Sweat the Small Stuff

Papers pile up on your desk, stuff accumulates in your garage, weeds grow in your garden, and you reach a point where action must be taken. Call it cleaning house or a garage sale, nothing beats finally clearing away all the junk, reorganizing, and simplifying. Think about complexity in aviation, specifically under Instrument Flight Rules, and it's easy to see some house cleaning is in order. Needless complexity in aircraft equipment and instrument procedures has increased errors, gaffes, and worse on the part of controllers and pilots alike. Both the FAA and GA manufacturers could take simple steps to clean things up and here is a list of just a few of the needed fixes and improvements.


By Any Other Name ...

The FAA Instrument Approach Procedures Division has done a great job of creating a plethora of RNAV approaches with vertical guidance. Kudos! Now it's time to tackle a much simpler problem: Instrument approach procedure names. They have become needlessly convoluted and naming conventions are important because pilots and controllers say those names over the radio, thousands of times a day. Pilots have to look-up instrument approaches, sorting through long lists of similarly named procedures. Add to the mix similarly named approaches to parallel runways and it's obvious that selecting the wrong approach by mistake could have serious repercussions.

Controllers and pilots can often be heard saying something like "Cleared RNAV GPS 32 approach" when it should be simply "Cleared RNAV 32 approach." Many pilots and controllers apparently don't realize that approach title items that appear in parenthesis are not to be used when referring to the approach. Who came up with that convention? Bet it wasn't a pilot or a controller.

Complicated, dumb naming conventions add no value, but they do create confusion and extra workload for all concerned. Consider this subset of the RNAV approaches at my home airport:

• KOAK RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 27R
• KOAK RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 27R
• KOAK RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 27L
• KOAK RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 27L

How about a naming scheme where RNAV would refer to approaches for use with appropriate area navigation or GPS, RNP would refer to approaches with curved paths reserved for authorized aircraft and aircrew (i.e. not most GA aircraft)? And lose the stuff in parenthesis fer cryin' out loud! The list of KOAK approaches would then read as follows:

• KOAK RNAV RWY 27R
• KOAK RNAV RWY 27L
• KOAK RNP RWY 27L
• KOAK RNP RWY 27R

That would make it easier (and safer) for everyone, now wouldn't it?

Smart Vectors-To-Final

Adhering to crossing restrictions at step-down fixes leading to an ILS is important because early interception of the glideslope does not necessarily guarantee compliance with altitude crossing restrictions outside the final approach fix (FAF). This is where Garmin's implementation of Vectors-To-Final (VTF) for instrument approaches comes under scrutiny.

Let's see, 5 plus 2.3 plus 2 = ...

Since the late 1990s, when the 430/530 units were first introduced, activating an approach with VTF has remained virtually unchanged. VTF causes any step-down fixes outside the FAF to disappear, the current waypoint becomes the FAF, and the only distance displayed is the distance to the FAF. To locate step-down fixes before the FAF, the pilot must perform some interesting mental math. This is particularly vexing because when a pilot hears a controller say "fly heading 210, vectors ILS 27 right" and they see an option named "Vectors-to-final," they naturally assume that's the option to choose. The standard operating procedure is actually to never use VTF on approaches with step-down fixes outside the FAF, even if the controller says "vectors RNAV 28 left approach."

The vectors-to-final option should result in the GPS receiver figuring out where the aircraft has intercepted the approach course and all fixes outside the FAF should be depicted. If the current behavior is required by the relevant Technical Standard Order (TSO), then Garmin and the FAA need to work to change those TSOs. Touch screens interfaces on GPS receivers are great, but pilots have been waiting for a fix for VTF behavior for over a decade. This isn't rocket science.

Alternate Airports

With the exception of the discontinued CNX 80, Garmin GPS receivers do not provide the ability to define an alternate airport as part of a programmed flight plan. In fact, the flight plan behavior of the Garmin units is so convoluted that it would take an entire blog post to describe the work-arounds pilots have to do when navigating to their alternate after a missed approach. Pilots don't need increased workload during critical phases of flight. Hello? Garmin?

Required Equipment

When pilots and instructors sit around the hangar and debate the possible reasons why ADF is required on an approach, something is wrong. An instrument approach needs to be clear so that it can be accurately flown. In the evolving world of RNAV, the convention of encoding the equipment required for an approach in the procedure name is quickly breaking down. So here's some heresy: The design details that require certain equipment for an approach should be opaque to pilots.

Pilots don't need to know why, we just need to know what. The FAA needs to list the required equipment (along with other  restrictions) on the plan view, in plain view, and in a font big enough that pilots can read. Pilots shouldn't have to theorize what stuff they need in the panel to legally fly a particular approach.

User-defined Holding Patterns

The CNX 80 allowed the pilot to program an ad hoc holding pattern and then allowed the GPS and autopilot to fly that holding pattern. The CNX80 has been discontinued and follow-on models still don't seem to have the user-defined hold feature. It's great that Garmin is working on voice-controlled avionics, but user-defined holding patterns is a basic feature that's still missing. Again beating up on Garmin, but they make it so easy. 

PT Required or No PT?

A decade ago it appeared RNAV approaches would all be designed with Terminal Arrival Areas (TAA) that would simplify the delivery of approach clearances, reduce workload on controllers, and allow pilots to navigate on their own using RNAV. While some older RNAV approaches do provide minimum safe altitude information by TAA sectors and explicitly include the No PT notation for entire TAA sectors, the TAA seems to have fallen out of favor and isn't included in many of the new RNAV approaches. Perhaps this is a cost-saving maneuver, but it sets up a bad situation with regard to procedure turns.

You were just cleared direct to an Initial Approach Fix on an RNAV approach with a 30 degree intercept to the approach course, but you're not on a transition that tells you the Hold-In-Lieu-of-Procedure turn is not required (NoPT). If the controller doesn't say "Cleared straight in RNAV ..." you're expected to fly once around the hold. Of course if the controller simply forgot to specify "straight in" and you fly the hold, you'll probably get yelled at or worse (cf. Limitation on Procedure Turns). The best advice for pilots in the situation is to query the controller if they don't get a straight-in clearance.

Perhaps depicting MSA sectors is not feasible for technical reasons, still the FAA should find a way to clearly specify when a procedure turn on an approach is required and when it isn't.

Which Weather?

Approach procedures into some non-towered airports specify that you should use the surface weather for a nearby airport. In the current age of electronic information, why can't the FAA (and by extension, Jeppesen) include the frequency for that airport's surface weather? This sort of simple cross-referencing is what computers are good at.

Digital Charts

The days of individual paper chart purchases are quickly fading and the production of these charts needs to be modernized. VFR and IFR charts need to be produced in a way that allows seamless electronic display. Many EFB users may not realize it, but there is significant effort going on behind the scenes to stitch together these charts for EFB display. And while we're at it, geo-referencing on instrument approach charts should not require significant third-party effort and cost to provide. The times they are a changin' and the Aeronav folks have been working hard to keep up with those changes. Let's hope their chart products continue to be modernized.

Jeppesen has had over a year to get their digital chart act together for the iPad, but geo-referenced en route and approach charts are still missing in action. One assumes that once these features are finally available, they still will cost you your other arm and/or leg.

Digital Documents

Cessna/Textron has probably made more training aircraft than any other manufacturer in history, but you can't get PDFs of their pilot information manuals. Diamond, Cirrus, and even Garmin provide important documents for download as PDFs. Given the rapid acceptance of electronic tablets like the iPad, Cessna needs to get with the program.

And speaking of Cessna, ever try to figure out if your aircraft's Approved Flight Manual and all of its supplements are up to date? Good luck to you because it's a nightmare!

Anyone Listening?

You may have ideas for simple fixes that would result in big payoffs for little investment, but you may ask "What's the use? Is anyone in a position to make the changes actually paying attention?" Before glossing over the idea that seemingly trivial improvements really can have a tremendous impact on any system, take a few minutes to watch Rory Sutherland's TED talk on the subject. The important points are toward the end, but it may just change the way you look at small stuff.

