Air France Concorde Trial – Justice or Judicial Farce?

The following was written for Wings Magazine.

Photo from http://www.concordesst.com/

Back in the September/October 2008 issue of Wings, I devoted my regular column to some comments and thoughts on the trial starting in France regarding the July 2000 crash of an Air France Concorde. The tragic event killed all on board and four unfortunate bystanders on the ground. As many see it, the event heralded the beginning of the end of flight operations for the first and only commercial supersonic airliner.

At the time I asked quite simply if someone could please explain France’s judicial system and airline industry to me? With the release and announcement on December 6th, 2010 of the results of this trial (or what they called a trial) – I find myself asking the same question again. Here is why - the French judicial system have announced that they have found Continental Airlines and one of its mechanics guilty of manslaughter in the trial. According to the Associated Press (AP) report, “The court in the Paris suburb of Pontoise ruled the Houston-based airline must pay a $265,000 (U.S.) fine, and one of its mechanics, John Taylor, must pay $2,650 over the crash of an Air France Concorde. Mr. Taylor was also handed a 15-month suspended prison sentence. All other defendants, including Mr. Taylor's now-retired supervisor Stanley Ford, were acquitted in the verdict. The court also ordered Continental to pay 1.08-million euros to Air France for moral damages and damage to Air France's reputation.”

Why you ask? Well, according to the report the presiding judge confirmed investigators' long-held belief that titanium debris dropped by a Continental DC-10 onto the runway at Charles de Gaulle airport before the Concorde took off was to blame. Investigators said debris gashed the Concorde's tire, propelling bits of rubber into the fuel tanks and sparking a fire.

And why Taylor? Well as the court sees it, Taylor should not have used titanium, a harder metal than usual, to build a piece for the DC-10 that is known as a wear strip. He was also accused of improperly installing the piece that fell onto the runway.

Now here is the really interesting part - three former French officials also facing manslaughter charges were acquitted in the whole matter. According to AP, Continental's defence lawyer, Olivier Metzner, has confirmed the carrier will appeal. He denounced a ruling that he called "patriotic" for sparing the French defendants and convicting only the Americans. "This is a ruling that protects only the interests of France. This has strayed far from the truth of law and justice," he said. "This has privileged purely national interests.

The AP report goes on to say that Continental spokesman Nick Britton, in a statement, echoed that sentiment, and said the airline disagreed with the "absurd finding" against it and Taylor. "Portraying the metal strip as the cause of the accident and Continental and one of its employees as the sole guilty parties shows the determination of the French authorities to shift attention and blame away from Air France," he said, noting that Air France was state-run at the time.

Roland Rappaport, a lawyer for the family of Concorde pilot Christian Marty and a pilots union, said the verdict was "incomprehensible" and asked why blame was heaped on Continental mechanics when French officials were aware of weaknesses on the Concorde around two decades before the crash. "This trial made clear that the Concorde, this superb plane, suffered from severe technical insufficiencies, problems with the fuel tanks that were known since '79," he said outside the courtroom.

Photo from http://www.concordesst.com/

The prosecution also requested a two-year suspended sentence for Henri Perrier, former head of the Concorde program at former plane maker Aerospatiale. It argued for acquitting French engineer Jacques Herubel and Claude Frantzen, former chief of France's civil aviation authority. While France's aviation authority concluded the crash could not have been foreseen, a judicial inquiry said the plane's fuel tanks lacked sufficient protection from shock and said officials had known about the problem for more than 20 years.

So there you have it – justice (or lack thereof) has been served. It certainly fixes the problem now doesn’t it? Yup, those remaining Concorde and DC-10 aircraft in service will get fixed accordingly to ensure this never happens again. Engineers around the world will be jumping right on that one.

And what have really learned from this? Well I would offer that if you are going to have an aircraft incident or crash, better not do so in France. They are in no way to blame and it will take up to ten years to assign who is – long after the chance for a proper trial or learning experience is possible. But they will assign blame – and after all, is that not what counts the most?

Out and About - Check out Collingwood by air . . .

Canada is full of great, smaller airports. These fields usually offer the same world-class service and support as the big international hubs – but do so with a regional and hometown feel that makes them truly individual. The Collingwood Regional Airport (CNY3) is one such example.

Located in some of the most incredible vacation/get-a-way space for those from the city, this small, progressive airport has a lot to offer. Started in 1967 by local aviation enthusiasts, Collingwood was originally a 2500 ft. grass strip. Current Airport Manager Pierre Lajoie has been in charge of things at CNY3 for 14 years. “Every few years, they added more length to the runway” he says “until it eventually reached its current, fully paved 5000 foot length.” Pierre points out that they still have a 2500 grass strip in operation.



