Driver's License = Medical Certificate?

One nice thing about AOPA's new, PR-oriented management is that it's oh so easy to discern their agenda. DVD-of-the-month club, life insurance, medical certification assistance, legal assistance, credit cards, and numerous other "member benefits" are being hawked to each and every AOPA member on a regular basis. AOPA seems thirsty for money. Quoting John Ciardi: "May you stay solvent by whatever means are available to you."

Issues that AOPA reports repeatedly in their newsletters and magazines have obviously been designated as their top priorities. These priorities would seem to include bringing back BARR (Block Aircraft Registration Requests) so no one will know how business jets are being used, just saying "no" to user fees, just saying "yes" to NextGen and ADS-B, and now advocating the elimination of the 3rd class medical certificate.

The proposal at hand seems to be "If you hold a driver's license, that's good enough to be PIC and you don't need a 3rd class medical." One would assume the requirements for 1st and 2nd class medical certificates would not change and would still be required for commercial and airline transport pilots. It seems that with an appropriate pilot's certificate and driver's license as a medical, this proposal would allow someone to fly not just the light-sport/flying-lawn-furniture sorts of aircraft, but presumably aircraft with a maximum gross takeoff weight as high as 12,499 pounds. This sounds ridiculous just typing the words.

The criteria for a third class medical certificate are remarkably liberal, giving rise to the old joke: "If you can see lightning and hear thunder, you can get a medical certificate." Now if you have a medical condition that could unexpectedly render you unconscious or otherwise impair you, that's another story. Pilots with diabetes, heart conditions, high blood pressure, cognitive impairments all come under scrutiny. As well they should, but the FAA medical certification division has still done a pretty good job of allowing for pilots with special circumstances to obtain a medical certificate. For example ...

Another complaint is that getting a medical certificate is a hassle. Think about that: If you're under 40 years of age, your 3rd class medical certificate is good for five years (60 calendar months). If you're over 40, it's still good for 2 years (24 calendar months). A trip to the AME every two or five years is hardship? Give me a break! Now if you have a special medical condition, you will have to jump through hoops, provide test results, and you often have to wait for approval. That's a hassle with which I am all too familiar.

Long time readers of this blog know that in 2008 my 2nd class medical certificate was revoked for a year after I experienced a disqualifying medical episode. The FAA's revocation was explicit and, it seemed to me, a bit rude. After all, I had voluntarily reported my situation, I had done the right thing, I was following the rules. The thing is, many pilots don't like to follow the regs and that likely explains the FAA's serious tone.

Several pilots emailed me or commented on by blog suggesting I was foolish for telling the FAA. Some suggested I should have just kept it to myself rather than blog about the experience. Another told me I should have just monitored my own condition, made my own decisions about my fitness for flight, that I should have been the judge, stuff in that vein. My ability to earn an income was significantly hampered until the FAA granted a special issuance 2nd class medical certificate. Based on this experience, some might think that I'd be strongly in favor of what AOPA is advocating. In point of fact, I'm not.

Medical certification is an important part of aviation safety even if many pilots choose to keep their medical problems to themselves rather than risk being grounded. Some might say the FAA 3rd class medical exam is perfunctory and ineffective, but the applicant must fill out a medical history questionnaire. Falsifying or misrepresenting that medical history is serious business. The safeguards against drivers with medical problems is potentially even more problematic. In California, Health and Safety Code Section 103900 requires the treating physician to report a driver's health problems. If a driver chooses not to be treated or doesn't reveal a problem to their physician, it would seem that no one would be the wiser. And drivers are not required to undergo regular physical exams.

In light of AOPA's support of the NextGen initiative to increase aviation safety and utility, it's odd they would, at the same time, be arguing to implement what could very well become a sort of "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy. AOPA's proposal would have us flying in a world where pilots who have potentially serious medical problems could act as PIC without a medical history or regular check-ups and status reports. The importance of addressing and dealing with medical issues would be further minimized and the status quo of sweeping things under the rug would be maintained. If AOPA's constant clamoring for a driver's license medical certificate isn't about safety, perhaps it's about more potential AOPA members. More members, more money.

