fabrication.
 
So what's wrong with Airbus wanting to steal a little glory for their computerized drones?  There is a good chance it was the computers that put the aircraft into the water!
 
I readily admit I heartily dislike Airbus because of their design philosophy, I will never set foot in an A-380 (the superjumbo) as I consider it a really bad accident looking for a place to happen.  I am not much happier with the rest of them but especially the A-320 which has killed several folks, while the engineers try to perfect software that can replace a human brain that has a talent for flying.  Something that I, rather naturally, don't believe possible.
 
It is well known that I love Boeings.  I love to fly them.  Beyond the sheer joy of just flying the Boeing I also believe in their design philosophy that the last word has to be with the pilot, not the machine.  No pilot, no matter how hard he tries, can turn an A-320 upside down.  It just won't do it.  Airbus believes it has designed a computer that is smarter than a pilot (the evidence of dead bodies scattered around Mulhouse, France to the contrary) and gives the last word to the computer.  If a pilot moves the controls so as to turn the airplane upside down the computer will refuse.
 
I can turn the B777 upside down.  Once I get it upside down, if I let go of the controls, it will turn itself rightside up (smart airplane).  I don't believe I will ever be in a situation where I will need to turn the airplane upside down, but I feel good knowing I have the control to do it.  That's why I'm not really kidding when I say "if it ain't Boeing, I ain't going".

The truth is airplane manufacturers, and the government with its UAVs, is moving forward with unmanned aircraft and all of this great computer driven technology, but I sure hope they don't forget the human element!  After all, its humans that build these things and ultimately humans are responsible for what happens with them.

Until next time keep your wings straight and level Hersch!

JetAviator7

To invent a plane is nothing.
To build one is something.
To fly is everything.
-- Otto Lilienthal

Without taking anything away from Capt. Sullenberger you need to read this email which came through a close friend of mine who is heavily involved in the airline business. 

As you read this please do not take the negative about the US Air crew the wrong way - what this is about is the difference about the engines between a Boeing and an Airbus is true.

Here is the email in its entirety:

"What follows is an e-mail from a retired US Air Pilot who has flown the Airbus A320 just like the one that ended up in the Hudson .  It was written in response to a friend asking if he knew the pilot who did the ditching.  It is most illuminating:

 

Dear Crash,

 

I don't know him.  I've seen him in the crew room and around the system but never met him.  He was former PSA and I was former Piedmont and we never had the occasion to fly together.

 

The dumb shit press just won't leave this alone.  Most airliner ditchings aren't very successful since they take place on the open ocean with wind, rough seas, swells and rescue boats are hours or days away.  This one happened in fresh smooth water, landing with the current and the rescue boats were there picking people up while they were still climbing out of the airplane.  It also happened on a cold winter day when all the pleasure boats were parked.  Had this happened in July it would be pretty hard not to whack a couple of little boats.  Sully did a nice job but so would 95% of the other pilots in the industry.  You would have done a nice job.

 

Don't be surprised if the Airbus fly by wire computers didn't put a perfectly good airplane in the water.  In a older generation airplane like the 727 or 737 300/400 the throttles are hooked to the fuel controllers on the engine by a steel throttle cable just like a TBM or a Comanche.  On the Airbus nothing in the cockpit is real.  Everything is electronic.  The throttles, rudder and brake pedals and the side stick are hooked to rheostats who talk to a computer who talks to a electric hydraulic servo valve which in turn hopefully moves something.

 

In a older generation airplane when you hit birds the engines keep screaming or they blow up but they don't both roll back to idle simultaneously like happened to Flt.

1549. All it would take is for bird guts to plug a pressure sensor or knock the pitot probe off or plug it and the computers would roll the engines back to idle thinking they were over boosting because the computers were getting bad data.  The Airbus is a real pile of shit.  I don't like riding on them.  Google Airbus A320 Crash at the Paris Airshow in 1998.  Watch the video of an airbus A320 crash into a forest because the computers wouldn't allow a power increase following a low pass.  The computers wouldn't allow a power increase because they determined that the airspeed was too low for the increase requested so the computers didn't give them any.  Pushing the throttles forward in a Airbus does nothing more than request a power increase from the computer.  If the computer doesn't like all the airplane and engine parameters you don't get a power increase.  Airbus blamed the dead crew since they couldn't defend themselves.  A Boeing would still be flying."