Sleepless in America

It seems that hypoxia, carbon monoxide poisoning, alcohol intoxication, and sleep deprivation all have something in common, but it's hard to explain the tough talk from Secretary of Transportation LaHood and FAA Administrator Babbitt on the subject of air traffic controllers falling asleep. Both men have said that air traffic controllers sleeping on the job is unacceptable and each has promised to get to the bottom of the problem. Some controllers who have fallen asleep have reportedly been suspended, some may face disciplinary action, and the head of the FAA's Air Traffic Organization has resigned, but there hasn't been much recognition of how the FAA's status quo, set by the folks at the very top, has helped create the problem.

The FAA has announced new duty time rules that, among other things, will ensure controllers get at least 9 hours of rest between shifts as opposed to 8 hours. While this is, in principle, a step in the right direction, it's not what experts recommend. Sleep researchers have a simple solution - allow workers to take naps during their shift. For his part, LaHood has dug in his heels and said that controllers will not be "paid to sleep." This is a curious stance.

Sleep researchers tell us that on average, Americans are getting under just 7 hours of sleep per weeknight. While there is a small percentage of the population that can function well on 5 hours or less of sleep per night, researchers believe this is a genetic trait and not a matter of adaptation. Most of us need 8 hours to function at our best and all folks those getting 7 hours of sleep go through their days with measurable decreases in ability to concentrate and reduced reaction time. The thing is, a person under the influence of sleep deprivation is likely to think that everything is just fine even though their cognitive skills are impaired.

Let's not pick on just Secretary LaHood and Administrator Babbitt because most of the country is in denial about sleep. Sleep deprivation is worn by many as a sort of badge of honor from medical residents and interns to commercial pilots. The difference would seem to be that hospitals, maritime sailors, fire departments, medivac crews, even a few international airlines allow employees to take a nap or sleep during their shifts. A pilot who flew for an air ambulance company once told me that EMS actually stands for "Earn Money Sleeping." So why should the FAA be any different if the research shows an improvement in job performance on a graveyard shift comes from simply taking a nap?

The health consequences and the associated health care costs of long-term sleep deprivation and circadian rhythm disruption are well-documented: Hypertension, weight gain, cardio-vascular disease, diabetes, increased risk of "sudden death," and shorter lifespan. My personal experience? Four days after I quit my freight-flying job I woke up feeling great, but with the sobering realization that I had been impaired by sleep disruption for months without fully realizing it.

As Phil Zimbardo once observed, you'll never get to the bottom of a dysfunctional organization unless you first go to the top. There may be an explanation for the loss of objectivity when someone is short on sleep, but it's hard to support LaHood's hard-line stance against napping. The Roman Empire's punishment for sleeping on duty may have been death, but we live in more informed, and scientifically enlightened times. Perhaps Secretary LaHood should sit down, read the research, and sleep on it.

U-Turns

My usual goal is avoid anything to do with aviation on my day off, but I feel compelled to help out today because I’ve learned something important over the years: Everything in aviation is connected - people, planes, airports, weather. Today’s short flight is to ferry an aircraft to a nearby airport for it’s 50-hour oil change and to have some squawks (minor problems) addressed. I haven’t flown this aircraft in a while, but things can change in a heartbeat. I never know when my teaching schedule could make me dependent on this particular plane. Obviously others are flying this plane, otherwise it wouldn’t need an oil change and the best time to wrench on a plane is when the weather prevents it from flying anyway. Unnecessary down time causes everyone to lose and the simple act of ferrying this plane will help the owner, the operator, other instructors, other pilots, and ultimately myself. The way I look at it, aviation is just a really big family.

For the last six weeks the weather has been nothing short of spectacular, better than many summer days. Today the conditions just turned decidedly winter-like with the first of what promises to be a series of cold fronts. The surface winds are out of the Southeast in the vicinity of 15 knots with gusts up to 30 knots, the ceilings and visibility near my house are low with light rain and mist, but the departure and arrival airports are still reporting weather consistent with visual flight rules (VFR). Experience tells me the conditions near my house will eventually spread to the Southeast, engulfing both airports, making them switch to the more complicated and time-consuming instrument flight rules (IFR). It only takes a little imagination to see that if I begin the flight soon, it will be a short, simple affair under VFR. A later departure will make the flight more complicated and time-consuming. I hope for the simple version, but because I know life is complicated I also file an IFR flight plan before leaving the house.

With traffic, I’ll need about 40 minutes to complete the 15 mile drive to the airport. There are a bunch of non-aviation chores to be done on my day off that I’m hoping to do first. And since the ferry flight will be a one way trip, I coordinate a ride back to my car with a friend. Glancing at the time, I do the mental math, consider time to dispatch and preflight the plane, add an extra 30 minutes, and decide on a departure time of noon. On the way, Google maps on my iPhone shows slow freeway traffic. Only after experiencing the slow-and-go firsthand does the cause become clear: Two blocked lanes where CalTrans is sweeping the median. 20 minutes of my 30 minute fudge factor are now gone.

During the dispatch and preflight, I take note of the minor discrepancies other pilots have reported. More delays slowly eat into the remaining 10 minutes of my fudge factor before I have the engine started. Then I discover a minor problem with the number two radio that was previously unreported. Hey, it’s not my fault! As a freight dog friend of mine used to say, “I don’t break ‘em, I just fly ‘em.”

The delays have compounded and the weather is deteriorating rapidly. Low ceilings and rain are creeping in from the Northwest, but the Bay Area is on the Southeast plan and that will help my cause: I’ll be headed directly to my destination right after takeoff. What doesn’t help is that the ground control frequency is busy and the controller seems distracted. I call for taxi and am told to hold my position. I hear two landing bizjets inform the tower they broke out on the approach at 500 feet. The current Automated Terminal Information Service (the airport’s weather report) was reporting an overcast ceiling at 2500 feet. The ATIS obviously need to be updated and that may explain the distracted controller. As I sit and wait, I can see my VFR plans fading rapidly. After another two minutes of waiting I throw in the towel, switch to clearance delivery and request an IFR clearance. I’m glad I filed that IFR flight plan. Calling ground control again with an IFR clearance, I get immediate taxi instructions.

The last card I may be able to play is to depart IFR and hope to remain out of the clouds long enough to see the nearby destination airport. That could allow me to call the field in sight and still proceed visually to the airport. That plan looks doubtful as I hit the clouds at 500 feet after takeoff and aside from brief glimpses of the ground, I can’t see the destination airport.

Looking on the bright side, I’ll get a rare, solo IFR flight in a nice, steam gauge aircraft. A change of pace is always good. The ride gets a bit bumpy, then I break out between cloud layers for a few moments. Further to the East the conditions are still VFR. I can see the Livermore airport for a few minutes before I’m turned back into the clouds toward my destination.

All the instrument approaches to my destination are to the West-facing runways. The strong, gusty surface winds dictate a circle to the opposite, East-facing runway once I enter visual conditions. In essence, the entire flight has been a very large U-turn in the sky, followed by another U-turn before landing. This flight is a good illustration of how IFR flights can be much more complicated and time-consuming that a short VFR hop. Southeast, three miles out on the approach I see the destination airport and the slow-moving wall of precipitation closing in from the Northwest.

The tower controller’s instructions are to circle to the South and I’m cleared to land on the East-facing runway. Flying the downwind leg, parallel to the runway, requires about a 20 degree wind correction angle to the left to keep the wind from pushing me over the runway. Though I’m in visual conditions, I’m careful to not descend below the minimum circling altitude until I’m on final approach to the runway. My base turn is just clear of the rainy goo that is about to engulf the airport.

Completing the final U-turn and aligned with runway, the 20 degree wind correction angle is now to the left. Unprompted, the tower controller informs me the surface winds are out of the South, gusting to around 25 knots. Flaps 30 and this will be a good crosswind component. The little gray cells are fully engaged as I focus on the white paint on the runway pavement. The aiming point on the runway appears to move up the windshield and the plane is bounced about. A little wind shear, but my left hand has unconsciously moved the throttle in to increase engine power. A few seconds later, the aiming point is moving down the windshield and I reduce power. This dance continues until the aircraft is right over the runway pavement.

Tracking right over the centerline, the nose is still pointed to the right to compensate for the wind. Slowly move the throttle toward idle, the plane sinks to the pavement, just ease in left rudder to align the nose with the centerline, simultaneously turning the yoke to the right to offset the wind. The right main wheel touches first, lightly, and time seems to stop with the plane balanced on one wheel. Gradually the left main wheel touches down, the nose wheel follows, and it’s time to turn the yoke all the way to the right, retract the flaps and gently start braking.