This brings me to the late Doug Johnson, Lt. Col. USAF (Ret.), whom I met while teaching at the Alameda Aero Club. Doug founded the flying club and he continued to be its driving force after the Alameda NAS was closed and the club moved to Oakland. Doug was plainspoken and when ladies weren't present, Doug could curse a blue streak. And all of this was put forth in an Arkansas drawl that'd make you think you were standing in front of a ribald version of Foghorn Leghorn. Doug had been a B17 captain during WWII and survived his share of bombing missions. He had plenty of opinions on most any topic you could come up with. In short, Doug was larger that life.


Doug was always hanging around the airport, but I never saw him go flying. I asked him why and he explained that one day, driving to the airport, he'd woken up, shaken but uninjured, with his car in a ditch. After a slew of medical tests with no conclusive results, Doug made his choice. "Boywah" he'd said, "That day forward, I couldn't go flyin' without 'nother pilot on board. What if it happened again, with ma wife onboard? What if an innocent person on the ground got killed 'cause of me?" The doctors said it was okay for Doug to drive, and drive he did, but I suspect if Doug were alive today and he heard about AOPA's proposal, he'd be all over them like white on rice.

If you've lost your medical certificate, if you're unable to fly under sport pilot rules, I understand that being grounded sucks. I hated it the first time it happened to me and I know that at some point (hopefully in the distant future) I may very well be grounded again. All pilots need to remember that each one of us may have to give up being PIC. It may not be popular to say, but a time will come when our love of flying must be overshadowed by the safety of those around us and the loved ones who fly with us.

Cover Your Tail

A few years ago, my student was refueling the Cessna we had just flown as I turned to appreciate an old 737 converted to a business jet that was parked in the hot spot behind us. Intrigued by the classic lines and the "cigar tube" engines, I pulled out my camera to take a few digital photographs and that simple act started an odd chain of events that strikes at the heart of the recent debate on privacy, public access, and blocking access to flight plan data.

Expectation of Privacy

One doesn't need to be a lawyer or privacy expert to be aware that the concept of "expectation of privacy" seems to be fluid. Anyone who thinks that the constitution guarantees a right to privacy has not been paying attention. Exactly how we should interpret the various amendments in the Bill of Rights that appear to involve privacy depends on who you talk to. Clearly James Madison had no idea that evolving technology would provide so many opportunities to create the surveillance society we currently have. Virtually all voice and data communications can be captured and mined in an unprecedented wave of domestic surveillance. Concerns that wiretapping capabilities have been used without a court order or judicial oversight continue to be debated.

Public or Private

When I started to photograph that classic 737, I was immediately approached by a ramp worker who told me to stop. Nonplussed, I asked him what he was talking about. He explained that their clients didn't want their privacy invaded by having their aircraft photographed. I countered that I was standing on the ramp of a public use airport that was built with taxpayer money. He changed tack and said that it was the FBO's policy that photographs were not allowed. These sorts of claims to privacy in public spaces seem to be promulgated primarily by wealthy individuals and celebrities who are presumably worried about security and safety. Just to be clear, I'm not trying to start a class war. That war has already been fought and, as others have pointed out, the Middle Class lost.

The fact that aircraft flight tracking data was widely available came to the fore when that data was used to uncover extraordinary rendition flights where suspected terrorists were transported to other countries where certain rights and freedoms are not guaranteed. In several cases, the people transported were found to not be involved in terrorism after they experienced considerable ... ahem ... inconvenience. With the flight tracking cat out of the bag, the FAA eventually developed the Block Aircraft Registration Request (BARR) program where aircraft owners and operators could block access to the tracking of their aircraft.

In March, Secretary of Transportation LaHood announced the decision to no longer block aircraft tail numbers (with the exception of military aircraft and others who can prove valid security concerns), thereby providing general access to National Airspace System Status Information data. This effectively dismantles the previous arrangement provided by BARR where aircraft owners and operators could block access to the tracking of their aircraft.