The airport is owned and operated by the Region and services the communities of Collingwood, Clearview Township, Wasaga and the Town of Blue Mountain. Last year, they received some government stimulus funding and used it to resurface the runway and taxiways. Pierre points out that regardless of season or weather, they are renowned for their clean and well maintained landing strip, taxiways and ramps. “We thrive on service” he says.

Collingwood is home to 80 based aircraft and has a total of 45 hangars - from individual T-units to larger 120X100 ft facilities. The airport is on-call 24/7 and is an approved Canpass location that also offers full customs on special occasions – such as the Wayne Gretzky Charity Golf Tournament held this past June. The airport records an average of 14000 movements per year and special events are no challenge. “We had 20 corporate jets on the ramp this year during the Gretzky event. We have a tug and tow bars and just move folks around to accommodate their fueling needs, arrivals and departures” says Lajoie.

During the summer, golf charters are a popular business driver (there are some great courses in the area) along with regular cottage weekenders and those looking to simply enjoy the region. In the winter, skiing and resort visits take over from golf. The airport employs five regular staff for FBO and airport operations. There are a couple of AMO operations also based on the field along with recreational focused firms and groups including COPA. The main airport terminal was completed in 2006 and offers a very nicely appointed lounge, restaurant, washrooms and some tenant office space. Clean, neat and very well kept, you would be hard pressed to know it was not just completed. But then again as Lajoie points out – they are in the service business and take it very seriously. And it shows!

Collingwood Regional Airport is just one of the great little airports in Canada worth a visit.

What you learn when you are out and about . . .

Canada is rich in aviation history. You do not have to go to just the big city aviation museums to find it. Look around in small communities as you travel and you will be surprised just what there is to discover.



Just one example is the Edenvale Classic Aircraft Foundation (ECAF). If you are travelling from Barrie, to Stayner in Ontario, you sort of fall upon this airport. In fact it just suddenly appears next to the road. Sitting out front is a sign promoting Tigermoth rides. The group has six classic aircraft in total. Half are current restoration projects housed in the clean, bright and modern hangar the group call home. Visitors are allowed an up close and personal interaction with the collection and get the chance to see aircraft being rebuilt using original materials and methods.

The pride of their flying fleet, the “Tiger”, was manufactured in England in 1943 and taken on strength by the RAF in March of 1944. In 1946 it transferred to the Armee de L' Air (French Air Force). Then civil registration in France from 1956 to 1973, re-registered in Ireland in 1974 for about two years and then it reappeared in San Marcos, Texas. In 1981 the aircraft travelled once again, this time northward to. After passing through two Canadian owners it became the property of ECAF in 1991 and today is used by them for pleasure flights and attending aviation ground displays through the summer months.

Bob McIntyre (right) and fellow ECAF member.

Bob McIntyre is one of the ECAF pilots. He is best known as broadcast journalist - currently the weather specialist for Barrie, Ontario station A Channel. Bob called this station “home” since 1972 and is well known in the area. When he is not telling folks how to best plan their outdoor time, Bob pursues his real passion – flying. His father was a pilot in the Second World War and Bob has shared that love for many years. Today it is not uncommon to see him around the skies of Simoce and Clearwater regions in Audrey (the name the ECAF has given their Tigermoth). Bob says "We fly this bi-plane just as it was during the war, no canopy, no flaps, no brakes and off a short grass field. It is a real blast to fly a plane my Dad flew over 65 years ago.”

You never know just who or what you might find when you check out these local airfields. Care to visit? Contact the ECAF at Hangar F, Edenvale Aerodrome, 5195 Hwy 26 E., Stayner ON, L0M 1S0. 705-818-2223

iPad in Aviation

Hawker 700 Cockpit Revamp by MC2 - the only thing
missing is the iPad EFB - which is now a reality!

I scored my iPad the first week they were available. The things this unit can do continue to amaze not only me, but everyone I know who has one. Here is a short piece I recently wrote for EMS Satcom on the subject. It appears in their latest comapny newsletter. FYI - like everything to do with the iPad, even more has become available since this was written just a few short weeks ago.

iPad - It is just the beginning!

I finally got my hands on my iPad! Within days of the Canadian launch I hit the store at just the right time. Being an iPhone user helped a lot and I knew just what I wanted. No sales pitch needed. Maybe 15 minutes later it was a drive back to the home office and start discovering my new business tool.


Now notice that I said business tool – not toy. The “what a cute toy” comment comes out too often. While granted there are games for this, and good ones at that, mine is first and foremost for work. Hands off to everyone else please!