As an Air Force pilot Capt. Sullenberger flew in the U.S. Air Force, and if you would like to know what kind of training these pilots undergo, I suggest you watch this 48 minute video:

This incredible video shows you what life is like in combat.  If you take the time to watch, you will discover where his calm came from, and how he was able to concentrate on the task at hand.

Military training is, of course, excellent for teaching pilots to properly task and how to handle the unexpected.  In the civilian world we don't get that advantage.

What we do get in the civilian world is the world's best simulator and flight training. The difference lies in the fact that a military pilot is concentrating on staying alive all the time.  Note that during this video you see the pilots walking the runway at dawn to check for any debris that might disable their aircraft.  Clearly they understand the dangers of their profession.

As you listen to Capt. Sullenberger you begin to understand the intense desire he had to do his job without flaw, and how much it distressed himself to find that he will never complete his career with a perfect record.  But, I would argue he WILL complete his career with a perfect record.  He may have lost an aircraft, but he did not lose any lives.  Would anyone trade even one life for an aircraft?

Let me know what you think.

Until next time keep your wings straight and level Hersch!

JetAviator7

Firewall: (1) The part of the airplane specially designed to allow all heat and exhaust to enter the cockpit. (2) The act of pulling 69 inches of manifold pressure, out of an engine designed to pull 60.

— Bob Stevens, 'There I Was.

As we all know Capt. Sullenberger was interviewed on 60 Minutes last night and it was certainly a fascinating interview.  He is the consummate professional pilot and  demonstrates the best of our aviation community.

As I scan through the aviation blogs on the internet I am amazed at some of the comments that are left regarding this hero and his accomplishment.  One comment stated that "I have MS Flight Simulator and this was no big deal."  Man, he sure doesn't understand anything.

Other articles talk about how Capt. Sullenberger is part of a "Dying Breed", and how newer crews have been trained not in the military but at schools like Western Michigan University and that they are computer geeks, more or less.  They seem to think that these new pilots see it most as a job, and that their interest is more about money than the thrill of aviation.

I would suggest that these folks need to meet a few of these pilots - I have.  We all share a true love of flying, whether it be in a J-3 Cub or an Airbus 320 - it is all about flying!

I find it fascinating that they don't bother to interview anybody, nor go and meet and fly with any of them, yet can pass judgement on them.  Fortunately pilots are more interesting than these articles written about them.

Until next time keep your wings straight and level Hersch!

JetAviator7

Unseen Fire

This is a damned unnatural sort of war;
The pilot sits among the clouds, quite sure
About the values he is fighting for;
He cannot hear beyond his veil of sound,
He cannot see the people on the ground;
he only knows that on the sloping map
Of sea-fringed town and country people creep
Like ants — and who cares if ants laugh or weep?

— R. N. Currey

The pilot credited with "The Miracle on the Hudson", Capt. Sullenberger, is one cool cat.  We all have seen him on television lately - the Super Bowl, news programs, getting the keys to the city of New York, etc. 

But imagine for a moment that you are piloting an aircraft which has a gross takeoff weight of 169,750lb and you fly through a flock of birds (probably geese) losing power in both engines while responsible for the safety and well being of 155 souls. I don't know about you, but my guess is that my heart would beat a bit faster and my mind would be wound up tighter than a drum.

Well, take a few moments and listen to the tower tapes:

As you listen you will find how professional not only the pilots were, but the air traffic controllers as well.  Think how they must have felt as they helplessly waited to see what happened to this aircraft, the passengers and the crew.

If you ever wondered how a REAL professional pilot behaves, then this tape should give you great confidence in the men and women who navigate the airways of the world.

On 60 Minutes Sullenberger is asked what was going through his mind while this was happening  ...

His answer - "I can't believe this is happening.. this doesn't happen to me."

Until next time keep your wings straight and level Hersch!

JetAviator7