Say Cheese

Arguments for privacy rights typically hinge around preventing unwarranted government intrusion, but those who claim that their privacy is being invaded by access to flight tracking data don't seem to be worried about the government. They seem concerned about the general public and what little remains of the Fourth Estate knowing what they are doing. Given all that has transpired, it would seem that AOPA and the NBAA are a little late to the party when it comes privacy rights. The lines between private and public spaces as well as individual versus corporate rights continue to be redefined. So some simple advice: If you have a classic B737 and you don't want anyone to photograph it or know its location, park it in your backyard, throw a tarp over it, and hope for the best.

Night Regulations

Flying at night is one of the more enjoyable experiences a pilot can have. There tend to be less aircraft flying, controllers tend to be more relaxed, and once the sun goes down the weather tends to calm down. Nighttime is a great time to learn or practice simulated instrument flying because a view-limiting device is more effective in the dark and it's easier for your instructor or safety pilot to see other traffic. Unlike most ICAO countries, US regulations generally permit private pilots and above to fly at night without the need of a special rating, but the regulations on logging night flight and maintaining night recency of experience are a bit complicated. So break out your flashlight and take a somewhat circuitous journey through night flight regulations. Along the way, I'll point out some different resources pilots can use to determine when, depending on the situation, nighttime begins and ends.

Definitions of Night

Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (aka 14 CFR) contains several definitions of, and references to, night and nighttime. It would be nice if all these definitions were found all in one place, but they aren't. So start at the beginning, 14 CFR part 1, where many (but not all) definitions used in title 14 are found.

14 CFR - 1: Night means the time between the end of evening civil twilight and the beginning of morning civil twilight, as published in the American Air Almanac, converted to local time.

Any flight time between the beginning and end of civil twilight can be logged as night time, but not so for night landings and takeoffs (more on that later). Finding out when civil twilight begins and ends is a bit more involved. If you know when sunset has occurred or if you can see the sunset while on the ground, you can approximate the beginning of civil twilight as being about 30 minutes after sunset. I say approximate because there are locations where, depending on the time of year, the sun just barely sets and this rule of thumb won't work.

Anytime sunset is imminent or has occurred, remember that 14 CFR 91.209 requires you to turn on your aircraft's position lights (sometimes called "nav lights"). When it comes to anti-collision light, the pilot-in-command may elect to turn them off if it's in the interest of safety. So don't taxi around other pilots on the ramp with your strobes needlessly blazing. For aircraft operating in Alaska, the rules are different because ... well ... Alaska is different.

Most of us don't have internet access while in flight, but IFR-certified and handheld GPS receivers can tell you the time of sunset and sunrise for your current location. Finding that information isn't always easy, but it's there.

If you have internet access, the US Naval Observatory web site is a good place to find out when civil twilight ends and begins. You can enter the day, month, year, city and state or enter latitude and longitude to see the details. Note that the date you specify may today or it can in the past or in the future.

A free iPad/iPhone app, Skyclock Lite, lets you easily determine sunset, sunrise, and the beginning and end of civil twilight based on your location. The nice thing about Skyclock Lite is that you can configure it to show sunset and the various types of twilight (civil, nautical, and astronomical) on an analog clock face or as a block of text. And did I mention it was free?

Night Landing Currency

Another important night regulation has to do with recency of experience for pilots who want to carry passengers, found in 14 CFR 61.57 (b) (emphasis added).

... no person may act as pilot in command of an aircraft carrying passengers during the period beginning 1 hour after sunset and ending 1 hour before sunrise, unless within the preceding 90 days that person has made at least three takeoffs and three landings to a full stop during the period beginning 1 hour after sunset and ending 1 hour before sunrise ..."

So if you haven't done at least three night takeoffs and three night landings to a full stop in an aircraft of the same category and class, you can only carry passengers up to 1 hour after sunset. It's hard to imagine a scenario where you'd not be current for night landings, have passengers on board, and need to land 1 hour before sunrise. I guess you could have departed the previous day around sunset and flown all night ...

When it comes logging flight time and tracking night takeoffs and landings, an app like LogTen Pro makes it easy. Once you've entered your departure and destination, you need only note your out/in times and LogTen Pro will figure out how much of the flight occurred at night and whether your landings and takeoffs count toward your day or night currency. For PC users out there, I suspect that Logbook Pro has a similar capability. Otherwise, you'll need to track these times manually.