The iPad, like all Apple products, is easy and manageable to get started. If you already have an “app” loaded device and an iTunes account, just about everything transfers. But for those of us who were seeking an alternative to the laptop, notebook or tablet, iPad has a whole world of purpose designed apps to make work and specifically aviation a lot more techno friendly. The list just keeps growing! Doing a “Google” search gets you lots to review but the one of the most complete and user focused sites is called AviatorApps.com. When you add in the apps that are iPhone/iTouch focused (and most of these will work on the iPad) you now have roughly 400 aviation apps to choose from. This list includes all types of fuel calculators, checklists and weather support aids plus several good flight following ones.

Now granted some of the apps are strictly US oriented today - but that is changing. For example, High-Quality Radar and Preflight Planning Intelligence is now available from Weather Decision Technologies (WDT) and ForeFlight . They have incorporated Canadian data into their ForeFlight Mobile 3 HD app. This provides information and flight support for student, private, commercial, business aviation, and military pilots. The feed is directly from Environment Canada and the graphics are clear, bright, zoomable and provide indicators for lightning, hail, mesocyclones, echo top height and storm motion vectors. And of course because the iPad uses a proven and reliable WiFi system, the data can be constantly updated via aircraft broadband systems while in flight.

Other known names coming into the iPad world include Jeppesen and Cessna. First there is Jeppesen Mobile TC (the "TC" stands for terminal charts). This app allows users to view and search terminal charts and interact with them using tools like "favorites." It's available to JeppView electronic navigation charting service subscription customers at no additional charge. Jeppesen plans to use feedback from Mobile TC users as a development guide for future mobile applications. You can also find Jeppeson on Facebook now. The JeppDirect page supports its JeppDirect.com product sales website by sharing promotions and community experiences.

As for Cessna, they recently announced their iFlite for Single-Engine Aircraft app. iFlite is a mobile data system populated with critical flight information and planning features. With it, pilots can instantly access up-to-the-minute weather images, plan routes and check landing status. Checklists and Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) also are available along with pilot training videos. With the iFlite app, pilots will have access to performance calculations and Pilot Operating Handbook (POH) subscriptions and will also be able to file flight plans and have access to Cessna checklists from the devices. Now while this is currently just for their Single-Engine aircraft, it is easy to predict where things will go from here.

While it is without question early days yet, the iPad is making a mark in the aviation world. It is light, has good battery time, great graphics and is WiFi. And when you are not working with it – you can download a good book or movie and keep yourself entertained.

Wi-Fi 101

I recently wrote a "white paper" for Mid-Canada Mod Center on some facts and myths about adding Wi-Fi capability to the aircraft cabin.

 Wi-Fi - Fact and Fiction


The term Wi-Fi is by no means new or unknown to most of us today. The technology is in wide use from the home to office, from the shopping mall to the café, most airport lounges and even in public areas of common city streets. We are now quite comfortable with the concept and the devices that are supported by it. It has become common and considered normal in our daily activities and communication models.

Start by getting the Common Terms Defined…

In general terms Wi-Fi, WLAN and Internet are not directly transposable - but for many, when they first come to chat about adding this capability to their aircraft, think that they are. Here are basic definitions and differences.

Generally, the terms Wi-Fi and WLAN share many common elements and could be considered interchangeable. Wi-Fi is a standard that is widely used for Wireless Local Area Networks (WLAN). The Wi-Fi standard generally adopted by the computer industry is IEEE 802.11. The commonly used standard has a few sub-categories; 802.11A, 802.11B, 802.11G and although not yet formally adopted, the 802.11N standard (which is much faster, has greater range and has been adopted by several manufacturers by using IEEE's draft 802.11N specification).

WLAN basically links two or more devices using some form of wireless distribution and then in turn a connection through an access point to the internet. Lastly, Broadband enables passengers to use Wi-Fi-enabled laptops and smartphones for e-mail and “light Internet services” in flight. When you are discussing adding Wi-Fi capability to your aircraft, the resulting hardware and system will use one or a combination of systems that fall under these definitions.

In the corporate aviation domain, the generic and all-encompassing term “Wi-Fi” has become the common request for most cabin updates. Up until recently we were all under the impression that we had to turn off our Wi-Fi devices on an aircraft due to the interference it could cause with avionics technologies. As we know, the times are a changing in this thinking due to some new technology and available upgrades. Install the right hardware and you should be able to use your phone or laptop on the aircraft. But like everything, there are some things to consider before you buy and install. In general, the current Wi-Fi technology and hardware being offered can do light work such as e-mail only and range from there up to all inclusive, multi-use products. Like everything it seems in this business, there are choices to be made and considerations to the options. The key is to discuss up front and learn from past experience in order to get the right direction on which combination is right for you.