Taxing clear of the runway, the ground controller clears me to taxi and there’s a moment to reflect. Few things in life as satisfying as a well-executed crosswind landing, but that’s just icing on the cake. I’ve hit the trifecta - a nice solo flight, an instrument approach, and I’ve done my part to keep my aviation community running smoothly. Who knows what tomorrow will bring, but today the shortest distance between two points consisted of two U-turns.

Something Can Be Done

The promise of Area Navigation (RNAV and GPS) was that it would be a simpler and more accurate way to navigate than older styles of navigation and to a great extent, that promise has been realized. GPS accuracy, especially when augmented with WAAS, is very good indeed. As for simplicity ... not so much. Waypoint navigation was a revolutionary concept when it was introduced, but it has been integrated with existing navigational paradigms and infrastructure in an evolutionary manner, not unlike the way an artist might sculpt clay or mold papier-mâché. This evolutionary approach has created some unfortunate and unforeseen complexity, but it doesn't need to be that way. Mom always said "Don't complain unless you can offer a solution or a suggestion," so here are my top five recommendations for simplifying the world of RNAV.

Wayward Waypoints


Many airports out there have a VOR located at airport and in those cases the VOR and the airport have the same name. Just as often the VOR may be some miles away from the airport, but both still have the same name. At the heart of every GPS receiver is a computer running software and software doesn't tend to handle ambiguity very well. That's why the GPS database encodes airports using a four-character ICAO identifier and VORs with a three-character identifier. The FAA's charting division could do us a big favor by using four-character ICAO airport identifiers on their chart products, but they don't. If they did, it would be crystal clear to student pilots and budding instrument pilots that KSAC refers to the surveyed center of the Sacramento Executive airport while SAC refers to the Sacramento VOR. 

Not in Kansas Anymore

The first step in GPS navigation is to enter the name of a VOR or NDB station on the ground, the name of an intersection of two VOR radials, an airport ID (which represents the surveyed center of the airport), a charted VFR reporting point, a Computer Navigation Fix defined by FAA chart designers, or even a user waypoint that you've created. The AIM refers to this type of navigation as to-to, not to be confused with Toto, the little black terrier in the Wizard of Oz. GPS receivers only navigate to one waypoint at a time, also known as the current waypoint.

GPS makes it simple to navigate to a waypoint and most receivers provide a moving map display, which is a score for simplicity and safety. The bad news is that unless you're lucky enough to have a keyboard as part of your GPS receiver, entering a waypoint requires a precise and often convoluted sequence of knob-turning and button-pushing. A bad user interface makes it all too easy to misspell the name of the waypoint: Get just one letter wrong and instead of navigating to a VOR that is 20 miles away, you may be headed to Tierra del Fuego by mistake!

The engineers that designed GPS receiver user interfaces didn't set out to create difficult-to-use products, but the fact is they did. Whether it was the desire to save a few bucks by having fewer knobs and buttons or simply a race to get a product to market, it's clear that mistakes were made. Now the users of these products have to live with the mistakes and to quote Warren Zevon, "… it ain't that pretty at all." Bad UI design is the Achilles heel of GPS and many of us pilots have become so acclimated to these convoluted interfaces that we have lost sight of just how whacked this situation is.

Near the top of my "need to fix" list is Garmin's Small-Knob/Big-Knob interface. You press the small knob to enter "cursor mode" so you can edit or enter the name of a waypoint in a flight plan. You turn the small knob to start the process of entering letters and then the small knob changes function. Whoa there! A knob whose function changes depending on an interface context that is mostly invisible to the user? This needs to be fixed and one simple way would be a separate button dedicated to starting and ending the waypoint editing mode.

Having a separate button for edit mode would also fix the problem that countless new Garmin users run into: Pressing the small knob to exit cursor mode and accept whatever changes they have made. Having watched hundreds of pilots make this mistake thousands of times it's clear that a common intuitive belief is that if you press one button or key to enter a mode, pressing the same button or key should exit that mode. In the Garmin world, this simply exits the editing mode and, here's the amazing part, destroys whatever changes you made without asking you to confirm that's what you want to do. This is B-A-D.

Missing Pieces on the Missed Approach

When flying an instrument approach, most GPS receiver are designed to suspend the automatic sequencing of waypoints when you reach the missed approach point. Think about this for a moment: You're close to the ground with reduced obstruction clearance at a high-workload moment. You're either going to see the runway and land or you won't see anything and you'll fly the missed approach. Is this really the time to make a pilot divert their attention from controlling the aircraft to push the OBS button or SUSP soft-key? I don't think so and apparently neither did the designers of the GNS 480 (nee CNX 80), which will automatically sequence to the missed approach segment. If you see the runway environment and decide to land, you just ignore the GPS. If you don't see the runway environment or loose sight of the runway while circling, use the GPS to start navigating on the missed approach. Too bad the GNS 480 is out of production and the GPS units that are in production don't exhibit this behavior. A defense I've often heard is that the TSO specifies that pilot action is required to initiate the missed approach and if this is true, the TSO should be changed.

When flying a non-RNAV approach, many GPS receivers automatically switch the navigation source from GPS to the VOR or localizer receiver. That's great, but if you need to fly the missed approach and you want to use the GPS to do so you must divert your attention and manually select GPS as the navigation source. I mean really! If it's okay to automatically switch navigation source out of GPS, why not back into GPS mode?

Four Card Minima

There's a new game for RNAV approaches that all pilots must play and it's called "Guess the approach minima." It goes something like this. When you brief an RNAV approach, you may see up to four sets of minima listed: LNAV, LNAV/VNAV, LPV and circling. The issue is you may not know which minima your WAAS GPS receiver can offer (based on current signal integrity) until a few miles before the final approach fix. This has to do with the design of WAAS GPS receivers' final signal integrity check and I honestly can't think of a good way around this shortcoming: You just have to brief multiple approach minima and choose the correct minima based on the approach sensitivity your WAAS GPS receiver displays.

Where improvement could be made would be to ensure that the approach sensitivity displayed on the GPS receiver exactly corresponds to the approach minima shown on the chart. If your receiver arms with  LPV or LP sensitivity, you're okay because your WAAS GPS receiver should display LPV or LP. If the receiver arms with LNAV sensitivity, you may see LNAV or LNAV+V. If it arms with LNAV/VNAV you'll probably see LNAV/V. Notice the subtle, similar appearance of LNAV+V and L/VNAV? This is too subtle and is B-A-D. And the minima shown on the charts should exactly match the minima displayed on the GPS receiver, period, end of discussion.

Procedure Turn or No?

The introduction of the Terminal Arrival Area (or TAA) was meant to simplify pilot/controller interaction when executing an RNAV approach. And it would be simpler, were in not for the fact that not all RNAV approach charts follow the same conventions with regard to the depiction of a hold-in-lieu-of procedure turn (or HILO). In particular, some RNAV approaches have a standard Minimum Safe Altitude circle while others display minimum safe altitudes in sectors on the plan view of the chart. The subtle problem is that MSA sectors will usually tell the pilot that the procedure turn is not authorized when you're headed straight-in to an Initial Approach Fix where a HILO is depicted, while approaches with the MSA circle do not.

If you were approaching from the Southeast and were told "when able, proceed direct HERMIT, cleared RNAV 34 approach" you need to read the fine print on the MSA sector shown on the plan view to know when you could descend and to know that the HILO is not authorized.

If you were told "when able proceed direct CADAB, cleared RNAV 29 approach," you need to know that the hold-in-lieu-of procedure turn is required unless the the controller remembers to say "… cleared straight-in RNAV 29 approach."

The FAA charting division needs to come up with a consistent way of depicting MSA and clearly denoting when a procedure turn is required and when it isn't. Until then, pilots should ask the controller when they see a HILO and they aren't sure whether or not they are expected to fly the procedure turn.

More Fond Wishes

So that's my wish list of the top five features and enhancements I'd like to see for the world of RNAV. You may have your own list of desired features, too. For now, we can only hope that the people in a position to fix these issues are listening.