More Fine Print

Also found in 14 CFR 61 is a night flying restriction on commercial pilots who don't hold an instrument rating. These guys and gals must make up a very small minority of the commercial pilot population in the US, but they may not carry passengers for hire at night.

Other pilots restricted from flying at night include sport pilots, recreational pilots, and student pilots (unless they have a separate night flying endorsement from their instructor). Alaskan pilots who earned their private pilot certificate during the summer may not have been able to experience nighttime conditions and can be issued a certificate with a night flying restriction, but that restriction has to be removed within 12 calendar months.

The FAA recently published a letter of interpretation that states an instructor who is not current for night landings may be provide instruction to a pilot who is also not current for night landings. The reasoning is that for the purposes of night recency of experience only, the instructor is not considered to be a passenger. Maybe it's just me, but this seems like some convoluted logic.

Pilots who fail the color vision portion of their medical examination will normally be issued a medical certificates that states that they are prohibited from flying at night. Depending on the severity of their impairment, a color blind pilot may be able to obtain a letter of authorization (referred to as a Statement of Demonstrated Ability or SODA) by passing an examination with an FAA inspector. The pilot must demonstrate they can correctly identify light gun signals from a control tower as well as other types of runway and obstruction lights. The details on this process can be found in the FAA's FSIMS, Volume 5, Chapter 8.

NTSB, SODA, and Nighttime

One night accident involving a pilot with color blindness occurred in 2002 when a Federal Express 727-232 descended prematurely into trees on final approach to runway 9. The first officer was the pilot flying and had a first class medical and was issued a SODA for color blindness based on his military service record. A video recreation of the accident can be found here.

In the November 2003 letter, the Chief of the USAFSAM Aerospace Ophthalmology Branch stated that the first officer's color vision discrimination was impaired to an extent that would ìlimit him to very nearly a gray-blue-yellow world, we believe that he would definitely have had problems discriminating the PAPIs as they were designed because the red lights would not appear to be red at all, but some other wavelength that would make them more indistinguishable from white. The letter also stated that it might be possible for someone with this type of [color vision] deficiency to use brightness differences between the white and red PAPI lights to help differentiate between them.

The entire report is available here and NTSB's probable cause included this statement (emphasis added).

Contributing to the accident was a combination of the captain's and first officer's fatigue, the captainís and first officer's failure to adhere to company flight procedures, the captainís and flight engineers failure to monitor the approach, and the first officer's color vision deficiency.

The NTSB has also taken issue with the FAA's definition of night in mountainous areas. In 2001 a Gulfstream III on an instrument approach into Aspen-Pitkin County Airport descended into terrain just 2400 feet shy of the runway threshold. A contributing factor was that the instrument approach being used was not authorized at night, nighttime had not technically arrived. The NTSB recommended that the FAA review the definition of nighttime in mountainous areas because in this case, the sun had disappeared behind the mountains a full 25 minutes before official sunset. In this situation, nighttime-like conditions, low visibility, unlighted terrain and a flight crew intent on landing proved to be a deadly combination.


Regs, Theory, and Practice

There's a lot more that goes into safe and successful night flying, including physiology, equipment, planning, and risk assessment, but that's the skinny on FAA night regs and civil twilight. And while the regulations surrounding night flight may be convoluted, actually flying at night can be enjoyable, contemplative, even peaceful. So as a tower controller who worked the night shift in Las Vegas used to say when handing an aircraft off to the departure controller, "Good Flight and Good Night."

Rules of the Game

I tell pilot candidates I train that if they score 100% on their knowledge test, I will buy them a margarita, assuming they are of legal drinking age, or a Peet's cappuccino if they aren't. You see the current FAA's knowledge testing procedures have all the characteristics of a game. I'm not being flippant, I'm being honest. The tests are expensive to take ($150 on average), a bank of representative questions for each test is published in advance, you're only offered a quick review of any questions you missed, you won't be told the correct answers to any questions you missed, and the tests have historically contained trick questions and misleading graphics. And there's a whole test preparation industry that produces books, weekend study courses, and computer-based training all designed to help applicants get a good score. The only thing missing is popcorn and liquid refreshment.