Is Wi-Fi Safe in the cabin? The first question always asked.

Rockwell Collins SAT2100B/HST-2100B

Swift Broadband capable Satcom system.

According to a recent presentation by David B. Walen, Chief Scientific and Technical Advisor – Electromagnetic Interference, Federal Aviation Administration - Aviation Safety - in broad and basic terms, the installation of aircraft Wi-Fi networks facilitates use of passenger and crew Wi-Fi enabled computers and other portable devices. These portable Wi-Fi devices contain intentional RF transmitters that may be located throughout the aircraft. Immunity of aircraft systems to Wi-Fi transmitter RF varies across aircraft, systems, and installations. The RF field strength that a Wi-Fi transmitter creates at aircraft systems depends on the:

• Power of the Wi-Fi transmitter

• Proximity of the Wi-Fi transmitter to the aircraft systems

As an example, Walen states that a 100 mW Wi-Fi transmitter with a 6 dBi antenna creates on the order of 10 volts per meter at a distance of 30 cm (12 inches). A 1 watt Wi-Fi transmitter with the same antenna would create on the order of 30 v/m at 30 cm. Aircraft electrical and electronic systems have a wide range of immunity to Wi-Fi radiated fields. The immunity depends on the HIRF requirements for the aircraft. These requirements vary based on the criticality of the system, and the vintage of the aircraft. Systems determined to have potentially catastrophic failure conditions tend to have high verified RF immunity based on HIRF requirements – on the order of 50 to 100 v/m average. Less critical systems have lower or no verified RF immunity – on the order of 0.5 to 20 v/m average.

Walen notes that wireless RF network installation requires a demonstration of the aircraft system immunity to portable Wi-Fi transmitters. The assumptions for this:


• transmitters operate at FCC authorized power (1 watt plus 6 dBi gain).

• provides margin for typical Wi-Fi portable devices (50 to 100 mW transmitter power)

Most EMC tests have shown no effects under these conditions. Airline EMC tests for mobile phones showed effects on certain smoke detectors and cabin PA systems and some automatic external defibrillators (AED) showed interference with audio callouts.

So the simple fact is that with the correct modifications and updates, just about any aircraft can now be rendered Wi-Fi “friendly”. While certification has reportedly been slow in some regions, once in place, this technology will accordingly increase the productivity time to passengers and flight crew alike. Once again, the corporate aircraft as a business travel option will have inherent increased value to users as these systems are employed in a secure and protected environment for in-flight use.

And the considerations before you choose?

Mid-Canada Mod Center (MC2) has already been involved with a fair number of Wi-Fi related upgrades and integrations - both as standalone additions and as part of much larger business aircraft enhancements. In our most recent experience, some clients/consumers are under the misguided impression that any Wi-Fi capable phone will provide instant internet access on an aircraft system simply because their phone is able to connect to an onboard router. Such is not the case.

Specifically some Blackberry models can have a problem interfacing with certain technologies that are being sold and installed on business aircraft. There are some devices on the market today that can give Blackberry access over the Iridium system. ICG’s Nextmail Server, EMS Aviation’s Airmail and True North Avionics Express products are offerings that provide this Iridium based service. That said choosing the right Satcom would get you the same type of service without the need to add a stand-alone component. It all comes down to proper briefing and full disclosure of the intended use and user technologies – before purchase.

TrueNorth’s Simphone¯ OpenCabin^™

You have to be careful in picking your system. Some claim to have the “only and proprietary product” – which is not quite true. Any combination of the right hardware can be made into the Wi-Fi system a client requires. But that said there is not an off-the-shelf easy answer either. For example, Aircell Access II is considered a WLAN system and therefore thought to be the same as Wi-Fi. As already noted they are close, but not the same. Upon further investigation though, you will see that it is in fact not clear if it is one or the other.

MC2 has used the Aircell Axxess system with Flying Colours completion work and all have included a CTR. The CTR has a wireless modem, integral with a Wi-Fi certified WLAN router. The CTR is used at this stage to connect any Wi-Fi certified device to the router so that when a network is created, these devices have the ability to share information with each other and share any peripheral devices such as printers. So, in theory, the cabin of aircraft equipped this way could be connected by the network that has been created.

The Iridium Network was created as a voice-only system. Accordingly the slower 2.4 Kbps data rate is not useable to transmit any large amounts of data to and from laptops or other Wi-Fi capable devices. To date, Aircell has not developed a method to use the Iridium network for any kind of WLAN data transmissions.