Nothin' Special

I've never been a big fan of special VFR (or SVFR), a procedure that, simply put, allows pilots to operate without an instrument flight rules clearance in controlled airspace when the cloud ceiling and/or visibility are below basic visual flight rules minima. There are several reasons to be skeptical of special VFR and when the weather is poor, asking for this sort of clearance should not be the first solution you jump to, especially when other options might be available.

Attempting to fly VFR into deteriorating weather conditions and controlled flight into terrain continue to be two of the more popular ways to get into trouble in a small aircraft and these are exactly the kinds of risks that may be associated with SVFR. Besides these additional risks, pilots need to understand the regulations governing the use of special VFR, know when they can request and get a SVFR clearance, and then carefully and thoughtfully consider whether or not it might be appropriate to request such a clearance.

By the way, I'm not going to discuss SVFR requirements for helicopters since I'm not a qualified helicopter instructor. I will discuss some recent developments regarding SVFR at the airport I mostly call home, Oakland.

Location, Location, Location

Many pilots mistakenly think that if they are in controlled airspace, they can ask for SVFR. 14 CFR 91.157 describes the requirements and restrictions for SVFR. If you don't get anything else from reading this post, understand that a prerequisite for a SVFR clearance is that you must be below 10,000 feet MSL and within:

... airspace contained by the upward extension of the lateral boundaries of the controlled airspace designated to the surface for an airport.

If you're outside the upward extension of the lateral boundaries of an airport's surface airspace, you best have 3 miles of visibility and be 500 feet below, 1000 feet above, and 2000 feet laterally from the clouds. Another option during the day is to be in uncontrolled airspace with at least 1 mile visibility and clear of clouds, also known as some scary $#[+.

SVFR is not authorized in any of the Class Bravo surface airspace listed in 14 CFR 91 Appendix d, Section 3. In some cases, a Letter of Agreement may allow certain exceptions.

If you are transiting a Class B, C, D, or E airspace surface area to an airport that is reporting VFR conditions, you may still be granted a SVFR clearance if you tell the controller you cannot maintain regular VFR while transitioning. Think about this for a moment: If you are asking for a SVFR clearance to transition in Class B (assuming it's allowed), you must have less than 3 miles of visibility since you're normally only required to remain clear clouds in Class B under VFR. In classes C through E, you'd request a SVFR clearance to transition when you were unable to remain 1000 feet above, 500 feet below, and 2000 feet horizontally from the clouds and/or you expect to encounter less than 3 miles visibility.

Don't hang all your hopes on a SVFR clearance: Just because you think you're entitled to a SVFR clearance doesn't guarantee that a controller will give you such a clearance when you ask for it. Especially at Oakland. More on that later.

Pilot Requirements

Student pilots cannot request SVFR operations since 14 CFR 61.89(a)(6) clearly states they must have at least 3 miles visibility during the day. At night 5 miles visibility is required, assuming their instructor has given them an endorsement for night solo flights.

Any other pilot who yearns to operate SVFR can request it, but if the request occurs during the period between sunset and sunrise then the pilot must be instrument-rated and their aircraft must be equipped for IFR. In Alaska, these additional requirements apply when the sun is 6˚or more below the horizon.

SVFR Procedures

The minimum visibility for SVFR is 1 statute, reported at the departure or destination airport. If there is no weather reporting at the departure or destination airport, the pilot must report at least 1 statute mile of flight visibility to the controller. If the reported visibility by you or at the airport is less than a mile, the controller will deny the request from pilots of fixed-wing aircraft.

Adding to the arcane nature of SVFR, a controller cannot initiate a SVFR clearance: Pilots must specifically request it. A controller's official phraseology should sound something like:

Cessna 123, Moose Lips airport is reporting below basic VFR minimums, say intentions.

Sometimes a controller will be more informal, saying something like:

Mooney 345, Moose Lips Tower, the field is IFR, unable VFR departure, is there something special you wanted to request?

When a pilot wants a SVFR clearance, the request might sound something like:

Moose Lips Ground, Cessna 123, transient parking, VFR Redding, request special VFR departure, information xray.

Say Altitude

When a controller gives you a SVFR clearance, they don't specify an altitude to maintain since it's assumed that you, the pilot, must choose an altitude to remain clear of clouds. So the controller will say something like:

Bonanza 567, maintain special VFR conditions while in the surface portion of the Moose Lips airport class Delta airspace, runway 12, cleared for takeoff.

Or:

Cirrus 789, maintain special VFR conditions while inside the Moose Lips class Delta surface area, make a right base entry runway 30, report turning final.

Is it Safe?

Let's say you want to depart an airport where the visibility is being reported as 10 miles, but the ceiling is being reported as 900 feet. You see a hole in the clouds about 5 miles East of the airport. You reason that if you can get a SVFR clearance, you can depart, fly toward that hole in the clouds, and climb through the hole to VFR conditions. This is where you need to think carefully about your plan.

If you ask for and get a SVFR clearance, you'll end up being just under 900 feet above the ground. If your departure path is over a populated area, you won't be in compliance with 14 CFR 91.119, which says you must be 1000 feet above the highest obstacle within 2000 feet horizontally of your course. In addition, you must maintain an altitude that will permit you to make an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the ground should your engine fail.

I've seen many pilots do just these sorts of SVFR departures and arrivals. Controllers, for their part, seem to condone it. If nothing bad happens, well ... But if something does go wrong, the pilot will probably be called on the carpet for violating the minimum safe altitude rules as well as 14 CFR 91.13 - Careless and reckless operation - endangering the life and property of others. Assuming they survive, that is.

Separate and Unequal

Order 7110.65S - Air Traffic Control, the air traffic controller's "handbook," has some interesting things to say about priority of SVFR operations as well as separation of SVFR aircraft. The priority of SVFR is summed up simply:

SVFR flights may be approved only if arriving and departing IFR aircraft are not delayed.

Then later, there's this escape clause:

The priority afforded IFR aircraft over SVFR aircraft is not intended to be so rigidly applied that inefficient use of airspace results. The controller has the prerogative of permitting completion of a SVFR operation already in progress when an IFR aircraft becomes a factor if better overall efficiency will result.

Regarding separation, ATC is required to separate SVFR aircraft from each other and SVFR aircraft from IFR aircraft. The order goes on to reference separation standards from chapters 6 and 7 of that same document.

No SVFR at OAK

A few weeks ago, I was returning to Oakland at night with a student pilot in deteriorating weather. We discussed the visibility and concluded we had better than 3 miles of visibility and that we were approximately 500 feet below an overcast to broker cloud layer. After contacting NORCAL, my student was given the usual instructions for a straight-in VFR approach. A few minutes later, we were advised that Oakland was reporting below basic VFR minima and to "say intentions." Being only 7 miles from the airport, with good visibility, but in deteriorating weather conditions, I asked for special VFR. This seemed to be 1) a great teaching opportunity for my student and 2) the safest way for us to get on the ground quickly before the weather deteriorated further.

The controller approved the request, but less than a minute later instructed us to remain clear of the surface class C airspace. Oakland Tower was not allowing SVFR. Once again we were asked to say intentions, so I asked for an IFR clearance. We were given a Northeast heading, told to maintain VFR and to expect a delay for the clearance. This provided another excellent teaching situation: How things can go bad when you don't have a Plan B.

The weather began to deteriorate further, so I offered to maintain our own terrain and obstruction clearance if the controller could provide an IFR clearance immediately. The controller agreed, we turned East and then South as we climbed two thousand feet. We joined the localizer, descended, and lo and behold we were back in almost the same position we were just a few minutes earlier. "What the heck was that all about?" I wondered at the time.

A few weeks later, I was departing Oakland with another pilot to fly VFR to an airport in the Sierra Mountains for a mountain check out. It was one of those weird days where Oakland's South Field (runway 29) was reporting low visibility and ceilings while the North Field (runways 27 and 33) were scattered clouds and great visibility. The official story was that Oakland was IFR, so we called ground and asked for a SVFR departure. To our surprise, we were told that SVFR was no longer allowed at Oakland. What?

Choosing the path of least resistance, we called clearance delivery, explained we weren't pre-filed, and asked for an IFR clearance to VFR. A few minutes later, we had our IFR clearance and departed. As soon as we were handed off to approach (at about 1000'), we cancelled IFR. We actually could have cancelled IFR as soon as our wheels left the runway since we were already in VFR conditions.