All was generally well with the FAA knowledge tests until, without any notice, the FAA decided to change the rules of the game by changing the test question bank for the Airline Transport Pilot, Flight Engineer, and the Fundamental of Instruction knowledge tests without modifying their own publications. The predictable result was a sharp increase in the failure rate and that has led many to observe with shock and horror that what had heretofore been occurring was not learning at all! To better understand the situation, you'll need to set aside some popularly held misconceptions about the FAA's knowledge test procedures.

Learning is ...

The instructional theory and concepts that flight and ground instructors are taught can be found in the FAA's Aviation Instructor's Handbook. I'll be blunt and say that the handbook contains a hodgepodge of educational theory, some of it germane and useful, some of it ... not so much. It has been edited and changed over the years and in the process has been somewhat improved. One of the core concepts presented is the four levels of learning: Rote, Understanding, Application, and Correlation. Rote knowledge is the memorization of facts while correlative knowledge is the ability to combine new experiences and information with what you've learned in the past. Most FAA practical test standards contain this boilerplate (emphasis added):

Examiner’s shall test to the greatest extent practicable the applicant’s correlative abilities rather than mere rote enumeration of facts throughout the practical test.

While a practical test is dynamic and interactive affair, the knowledge test is anything but. An examiner can ask questions selectively and in a sequence so as to uncover the level of knowledge the applicant possesses. The knowledge test is static (okay, the groups of questions are randomly selected at the time your test is generated) and a much more difficult affair since the test must provide valid results across a diverse population. It's good to have goals with regard to testing and examining pilots, but the truth seems to be that both the knowledge test and the oral portion of the practical tend to rely heavily on rote knowledge for the simple reason that it is easiest to test. I know one flight instructor candidate who was pink-slipped because he could not recite, verbatim, the definition of instructional level of knowledge.

Multiple Choice

A knowledge test should measure what the candidate has learned in an objective and effective manner. The easiest type of assessment to administer and grade is a selection style (aka multiple choice) test. Selection questions must be designed so that there is only one correct answer or one best answer. The Aviation Instructor's Handbook provides guidance to instructors on how to avoid using puzzle, trick, or bewilderment questions. Apparently in an effort to discriminate between levels of learning, the FAA often resorts to the very types of questions they caution against.

Some of the more egregious examples that come to mind include the graphics used in the Instrument Rating knowledge test where an RMI needle was depicted as slightly bent or the arrow head of the needle was depicted so subtly that one might mistake it for the tail of the needle. Then there were the flight planning questions where the en route time or fuel burn or magnetic heading that you calculated didn't exactly match any of the answers, but was somewhat close to one of the supplied answers. What was actually being testing here? No one seems to know, but a whole industry began to grow up around these tests.

In the past, when you missed a question on a knowledge test the only feedback your test results showed was the knowledge codes indicating the general subject area for incorrectly answered questions. The FAA changed this system somewhat and now publishes the Learning Statement Reference Guide for Airman Knowledge Testing. How they arrived at the term "learning statement" is beyond me, but I'm sure it involved hours, if not weeks, of meetings.

Preparation, Memorization, Commercialization

When suggesting to a student how to best prepare for the knowledge test, I ask them a bit about their individual learning style. Some people like doing computer-based training, others prefer a printed study guide, while others prefer the group learning environment provided by a weekend seminar. One size does not fit all. The advantage of a computer-based study system is that you can take sample tests in a format that closely resembles what you'll see at the testing center and that helps to reduce test anxiety for most people. I know of no students who receive their knowledge test preparation from their individual instructor one-on-one because the cost would be prohibitive.

Ideally, test preparation should help the candidate ensure that they are adequately prepared to pass the test and uncover areas they need to work on. What often happened in the past was that some candidates tried to memorize the answers and the tests end up measuring rote knowledge instead of correlative knowledge. To combat this, the FAA made some changes. First, the actual test questions are no longer published. Instead, a bank of representative questions is available for each knowledge test. Many people mistakenly believe that all the actual test questions are published in advance, but this has not been the case for several years.