The True North Chorus system, however, allows the use of Iridium data to send as example the Blackberry text portion of email and allow it to be transmitted to and from Wi-Fi capable Blackberry devices. This uses proprietary software, methods and handles email text only without attachments. Since Blackberry emails are encrypted, they are inherently compressed so the data throughputs are quite small in comparison to emails from laptops with attachments.

The Aircell system can, however, be interfaced to other types of higher speed networks such as a Swift Broadband system that is capable speeds of to 432Kbps. There is also their proprietary “Go-Go” land-based system which is offers speeds of up to 3.2Mbps. Both enable users complete internet access including emails with attachments from any Wi-Fi capable device. For licensing reasons the land-based system has, for the interim, range limitations and cannot be used under 10,000 ft of aircraft altitude.

What you can assume from all this is that Wi-Fi in your aircraft is possible. That said every installation is going to have unique qualities to it from the perspective of both the aircraft and the proposed uses of the system. The best way to figure this all out and arrive at a happy conclusion is to work with experienced and proven providers. You do not want to pay for someone else to learn on your aircraft. Provide as much information on use and expectations up front. From there work through the options and ask exactly what you are buying with consideration to the technology in use today – and what is on the horizon. Allow too for ease of upgrades as the next generation of Wi-Fi devices hit the consumer’s hands. As always it is a case of taking a little time and planning today, to arrive at a happy and sustainable solution tomorrow.

Just a bad year for incidents or are we really getting worse?

As written for Wings Magazine . . .

This year has without question not been a good one for aviation incidents (the polite term used for crashes). Within Canada alone, the Transportation Safety Board folks must be swamped with all the activity that has occurred since June alone. Float planes, helicopters, recreational aircraft and chartered/commercial aircraft have had a horrendous summer with far too many fatalities.

Outside of Canadian airspace the same seems to be true. Not one, but two commercial airline incidents and double digit deaths on the same day in August alone. If you add it all together, some would see it as carnage. The web site PlaneCrashInfo.com tracks this sort of thing (morbid I know but heck I guess someone has too). Tracking major, international data, they show 28 separate incidents by late August for the year. The fatalities numbered 673 at this point. A total of 12 of the incidents occurred between June and August alone and accounted for 278 fatalities. Remember – these are just the commercial operations rated incidents. The GA count is outside of this. You have to admit; it is a staggering number and certainly gives credibility to the Fear of Flying contingent.

We have been promoting aviation as safe and reliable for decades now. The majority of us really do believe it to be true. As an industry, we have collectively made spectacular advances in flight safety, enhancements, modern training programmes, plus the introduction of Safety Management System (SMS) protocols. But if this year is anything to measure the success or failure of these by, it would be apparent to some that failure is the result.

Now for sure someone is going to come back and say well there was a reason for this incident and another for that. They are not related. While that may be true, the fact remains that they all occurred and have an apparent common factor – the human one. Even the recent crash of a costly military UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) was blamed on guess what – human error. As a race we say “to err is only human”. It seems to be an accepted element of society today. Make a mistake – cheat on your wife – bilk elderly folks out of their hard earned savings – lie – crash a car while you are drunk and kill someone – you can just apologize and move on. It was after all - human error. So sub standard it acceptable. Forget excellence.

Our modern, instant communication tools of the day are not helping. Instead they sensationalize the whole thing. Case in point, we see videos of a ballistic parachute lowering a wingless aircraft safely to the ground and say “great thing that”. The pilot lived. But hang on, what about the report that he was flying the aircraft in a manner that it was not intended to do? Well – that was human error on his part. Good thing he had the parachute. Or did the parachute give him the false sense of security to go ahead and push the limits? Hard to say – we are not him.

And then there is the one of the RC aircraft being allowed to operate in the middle of a runway at an airport hosting a special aviation day. Clearly there is no crowd control, safety line and just one fellow with a handheld radio and sticker on his shirt naming him Air Boss. So guess what – the Air Boss is watching the RC guy doing his stunt work and misses the real airplane in the pattern (heck the real airplane even had a smoke system going so it was sort of hard to miss him) and guess what - a collision between the two occurs. The RC is destroyed and the real airplane manages a landing with reasonable damage to the wing – but nobody got hurt. So it was human error and that was ok.

In both cases the videos go “viral” on the internet and become something we all pass around. But they point to a bigger concern and that quite frankly is - what the heck is going on? What were these people thinking? Where was the safety element (yet alone common sense)? Or do we once again just chalk it up to – you got it – Human Error.

Maybe it’s just me but something has to change – and soon! It’s great to fly. We know that. But we need collectively to be sensible and smart and most of all – SAFE! The odds are against us otherwise.