I have yet to hear the official story, but gather that someone at the FAA decided to interpret the regulations to mean that no aircraft can be given SVFR in Oakland's Class C surface area when there is any IFR aircraft arriving or departing, regardless of how much separation is between those aircraft. And there's been no warning, no indication on the San Francisco VFR Terminal Area Chart, not even a NOTAM to inform the unsuspecting pilot who has studied all the above regulations and is religiously completing their preflight planning.

I guess this is just another reason to be extremely careful when your plans seem to depend on SVFR.

Our Menu Has Changed

Looking back at this year and the last ten years, many important things happened in aviation in general and general aviation in particular. If that sounds confusing, it's fitting because the last decade has been a bit confusing. Here's my round-up/rant on some of the major aviation events of the last ten years.

The Cirrus SR22 received certification in 2000 and quickly became the best selling GA aircraft. Ten years later, with the economy slowly trying to crawl out of what can only be described as a slippery commode, the company is behind on their rent and co-founder Alan Klapmeier is no longer employed by Cirrus.

Very Light Jets were going to transform air transportation by utilizing smaller airports, avoiding airline delays at large airports, and essentially bypassing the airline-style security screening. The subtext here was "Those able to afford to travel by private aircraft should not be asked to remove their shoes and belts." Arguments over whether swarms of VLJs would improve air traffic delays for passengers or simply clog up our allegedly antiquated air traffic control system became moot when the market for these aircraft never really materialized and Eclipse Aviation, one of the pioneers of the VLJ, went into Chapter 11 (bankruptcy) and then ultimately into Chapter 7 (liquidation).

The use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles has grown tremendously, though mostly for military uses. In my neck of the woods, a Temporary Flight Restriction was created around Beale Air Force Base, but it's anything but temporary: It is, in fact, in effect most of the time. There has also been a push to allow UAVs to be used for police surveillance and other security tasks. How and when UAVs will mix with civilian, manned aircraft has got to be the most under-reported story of the decade.

The best, feel-good aviation story of the decade would have to be the ditching of an Airbus A320 in the Hudson River after multiple bird strikes crippled both engines. The successful outcome of this ditching involved a skilled flight crew and a lot of luck. The most disappointing story of the year is a toss up. It may be the mid-air collision between a Piper and a sightseeing helicopter over that same river where a contributing factor, and I'm going to be really blunt, was a tower controller who appeared more interested in talking on the phone about a dead cat than controlling aircraft. Or it could be the crash of a Colgan Air Dash 8 by a relatively inexperienced flight crew, both of whom were sick and tired and where a contributing factor was (and continues to be) a culture of denial about crew duty hours, rest requirements and miserably low pay.

Numerous cockpit devices were created and released in the last 10 years, some of them good, some not-so-good. The only unanswered question is "How did pilots and aircraft ever manage to fly without at least one iPhone on board loaded with a bevy of aviation apps?"

The most over-reported and over-hyped story would have to be NextGen, the FAA's answer to everything from airport delays to restless leg syndrome. There are a lot of problems that NextGen could address: Improved ATC services in remote areas, greater emphasis on satellite-based navigation, better handling of flight plans and direct routings, and enhanced collision avoidance. The hype surrounding NextGen include claims that it will solve airport delays at major hubs. It won't and if you want a really cogent explanation of why it won't, go read this series from the WWVB blog. And no, NextGen will not replace "antiquated" radar and from a national security perspective, there's no way we'd want to get rid of radar, thank you very much. As to why NextGen receives so much ink, look no further than the former head of the FAA, Marion Blakey, who has moved to greener pastures ... representing the very industry that is trying to get contracts to implement NextGen.

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 were related to aviation, but only in that they exploited passenger airline security flaws. There were certainly ramifications for GA and there continue to be, but issues surrounding national security ... er ... I mean Homeland Security are more far-reaching than just a private pilot's $100 hamburger privileges. What followed those attacks was intensified airport security procedures, some of which actually added some security value. A lot of the screening procedures came to be known as "Security Theater: A DHS/TSA production."

Flight instruction, particularly for foreign nationals, became more tightly regulated with flight instructors being conscripted as unpaid border guards. Airline passengers began disrobing to varying degrees and checked bags were randomly searched. I didn't travel by airline much in the last decade, but when I did I often opened my checked bag only to find a little calling card left by the TSA explaining why they'd searched my belongings. But no chocolate mint!

Returning from San Juan, Puerto Rico, after completing a ferry flight to the Caribbean, I had my first experience passing through one of the new bomb-sniffing detectors. Before entering the machine, which looks like a futuristic telephone booth, I was admonished to keep my shoes on. After exiting the machine, still somewhat dazed by being blasted by a fast sequence of air "puffs," I was admonished to remove my shoes. Reminds me of a line from the old Woody Allen movie Bananas:

... all citizens will be required to change their underwear every half-hour. Underwear will be worn on the outside so we can check.

There has yet to be another successful attack using airliners but there have been two notable attempts. Richard Reed tried to light off an explosive device concealed in the sole of one of the athletic shoes he was wearing and the talking heads just couldn't seem to believe it. They all continued to repeat one phrase with head-shaking, wide-eyed astonishment; " ... in his shoe!" until he became known as the Shoe Bomber.

The packaging of news is crucial because it distracts us from important details, like those behind latest airline bombing attempt. Maybe it's just me, but this reads like something out of a Keystone Kops script: 1) The alleged perpetrator's father notified the US that he believed his son was a threat, 2) The US Department of State didn't revoke guy's visa but put him on a list that wouldn't have allowed him to renew his visa, 3) The guy shows up at Schiphol with a one-way ticket and no baggage. And that's just what we know of that went wrong. Instead of talking about those issues, let's discuss the really important stuff: Should he be called the Underpants Bomber or the Nut Cracker?

The biggest story of the last 10 years, the one with the farthest reaching implications has to be the modernization of Flight Service. It's hard to remember what Flight Service was like before Lockheed-Martin took over. Many new pilots don't know that just a few years ago there used to be 58 Flight Service Stations throughout the US. Once LM took over, those functions were privatized and modernized. In the first year and a half, LM closed 20 of those stations which resulted in hundreds of FFS specialists being "relocated" or just plain fired. If that weren't bad enough, what ensued can only be described as a $#!+ storm:

Pilots waiting on hold, calls not answered or dropped, briefers not familiar with the local area and the subtleties of the local weather patterns where the callers were based. I would be remiss if I didn't point out that AOPA came out in favor of LM's modernization efforts, presumably as a way to forestall user fees, and had to eat a significant amount of crow when their membership realized they'd been sold up the river.

With 38 of the original 58 stations remaining, LM did eventually clean up their act. Things gradually got better, calls got through, hold times were reduced, but the actual level of service never returned to what it had been: Pilots learned they had to spell out VORs, intersections and even airport identifiers to briefers, but the march toward modernization didn't stop. In the months that ensued, LM closed even more flight service stations, reducing the number to 18, then 13. Now LM has announced plans to close seven more stations leaving six stations out of the original 58 and the loss of another 160 or so jobs.

With a 90% reduction in flight service stations and probably a similar number of staff cuts (I don't know the exact numbers), pilots found other ways to get briefings and file flight plans. For a while, LM's FSS site gave the distinct impression that they were going to implement an online service where pilots could get briefings, file flight plans, and close flight plans. Then, just as mysteriously, those plans fell by the wayside and now the website simply provides information on selected topics, provides some PR-generated rah-rah phrases, and gives pilots a way to provide feedback on LMs level of service.

During the first year of LM running FSS I recall several times I sat on a remote freight ramp, with FSS as my only official link for getting weather information. The problem was I frequently couldn't get through to file a flight plan or get a briefing. Some say that those days are behind us and to an extent they are right: Pilots can generally get through by phone to get a briefing and file, open, or close a flight plan. Trying to raise FSS by radio while on the ground or in the air is still proving problematic in some areas. Should the weather be worse than expected at your destination, Flight Watch can tell you while you are still en route, but they don't accept new flight plans - you have to call a Flight Service Station to do that. And if pilots can't contact FSS by radio, they have no choice but to throw themselves on the mercy of the ARTCC or TRACON controllers and ask for a pop-up IFR clearance. Understandably, many controllers are not thrilled with the prospect of having to provide a function that FSS used to provide. Another alternative would be to always file an IFR flight plan and always pick up a clearance, but that's seldom the most fuel-efficient way to fly.

