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.