RS

ELT Debate – Round ?
The following was originally written for Wings Magazine Blog in July, 2010.

Well here go again! After running around the bush a few more times we seem to have come back to where we started. The final decision has been made – with some influence it seems from DND – the same folks who have to handle SAR when an ELT goes off. In short – 406 ELTs are in and that is that. The what and when is still be “inked” and posted but the bottom line remains, sooner or later it looks like you will have to get a 406Mhz ELT into your private aircraft if you want to fly in Canadian airspace – regardless if you live here or not.

And just when everyone was getting up in arms that we in Canada were being too heavy handed in such a decision – especially for our visiting friends from other nations like the US – well then in came another hit. The FCC in the US announced in June that the 406 technology was good for them too and to forget the 121.5Mhz standard. The only noted exception in the FCC announcement was apparently the Breitling Emergency Watch ELT. Just to ice the cake, the FCC rule is supposed to take effect 60 days after formal “publication” – which depending on the report you read would be as soon as August 15, 2010. A personal comment on that is GOOD LUCK! With far fewer aircraft in Canada that were to affected by this change, our experts and authorities said we could never make the last proposed drop dead date by virtue of the laws governing supply and demand. So how the heck would the entire US civil fleet make it?

But hang on – seems the FCC and the FAA have a different view of this issue (or perhaps did not consult each other on the whole thing – how Canadian that is EH?). As one of the many comments and articles on this stated “FAA in 14 CFR Part 91.207, stipulates that U.S. registered civil airplanes are required to have an approved automatic type emergency locator transmitter in operable condition attached to the airplane. The FAA does not specify either 121.5 or 406 MHz, but the overwhelming majority of aircraft are equipped with 121.5 MHz units, meaning they would be in violation of federal law when it goes into effect.”

Enter the alphabet organizations! AOPA have been joined be EAA and AEA – among others - in a battle to save the 121.5 ELT! And their arguments sound all too familiar – cost to the aircraft owner, time to get it all done, alternative technologies that could be considered and even the most simple “who are you to tell us what to do – only the FAA can do that”. As one comment in the US trade media said, “The FCC rule highlights that fact that threats to GA can come from many different agencies, and that agencies outside of the FAA do not necessarily understand the effects of their actions on aviation.”

And in all this I hear a familiar voice – Kevin Psutka and his members at COPA – saying ever so politely – been there and done that! Kevin has been a strong contender in GA rights – especially the ELT fight – for many years now. And while we do on occasion agree to disagree on the odd thing, one common area we share is a strong dislike for rules and changes that get forced on the aviation community without proper consultation or user input. In our domestic 406 debate, it would seem that despite the best efforts of Kevin and his team, in the end we have come right back to where we were a year or so ago. All we have done is postpone the inevitable – a rush a grumpy aircraft owners to get a new force-fed piece of technology installed in their aircraft. And now it would seem our US friends are heading down the same road. Well good luck with that!

Gee – would it not be nice if we could perhaps get common rule making and timing in place one day soon? That perhaps our rule makers and those in the US could collaborate on making things the same that affect us equally in aviation on both sides of the border? Or would that be just too much to ask?

RS

Cirrus – Great Aircraft or Widow Maker?

The following entry was written for Wings Magazine in June, 2010.

The most recent crash and resulting deaths involving a Cirrus SR22 at the Toronto Buttonville Airport, has people once again questioning this aircraft and its record of operation and incidents. While it is too soon to state with accuracy what happened and why, the facts in public domain are that on take-off the aircraft was trailing smoke, gained low altitude flight and while in the process of turning left away from the airport appeared to stall and then crash into the roof of a building just off the airport property. While there were two unfortunate victims in the aircraft, thankfully nobody in the building was seriously injured. Any loss to the aviation community is a tragedy that affects us all. What compounds this one further is that it is yet another in a seeming big and growing series of events involving Cirrus aircraft. The questions seem to outnumber the answers at this point. The Transportation Safety Board is in charge now and will hopefully shed light on just what happened and why.

Cirrus Design Corporation was founded in 1984 – initially to produce the VK 30 kit aircraft. Since then they have grown into two current certified factory produced aircraft – the SR20 and SR22. Other aircraft are under planning and development.

All Cirrus SR models are equipped with their well publicized Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (CAPS). This is a ballistic “chute” that deploys from the back of the aircraft in a life threatening emergency. Without question the system has saved lives – approximately 30 according to publicly available information. Cirrus is the first manufacturer to receive FAA certification for this system on a “production” aircraft.

