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.