The National Association of Flight Instructors has raised some important questions about the FAA's unannounced test changes, pointing out that some questions may have been added without first being validated. It also seems that the FAA reference materials no longer adequately represent the knowledge tests that applicants are taking and some subject matter areas may now carry more weight than they did in the past. As an aside, NAFI seems to be doing a commendable job of representing the interests of flight instructors and their students.

Cost of Learning

For quite some time now, the FAA knowledge tests have been computed-based and administered through testing centers affiliated with LaserGrade (now PSI) and CATS. The testing centers must adhere to proctoring rules, including having a closed-circuit surveillance system installed in the testing area. While there is a certain overhead to providing these facilities, it seems hard to justify the 100% increase testing fees that has occurred over the last few years. No one seems to have talked about this increase, probably because the test-takers are a captive audience and have no recourse but to pay the piper. It baffles me why some keep saying over and over that cost is not a significant impediment to learning to fly. With avgas pushing $6/gallon in many areas and knowledge tests costing $150, cost most certainly is a factor.

The FAA has tried to create a valid and reliable knowledge test for each rating or certificate and though the whole thing may seem to be a bit of a mess, historically, the FAA's testing set-up appears to be adequate. Applicants must expend some amount of effort studying and even if they are just memorizing answers, some learning is bound to occur during this activity. Secondly, the knowledge test is just one part of the learning equation. The last line of defense in ensuring that adequate learning has occurred is the oral portion of the practical test, where the applicant must stand and deliver. While problems are occasionally reported with the manner in which some examiners have administered practical tests, by and large the system, as a whole, works. So while aviation testing may appear to be a mess, it has been a mess that everyone understood and accepted. At least we thought we understood.

ForeFlight Geo-referencing and OpSpec Approval

Don't Use for Navigation

Even if you're an old school pilot who secretly thinks the road to hell is what's displayed on a moving map, I'll still wager that you'll find geo-referenced approach charts and airport diagrams compelling once you see them in action. ForeFlight's new geo-referencing feature is the result of licensing of original technology developed by Seattle Avionics. This option increases the yearly ForeFlight subscription from $74.95 to $149.99, but you can also buy subscriptions for more than one iPad or inquire about a corporate subscription plan. And while a Jeppesen has generated a lot of buzz by announcing OpSpec approval for at least one operator using their iPad app, you should know that the same approval for ForeFlight Mobile HD (FFM) on the iPad has also been accomplished. More on that later.

Required Ingredients

To use ForeFlight's geo-referencing feature, you'll need two ingredients. You'll need to pay the additional fee and you must have some sort of GPS. If the additional fee seems costly, consider this: The annual FFM subscription includes all of the Aeronav charts and procedures one could want for a cost that is only slightly more that what you'd pay for a Jeppesen Mobile TC subscription for California only (sans geo-referencing, by the way). That makes FFM a pretty good value, if you ask me.

The built-in GPS-A found in the 3G iPad may work okay on the ground, then again it may not. In the air, relying on the built-in GPS-A would be a pretty dicey plan. For my testing, I used the GNS 5870 bluetooth GPS which I've been flying with for several weeks now. To date the GNS 5870 has performed flawlessly: It has achieved satellite lock reliably and quickly and the data it provides to ForeFlight Mobile HD has basically matched the GPS data I've seen displayed on panel-mounted GPS receivers like the Garmin G1000, 530W and King KLN 94. I certainly don't sanction relying on a bluetooth GPS for primary navigation, but it's a nice back-up to have on board.

You are ... Here

The geo-referencing in FFM is provide on approach procedures and airport diagrams only. When this feature is available, you'll see a light blue box drawn around the plan view on the approach chart or around the airport diagram. Once you are within the area being covered by the chart, your location will be shown with a little blue airplane surrounded a pulsating animation.

If you want to see your groundspeed, track and other GPS-derived information, you'll need to go into the settings and disable the Auto-Hide Toolbar option. Otherwise, the navigation tab will disappear after a few seconds and you'll have to tap on the center of the chart to get it back. Displaying navigation information during an approach is overkill if you have a panel-mount GPS, but on the taxiway diagrams it provides a good indication if you are taxiing too fast (a bad habit that many pilots have).

There are some accuracy limits to the taxiway diagrams. On a couple of occasions I noticed the airplane's position was being shown slightly off the taxiway we were actually on, but most of the time it was spot on.