The SR22 was first certified in November of 2000. It is higher powered version of SR20 and seats four. Since 2003, this aircraft has come standard with the Avidyne Entegra primary flight display (PFD). In May of 2008, Cirrus announced that a new cockpit – the Garmin Perspective would be offered as an option on their Turbo models. The concept and use of PFD avionics follows the industry thinking of most aircraft manufacturers today and let’s be honest – it is what professional pilots face in the real world. Others have integrated this technology with great success.

Another innovation from Cirrus is their split leading edge - what they call a Passive Safety Concept. The idea is to build a slightly lower angle of incidence on the outer panel than on the inner panel. The effect of this is that the inner panel stalls first while the outer one continues to fly – allowing the pilot to maintain roll control with the ailerons.

For the most part this is agreed to work as the company says however records and reports readily found “on line” show that violent inputs can make the concept fail. Case in point, in an incident in the US during 2008, a similar aircraft crashed a few hundred feet off the ground while on approach for landing. Leading up the loss of control and impact, the pilot had executed a 60 degree plus turn while in a descending mode. According to data recovered from the Avidyne avionics post crash, it appears he tried to counter what was going to become a spin with a hard right counter action. Too little, too late and too fast would be the short answer. A stall resulted and the airplane went in.

As some have ventured to comment, despite all the great design and engineering, the Cirrus is as prone as any other aircraft to pilot overreaction. It has led some “hangar chat” to offer that Cirrus pilots may have a false sense of security based on the sales pitch for the Passive Safety Concept – and a feeling they can perhaps get away with more in this case? That coupled with the CAPS, and there is no question, people buy a Cirrus thinking that it is a safe aircraft. Google the subject though and you might be surprised. You will find a site called the Cirrus Aircraft: Aviation Law Monitor. What does that say about the number of accidents and overall safety of the aircraft? There are books on subject too and numerous articles and association comments. Of note – here in Canada we have had a better operational record with this aircraft than other nations statistically. The reported statistics show however that globally between 2001 and April 2009 62 Cirrus SR22 aircraft crashed, resulting in 48 fatalities. In addition many of the pilots were veteran flyers – not students or low time recent grads. Which all leads one to question – is there an issue with this aircraft? These numbers really seem to show that something is out of whack. Hopefully we learn from the most recent incident and prevent as much a repeat tragedy.

Look Out For the G8/G20 Train Wreck!

From June 25th - 28th the local aviation community adjacent to Toronto will have the pleasure of dealing with the G8/G20 conference.

How should a conference of world leaders affect aviation?

Well let's start by noting that we now live in an age of letting the terrorists win by creating the chaos that results from over secure actions. Those who know little of aviation, but think they know everything about terrorists are making the choices for us. And how is that going? Well let's just say it becomes reaallllyyyy messy and complicated.

From what we hear so far regarding this event in our region - and FYI what we hear changes daily or more - well this one is looking to be a total screw up for anyone trying to move around the airspace that surrounds Toronto and a corridor north to Huntsville. Basically they want a 15 mile (according to the news today) sterile fly zone from the CN Tower. That effectively closes the three regional airports - or restricts them so badly that operations are effectively done. The bigger challenge - getting a straight answer on the whole thing so you can plan. Nobody involved wants to commit to something you can hang your hat on - yet. They will tell some of us - when they are ready - and they are not sure when that might be yet.

I pity Skyservice at Toronto. They are effectively being closed for anywhere from two to four days - along with their tenants and so forth. Why? Because they want the mid-field area of YYZ sterile and controlled. Landmark at the north end of the airport will be open but again restricted. All told there could be 120 aircraft coming to the event. And at a time where you would think we want to put our national pride hat on and show the right stuff, we are being told that the corporate aviation service sector is not needed for this event - so go home, shut down, take a holiday. Mr. Harper and company said to. As for say Buttonville picking up the business and lending a hand - problem there too. It falls within the 15 mile zone and again - cannot get a straight answer about what can and cannot be done.

So who is going to handle all these global VVIPs? According to organizers they will use the air force, army and baggage handlers from the airport. Hold on - thought we wanted this secure? Someone may have some splannin to do on that decision. Especially in light of all corporate aviation/FBO types having current and proven backgrounds - but we are not going to use them. Do the baggage handlers at YYZ have clean backgrounds?

This whole mess goes on from there. Suffice it to say those of us who know about these things can see the light - and it is a train - and it is heading right for this event.

And who you ask is the genius behind all this? Well the same folks who brought us the security mess and financial disaster at the Winter Olympics. The same group now being sued by ATAC for all the stupidity and cost. And when this one is done - hold on to your hats - we get to do it all over again in the late summer/early fall when the Summit of the Americas comes to town. Oh boy! More fun!