LM just announced that even more closures are needed because of a 13% reduction in call volume. Hello? When you decimate a service, give it a black eye by firing a talented and trained work force, and take away most of the value-added features, pilots will find other ways to get the information they need. In my personal experience, the majority of pilots are getting their weather briefings online using a desktop computer, laptop, or smart phone. I still teach student pilots how to contact FSS by phone and by radio, but I tend to emphasize online briefings because it saves time and provides more value-added features than talking to FSS. There are several ways to to get online briefings and some sources provide complete, QCIP-approved briefings that meet the requirements of 14 CFR 91.103. Others online sources, while not official briefings because they do not provide NOTAMs or TFR information, are nevertheless quite useful.

The shift to on-line briefing might sound like progress, but much has been lost. The idea of having someone read you a description of the weather never seemed that efficient, but there were advantages to talking to a real person who had local expertise. Student pilots and less experienced pilots no longer have a local briefer who can give them the official weather, then use their years of experience with local weather patterns to help the pilot read between the lines. More responsibility is being placed on the individual pilot and without much weather experience, some pilots will make mistakes. They may interpret the online briefing incorrectly, their knowledge of weather may be incomplete, they may get an incomplete briefing, or the forecast may be turn out to just be plain wrong. With weather being one of the primary causes of GA accidents, the result could be more weather-related crashes and incidents. But rest assured that LMs balance sheet is safe and they continue to meet their performance goals ... rah, rah, rah!

So there you have my round-up of some of the important events of the last ten years. You may have your own list of high and low points, so let me just add that if you'd like to hear my holiday greeting, please press 1 ... All joking aside, I'd like to express my appreciation to all my loyal readers out there and wish everyone a Happy, Prosperous, Safe, and Fun-filled New Year.

The Big Sky

On August 8, 2009, at 11:53 a.m. EDT, a Eurocopter AS 350 BA (N401LH) operated by Liberty Helicopters and a Piper PA-32R- 300 (N71MC) operated by a private pilot, collided in midair over the Hudson River near Hoboken, New Jersey. The certificated commercial pilot and five passengers onboard the helicopter were killed. The certificated private pilot and two passengers onboard the airplane were also killed. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and no flight plans were filed for either flight. The local sightseeing helicopter flight was conducted under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 136. The personal airplane flight was conducted under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91.

Following this very prominent midair collision, the media have been talking about procedures, policies, and regulations with which most reporters have little experience or expertise. This is nothing new. Every time I read a news story on a topic about which I'm not familiar, I wonder how accurate that story really is. But I digress ...

One news report seemed to imply that the pilot of the Piper (being a private plane) was at fault because it had run into the Eurocopter. The author of another story focused on the shocking fact that aircraft operating in the thin sliver of airspace over the Hudson River do so without talking to air traffic control and without a flight plan. Other reports tried to compare and contrast the water ditching of a US Airways Airbus with this accident. This compels me to comment on what is known about this accident, provide a pilot's perspective on operating in airspace that has little or no ATC intervention, and talk about just how well the see-and-avoid approach to preventing midair collisions really works. I'll attempt to address these issues so that non-pilots can develop a better understanding of just what pilots of smaller aircraft who fly at lower altitudes have to deal with on a regular basis.

Apples and Oranges
First off, the only thing this midair accident has in common with the ditching of US Airways Flight 1549 is that in both cases, the aircraft ended up in the Hudson River. The US Airways accident involved a bird strike (which I guess is kind of like a midair collision) that resulted in a loss of power to both engines: The Airbus was still be flyable, it just didn't have any thrust to keep it from losing altitude. The fact that the plane was still flyable, combined with the skilled flight crew and a lot of luck, resulted in an amazingly successful water ditching. In contrast, the midair collision between the Piper and the Eurocopter caused catastrophic damage, both aircraft departed controlled flight, and the impact with the water was not survivable. The only thing these two accidents had in common was their location.

ATC's Role
The Piper departed Teterboro Airport and was, in fact, communicating with the tower controller until he was over the Hudson, when he was handed off to the Newark control tower. Talking to an airport's tower controller is mandatory when an aircraft is within that airport's airspace. In these situations, ATC will point out other potentially conflicting air traffic, but this is done on a workload permitting basis. Here's just a bit of what the Aeronautical Information Manual has to say on the subject:

4-1-15. Radar Traffic Information Service

This is a service provided by radar ATC facilities. Pilots receiving this service are advised of any radar target observed on the radar display which may be in such proximity to the position of their aircraft or its intended route of flight that it warrants their attention. This service is not intended to relieve the pilot of the responsibility for continual vigilance to see and avoid other aircraft ...

Many factors, such as limitations of the radar, volume of traffic, controller workload and communications frequency congestion, could prevent the controller from providing this service. Controllers possess complete discretion for determining whether they are able to provide or continue to provide this service in a specific case. The controller's reason against providing or continuing to provide the service in a particular case is not subject to question nor need it be communicated to the pilot. In other words, the provision of this service is entirely dependent upon whether controllers believe they are in a position to provide it.

Some questions have arisen about the Teterboro Tower's handling of the flight. Reportedly the controller was making a "non-business" phone call to the Newark tower which may have contributed to coordination problems with the handoff of the Piper from Tereboro to Newark. A conflict alert indication was shown on the radar displays at both towers as the Piper and the Eurocopter began to converge. Though these alerts usually produce both a visual and audio warning, neither controller recalled seeing or hearing the alert.

Several initial news reports made a big deal of the fact that the Piper's pilot never contacted the Newark tower after being handed off by the Teterboro tower. It's hard to know why that was, but it's also important to point out that a delay checking in after a handoff is quite common. Radio communication in aircraft is somewhat primitive - only one person can talk at a time. Perhaps the Piper's pilot was busy tuning his radio to the new frequency so he could check in, but we don't really know. It does appear that the frequency change came at a very inopportune time and the collision occurred shortly afterward. Remember all those studies that show distractions (like cell phone use while driving) reduce reaction time and situational awareness? The same thing can happen in aircraft and, apparently, in control towers.

Different Frequencies
Aircraft operating over the Hudson usually communicate using a CTAF - common traffic advisory frequency - which is like a party line where only one person can talk at a time. The CTAF is different from the frequencies used by Teterboro and Newark towers. The idea with the CTAF is that each aircraft announces their position, altitude, and intentions so that other pilots can put together a mental picture of where other traffic might be and avoid them. If this sounds primitive, it is! Yet in areas where there is no ATC service (usually at rural airports) and when there's not too much traffic, the CTAF set-up is pretty workable. The thing is that CTAF areas are usually not swarming with the volume of traffic that is seen on a daily basis over the Hudson River corridor. The important point here is that the Eurocopter was probably monitoring and transmitting on the CTAF while the Piper was monitoring and transmitting on the Teterboro Tower frequency.

Big Sky, Little Planes
This brings up the big sky theory of preventing midair collisions: The sky is big when compared to the size of aircraft, so the probability of a collision is reduced by the simple fact that the sky is so much bigger than the aircraft. This is a good theory if you assume that aircraft are randomly or evenly distributed throughout the big sky. Unfortunately, aircraft tend to congregate around certain locations (like around airports, helipads, and land-based navigation transmitters) like bees around a hive and that dramatically increases the probability of a collision.

The situation over the Hudson River adds another wrinkle since the area of airspace used by the sightseeing helicopters and other light aircraft is underneath and physically constrained by an overlying area of controlled airspace called Class Bravo. Entering Class Bravo requires a clearance from ATC precisely because this airspace was created primarily to keep small, slower aircraft away from larger, faster aircraft. When aircraft are cleared to enter Class B, ATC will guarantee separation between aircraft: This separation is not done on a workload permitting basis, it is guaranteed. This dramatically enhances the safety of aircraft operating in Class B, but ironically creates a thin layer of airspace for the smaller aircraft to share, which makes the Big Sky quite a bit smaller, and increases the probability that these smaller aircraft who are not in Class B will come close to one another.