I can just hear the lawyers warming up the litigation now. Yes once again - aviation and twisted logic collide. And aviation as usual looses out.

The Scam Man

I wrote a column that was rather popular last year in Wings Magazine on the subject of scams in the aviation world.

At that particular time a group purporting to be from South Africa 2010 World Cup were out trying to get us to sell them aircraft in support of the event. The scam part was a registration/bid fee had to be paid in order to move into the final and approved phase of the acquisition programme. Where the scam failed was the number and specific aircraft wanted. There were only so many to be had and when a bunch of us starting tripping over each other and comparing notes - well the gig was up.

Were we stupid? No. In fact I was impressed by the quality and quantity of brokers who were drawn in. These guys were in fact pretty good which made us concerned that some who were not smart enough - or trusting enough - to share information with others would get suckered in - and I am sure some did. I received calls as much as six months later from new folks getting the same email to start the whole thing again with them.

The biggest issue here was the time this cost. Time is what we all sell. In this instance I went to the Canadian Trade officials who in turn flushed out the fallacy of the whole thing. They also notified the correct other agencies domestically and in SA. I also used the power of the spoken and written word to help. In the end, nobody that I know sent one dime. We all lost a large amount of time though.

And why am I bringing this up now? Because it still continues and also has left many of us so overly cautious that it could be costing us in genuine business.

Case in point, I had over the period of three weeks a series of emails from "over there" asking about aircraft we had/have been brokering. Two of the inquires were dismissed after some checking (we still talk to others and ask the right questions before getting involved too much now). In the case of the third, it really just did not feel right to me so I worked it a bit, but not too much. No point in putting in the time for nothing was my feeling. I admit it - I am very cautious now. Maybe too much so. We got to the point where frankly an offer was the only thing that would compel me to move forward. The buyer wanted more info. I wanted an offer first. So the buyer and I had a standoff. In my mind it just proved the lack of validity to the whole thing.

Well yesterday I got an email from the buyer advising he had found exactly what he wanted from someone else and would go forward on that and a second aircraft. So now I am thinking that my cautiousness has caused me to miss out on this one. In talking with Rick though, I think we both agree that something still stinks in this deal and we probably did not miss out on much.

But that said, we are both a bit gun shy and less tolerant of the time wasters and scam artists. And they are still very much there. They sit in Internet cafes in developing nations and research just enough to appear knowledgeable and go after the chance to get us in some way. It can be required registration fee for the tender. It can be a letter of invitation to come and view the aircraft (you are on the hook and responsible in such cases) and it can be information gathering so that they then go on using your identity to scam others. The problem is the bad guys have more time to consider new ways of being bad than we do. So they win. And when we get overly cautious and miss genuine opportunities - they win too. It is extremely frustrating. Especially as we all struggle to earn an honest buck.

Now if someone happens to find the crystal ball that allows us to tell the good from the bad - the genuine from the scam - and real from tire kicker - please tell us where to get one so we call all share and get back to doing business - not looking over our shoulders or second guessing ourselves.

The First Posting.

It is always an interesting time when you sit to write something. You stare at the space and mentally develop your thought. For some of us this comes easier than to others. I guess I am lucky that way. It never takes much once I have the inspiration.

For me, writing was something I fell into thanks to a publisher many years ago. I complained that the editorial in her magazine was biased towards our competition in the business. Her reply was to write an article and she would publish it - with editing of course. Looking back it was horrible and more advertorial than editorial. Perhaps in hindsight she was trying to teach me a lesson too.

That was the start of it for me. I learned to challenge what you read and be able to back it up with a counterpoint or rebuttal. I still remember one of my senior year high school teachers telling us to fight the system, not accept what "they" told us and be very willing to send letters and challenge the norm (well it was the 70s). At any rate, that was how it started I guess.

My aviation creative scribing only came to be about 13 or 14 years ago. Again a publisher was the driver however in this case it was a US publication looking for the Canadian view on something. I gave it to him. He paid me. It made sence and we went on from there. So this has become part of the business mix for me. That said, this is an industry that provides ample opportunity for me exercise the creativity. There is always something it seems to rant about, expand upon or simply report.

Getting on board with current social marketing is something we preach to clients and felt was time to put into play for ourselves. So hence this blog. It is a chance for me and my associate from out west Rick Pollock to vent a little, communicate and not blindly accept the status quo. Plus I think some days it just feels best to put your thought down - read it - ponder it - and then decide if it is worth saying or publishing. Either way it makes me feel better.

So here is the first one. Others to follow. Frequency undertermined at this point. Feedback welcome.

Cheers!

Rob.