Invisible Hands
So how about separating aircraft with a controller using radar? Air traffic control (ATC) can and does provide many valuable services to pilots by providing traffic advisories when aircraft get close or appear to be converging, but they are not an invisible hand that holds the aircraft and keeps them completely safe. Just because the pilot or flight crew of an aircraft is talking to a controller does not mean they are immune to mechanical problems, bird strikes, or midair collisions. The idea that ATC keeps aircraft safe, while not entirely a fantasy, is a belief that non-pilots may find comforting. Non-pilots need to remember that it's the pilot that is flying the aircraft and there is no invisible shield provided to aircraft that just happen to be talking to ATC.

Another misconception held by non-pilots has to do with flight plans. The idea that an aircraft is operating with an open flight plan is somehow safer than one operating without a flight plan may or may not be true. There basically are two types of flight plans: Instrument Flight Rules and Visual Flight Rules. Non-pilots need to know that the primary purpose of VFR flight plans is so that the appropriate authorities will be notified if you don't call in and close your flight plan when you arrive. In short, filing VFR flight plan helps ensure that if you crash and no one sees the crash, someone will eventually come looking for you.

Rules, Rules, Rules
Some reporters have claimed that aircraft which are not under ATC control are completely unregulated and not following any rules, but nothing could be further from the truth.

The aircraft that fly in any airspace must meet FAA airworthiness requirements including regular maintenance inspections with specific criteria.

The pilots that fly these aircraft must be certificated (we don't call them licenses in the US, but the media can't get that right either), they must hold a medical certificate, and they must meet recency experience to be able to act as pilot-in-command and to carry passengers.

The airspace in which these aircraft are operated have specific flight visibility and cloud clearance requirements. And there are specific right-of-way rules that pilots follow when they see they are getting too close to one another.

To equate these areas of airspace not under air traffic control to the Wild West is uninformed and stupid.

Technology to the Rescue, sort of

Without radar, isn't there someway that technology can keep two aircraft from trying to occupy the same airspace? It's not as if no one has tried to create technology to do this, but the success has been mixed.

Large aircraft are required to have traffic collision and avoidance systems (TCAS), but even with TCAS these planes can run into one another.

Several similar systems are available for smaller aircraft, but they can be expensive and not every aircraft has them. One system is the FAA's Traffic Information System (TIS) where appropriately configured ground radar facilities upload traffic information to appropriately equipped aircraft. This is a common system in many newer general aviation aircraft, but many ATC radar facilities do not support TIS. Oh, and the FAA is planning to phase out TIS. Yes, you read that correctly. The reason is that another system is supposed to replace TIS, even though virtually no small aircraft out there are currently equipped to support the new system. Call me a curmudgeon, but that sounds about right for the FAA ...

Another system for smaller aircraft (that is also expensive) is an Traffic Advisory System (TAS) that actively interrogates other aircrafts' transponders, just like ATC's radar. These systems can be quite helpful, but with some aircraft (like the Cirrus) there is no way to mute the aural warnings and keep them from barking "Traffic! Traffic!" when you're trying to talk to or listen to ATC.

The last system for small aircraft that I'll mention is a class of portable devices that warn of nearby aircraft and are sometimes referred to as Portable Collision Avoidance Systems (PCAS). These devices are not perfect, but they help pilots have an idea when other aircraft are nearby, even if they don't tell you exactly where those aircraft are. As a side note, I always fly with a PCAS unit.

What's a Pilot to Do?

First, scroll back to the top and watch the YouTube video of the Hudson midair. I know it's scary, heartbreaking, and painful, but watch it nevertheless.

Hopefully that video has you in a mood to listen.

Remember that accident statistics indicate that midair collisions tend to occur on clear, sunny days and usually in the vicinity of airports of navigational transmitting stations.

Keep your head on a swivel when operating in crowded airspace.

Fly at an appropriate VFR altitude for your direction of flight. I see at least one pilot violating this simple safety rule every time I fly.

Avoid distractions, like unnecessary conversations or fiddling with your GPS or MP3 player.

Listen up! Poor radio phraseology and technique not only wastes everyone's time, it can actually threaten your life, the lives of your passengers, the lives of other pilots, and the lives of people on the ground.

If you have a traffic detection device, use it.

If you think this sort of collision can't happen to you, watch the video a few more times.

The Sky is Failing

If you read this blog very often you've heard me caution pilots about being overly reliant on any single method of navigation, like GPS. Since the GPS was declared fully operational in 1995, pilots, sailors, hikers, drivers, cell phone users, and the military all have become accustomed to the convenience provided by this no-cost system (okay, you have to buy the GPS receiver). Even the next generation air traffic control system NexGen, which the FAA has been furiously flogging as the panacea for everything from air traffic delays to tooth decay, relies heavily on GPS. But those plans might need to change.

A recently released GAO report entitled Global Positioning System: Significant Challenges in Sustaining and Upgrading Widely Used Capabilities has many wondering about the stability and sustainability of our constellation of GPS satellites, whether or not the Air Force can improve and "replenish" the system in time, and what our daily lives on the ground, at sea, and in the air might look like if GPS became unavailable or degraded.

The GAO's 61 page report is interesting reading, especially when compared to the glowing claims made by the FAA about the progress that's been made enhancing GPS availability and growing the number of RNAV procedures for aircraft. And if you are wondering if GPS is an aging system in need of repair or a robust system that continues to be expanded and enhanced, the truth probably lies somewhere in between.

One key questions that needs to be addressed is this: What is the useful service life of a GPS satellite? A solid answer is hard to come by, but one thing of which we can be certain of is that satellites have worn out in the past and more will wear out in the future. Of the current constellation of 31 GPS satellites, thirteen entered service between 1990 and 1997, twelve entered service between 1997 and 2004, and the remaining six satellites were launched between 2004 and 2009. That means about a third of the GPS satellites are between 12 and 19 years old; a sobering thought.

One of many problems that aging GPS satellites can experience involves clock errors. Since GPS receiver's position is calculated based on signals from several satellites, knowing the time each of the signals was sent and the time it was received is crucial. Each GPS satellite has four clocks that are periodically refreshed from the master station on the ground and each satellite will broadcast an estimate of time offset of the onboard atomic clock from the GPS system time. Since GPS signals travel at the speed of light, even minute errors in clock settings or offset estimates can result in large positional errors for GPS receivers. According to the GNSS Evolutionary Architecture Study released in February of 2008:

... large clock runoffs were experienced on SV22 [space vehicle #22] on July 28, 2001; SV27 on May 26, 2003; SV35 on June 11, 2003, and SV23 on January 1, 2004. These events generated range measurement errors of 1000 meters or more . The pseudorange error on SV22 on July 28, 2001, was reported to be 200,000m by some users and 300,000m by others.

Other problems that can afflict aging GPS satellite's include the failure of positioning components, propulsion systems, and a degradation of the power supplied by each satellite's solar array. The GAO report points out that the Air Force can often switch to a satellite's back-up system. And they can manage the power problem to an extent by powering down satellites when they are not needed or by shutting down power to "secondary payload" systems. These sorts of measures may extend the service life of older satellites, but it's clear that nothing lasts forever. New replacement satellites must be planned for and launched on schedule.

This leads to the GAO's main concern with the US Air Force's poor track record of creating and launching new satellites on schedule and within budget. Not only has the track record in Phase IIF been poor, the schedule for Phase IIIA actually compresses the lead time to produce and launch satellites. Without going into all the details of feature creep, government contractor inefficiencies, and the like, the bottom line is that the Air Force may not succeed and we GPS users may have to do with fewer satellites. Here's the GAO's estimate of how many satellites we may have to do with, or without. If they are right, the probability of having 24 functioning GPS satellites between 2010 and 2012 hovers around 85%.


The FAA's enhancement plans for GPS follows several phases and the FAA's aggressive creation of RNAV approaches with LPV minima in Phase II has been nothing short of astounding. Only a few years ago I was writing about LPV approaches from a strictly theoretical standpoint and now they outnumber ILS approaches. We are now in Phase III and a few of the stated goals are to :

• Provide LPV approaches with 200' DA (most are currently 250 feet)
• Transition support and enhancement of WAAS to the FAA
• And prepare for an increase in predicted solar activity

The FAA appears to be doing a good job and enhancements to the WAAS ground components have significantly expanded WAAS RNP 0.3 availability.

And LPV coverage has been extended significantly, too.



Increasing GPS receiver accuracy using the Space-Based Augmentation System (WAAS) is obviously on track. People who study such things predict that there will be an increase in solar ionospheric disturbances beginning somewhere around 2022 and lasting for some number of years. Solar activity has reduced WAAS availability in the past and it's reasonable to expect it will happen again. Some have suggested that LORAN could be a back-up system, but for aviation that idea seems dead on arrival: There are few functioning LORAN units out there and no new units that I know of currently being manufactured for aviation use. The FAA has decommissioned many NDBs and they plan to decommission more (basically not fix the ones that fail). They'd also like to do away with most VOR stations. For better or worse, we seem to have put all our navigational eggs into the GPS space basket.

And the future could be very interesting indeed.

Hold Everything, Part III

For being so simple, holding patterns are a surprisingly deep topic. In this installment I'll cover some subtle points like orientation on the outbound leg, when to start timing, the 5 Ts, Dealer's Choice Entry, wind correction, station side holds, and the so-called Crisis Entry.

You Gotta Believe
When a photojournalist is mired in a crowd of people and is unable to see the subject they are trying to photograph, they often hold their camera up, point it in the generally correct direction, and click the shutter in hopes of getting a usable shot. This used to be called a Hail Mary, a term also applied to a quarterback throwing a football a great distance downfield in hopes that his receiver will be there to catch it.

An aviation equivalent of a Hail Mary is something that many new instrument pilots have a hard time grasping: Without a GPS depiction of a holding pattern you really have no positive course guidance on the outbound leg. On the inbound leg, the CDI or HSI will be centered and the ADF needle should basically be pointing straight up (aside from any wind correction angle).

If you're navigating with a VOR or ADF, you cross the fix, turn outbound, fly for a minute and see what happens when you turn inbound. If you have an idea of the winds aloft prior to entering the hold, that knowledge can certainly inform your choice of heading; more on that later.

With a GPS depiction of the holding pattern, you'll have an excellent idea of where the desired outbound leg is. Some GPS receivers capable of depicting holding patterns will even change the shape of the holding pattern race track to account for your aircraft's speed and for wind correction.

Here's the G1000's predicted holding pattern shape at 145 knots with winds out of the NNE at 25 knots.


Here's the same predicted holding pattern shape after slowing to 105 knots.


Without GPS, the first time around the hold is often a bit of a gimme - You get a better idea of the winds aloft and refine the hold with each lap you fly. This can be a good thing if you have to hold for a long time because it gives you something to do and relieves the boredom.

Five is Enough
A popular checklist mnemonic used as you cross a holding fix (or any other fix, for that matter) is the Five Ts. Some instructors teach a slightly different order and some even teach more than Five Ts. Here's my version:

• Turn - to the outbound heading
• Time - start your time, if necessary
• Twist - twist the course pointer or OBS to the INBOUND course, if necessary
• Throttle - reduce to holding speed if you haven't already done so
• Talk - report entering the hold

Some folks insist that you start timing before you start turning, but it doesn't really matter as long as you are consistent in which you choose to do first. I teach turn before time because it works well when flying one of those rare instrument approaches that have a course change over the final approach fix.

I've seen pilots and instructors who insist on twisting the OBS or course pointer when turning outbound as well as when turning inbound in the hold. That seems a bit kooky in light of the above discussion of course guidance on the outbound leg, but I guess it's harmless as long as you keep your situational awareness.

I rarely see pilots report entering the hold, even though it's one of the compulsory reports under IFR. The format goes something like this:

Barnburner 123, entered the hold, Sacramento, 2132 Zulu.

Get Your Fix
An often misunderstood concept is when to start timing the outbound leg of the hold. When you are entering a hold using a teardrop or parallel entry, start the outbound timing when you cross the fix. When flying a direct entry or once established in the hold, start timing abeam the holding fix provided you can determine that position.

Station passage over a VOR occurs on a teardrop or parallel entry as soon as your VOR receiver shows a positive reversal of the To/From flag. For a hold over an NDB, your ADF needle will start to point behind your wing when you've passed the station. If you are holding over a VOR intersection or a DME fix on a VOR radial, the equivalent of station passage is when you have passed the cross-radial or DME distance that defines the holding fix.

If you are navigating using GPS, you need to suspend waypoint sequencing (by pressing the OBS button) unless you are holding over a missed approach holding waypoint defined in an instrument approach procedure. The nice thing here is that when waypoint sequencing is disabled and you cross the fix, the To/From flag will reverse just like when crossing a VOR station.

If you did a direct entry or are already established in the holding pattern, start timing the outbound leg when abeam the holding fix. Holding over an NDB, abeam the station occurs when the ADF needle is basically pointing off the wing. Holding over a VOR and assuming you set the proper inbound course on your OBS or HSI, abeam the station occurs when the To/From flag flips to TO.

Holding over a GPS waypoint with waypoint sequencing disabled and the proper inbound course set, abeam the station occurs when the To/From flag flips to TO.

When holding over the intersection of two VOR radials, you won't have a good indication of the position abeam the fix unless you are lucky enough to have a cross-radial is perpendicular to the inbound course. In these cases, start timing as you cross the fix and turn outbound, and after a minute you should have completed your 180 degree turn and you can start timing the outbound leg.

Holding over a DME fix on a radial without DME leg lengths, start timing when the DME distance is the same distance as that which defines the holding fix.

Dealer's Choice
When you are approaching the holding fix and your heading is within ±10˚ of the outbound course, it's really up to you as to whether you do a teardrop entry or a parallel entry. One advantage of doing a parallel entry is when winds aloft are strong. With a strong wind perpendicular to the inbound and outbound courses, tracking outbound on the inbound course provides you with positive course guidance. This means you can determine a wind correction angle for the outbound leg and apply that knowledge to flying the inbound leg.

Here's the missed approach holding for the Stockton ILS RWY 29R. Note that the G1000 is defaulting to a teardrop entry and it's probably best to follow that advice. Without GPS and using just plain old VORs, you could do a parallel or teardrop - your choice.


Wind Correction
When there's a strong wind perpendicular to the inbound and outbound legs, your holding pattern will end up looking egg-shaped rather than the idealized, symmetrical racetrack pattern. In some cases the wind will increase your groundspeed on the outbound leg and decrease your groundspeed on the inbound leg. Unless your holding instructions specified DME leg lengths, you'll need to apply a little trial and error to adjust your outbound timing so that your inbound leg takes a minute.

One rule of thumb is that whatever wind correction angle you needed on the inbound leg should be doubled or tripled in the opposite direction for the outbound leg.

Near Perpendicular Entry
You may find cases where a direct entry has you flying course almost perpendicular to the outbound course.



If you cross the fix and turn outbound, your outbound course will be so close to the inbound course that you're guaranteed to overshoot the turn to the inbound course. In these cases it can be beneficial to cross the fix and wait 10 or 15 seconds before turning outbound to but some distance between your outbound course and the inbound course. In fact, that is what the G1000 is programmed to do in these situations.


Station-side Holds
Remember that step for determining the outbound heading where you ask if the cardinal direction matches the radial? Most of the time they will match, but when they differ is called the station-side hold. This occurs where the holding fix is defined as a DME distance on a VOR radial and the holding pattern is located on the same side of the fix as the VOR station.



Look at this illustration and assuming North is up, it's pretty easy to see that the cardinal direction for this hold would be East, but the radial specified would be 270 degrees. This is where you determine the reciprocal of 270 is 090, write it down as your outbound heading, and turn to that heading after crossing the fix. To navigate on the inbound leg, your CDI or HSI should be set to 270.

Crisis Entry
Try as you might, you may get flummoxed, not be able to determine the entry procedure, and screw up your first trip through the hold. The best thing to do turn back to the holding fix (left or right turn, whichever is shortest), figure out the outbound heading, cross the fix and turn outbound again. You don't want this to happen on a check ride, but everyone makes mistakes from time to time. In real life, think of it as a mulligan or a do-over.

This concludes my series on holding. I hope you've found it helpful and enlightening!