On the Main Ramp, but showing "in the dirt"

In the air, I found the accuracy with the GNS 5870 was quite good. In particular, the map gives you a good idea when you're about to intercept an approach while being vectored and helps you maintain situational awareness when flying a full approach with a procedure turn or hold-in-lieu-of-procedure-turn. I even tried it out on a circle-to-land approach: I zoomed in on the approach chart, saw the aircraft's position as being abeam the touchdown zone, and the position was spot on.

Right downwind, abeam RWY 20

One minor gripe is that when you zoom in on a geo-referenced chart, the blue airplane that represents your position is not scaled to match the new chart scale. The result is that the more you zoom in, the smaller the airplane symbol appears.

To Buy or Not to Buy

If you have a panel-mounted GPS and are on a tight budget, you can probably forego the geo-referenced approach chart and taxiway option in FFM. But for not a lot of extra dough, I find this option to be useful enhancement to safety and situational awareness. You'll also need to invest in either a bluetooth GPS like the GNS 5870 MFI Bluetooth GPS Receiver or something like the Bad Elf GPS Receiver.

Getting Approved

Operators who want to get approval to use an iPad solution from their FAA Flight Standards District Office may be interested to know that Cutter Flight Management, Inc. has received authorization to use the iPad with ForeFlight Mobile HD and Jeppesen Mobile TC. Cutter will use ForeFlight to provide domestic en route charts and terminal procedures with Jeppesen providing terminal procedures for international operations. The process for operators gaining OpSpec approval for an EFB is detailed in AC 120-76A, the EFB Job Aid, and in Order 8900.1, volume 4, Chapter 15, Section 1: Electronic Flight Bag Operational Authorization Process.

The EFB evaluation process usually takes about six months with an additional two months for the approval process. Currently, operators must demonstrate the iPad can withstand rapid decompression and that the device doesn't interfere with aircraft avionics and systems. Seeing it has already been demonstrated that the iPad meets these requirements, it seems odd that each individual operator must go through this. Operators must also develop a training program for their flight crews in how to use the device and the EFB software.

Less Paper, More Bytes

It looks like the dream of a paperless cockpit continues to evolve and the rate of acceptance of EFBs in the cockpit is on the rise. In the coming months it should become clear if EFBs really do reduce the time, effort, and expense associated with maintaining navigational charts and procedures. And just imagine how much lighter all those pilot's brain bags will be.

What's New with You?

The past year brought some interesting changes to general aviation and here are just a few of the items I found interesting.

Pilot Fatigue and Rest Rules

Though many (including high-ranking members of the NTSB) have tried to keep pilot fatigue out of the spotlight, efforts have been afoot to change duty-time regulations for Part 121 and 135 pilots. Many pilots say the proposed rulemaking the FAA announced is actually a step in the wrong direction because it would allow, under some circumstances, for pilots to fly more hours in a 24 hour period that under the old regs. Though I currently do not fly under Part 121 or 135, I believe that all those concerned with aviation safety (pilots, passenger, operators, and the FAA) need to give fatigue the serious consideration it is due. Find a way to ensure that pilots and flight attendents have time to eat, sleep, and tend to the daily chores that the rest of us take for granted. Increasing the required rest period for all crew members to 10 hours per 24 hour period seems reasonable and the flight time rules should be left alone.

Line Up and Wait

After much to-ing and fro-ing, the FAA finally implemented new phraseology for telling pilots to get on the runway and wait for their takeoff clearance. Actually, the phraseology isn't new at all, it's been the ICAO standard for many years. Most pilots and controllers seemed to stumble with the new phrase a bit, but most quickly adapted. I did hear a pilot complain the other day "Line up and wait just doesn't sound right." As a character in a Faulkner story once said "Thems that's goin', get on the g**d*** wagon ..."

iPad and Aviation

Having tried a bunch of affordable electronic flight bag solutions over the years, including the Iliad Reader/eFlybook, the Modbook, the Dell Mini, and the iPhone, I was as alert as a Basenji hunting squirrels when the iPad was released and had mine from day one. Looking back, there was good reason to be hopeful that the iPad would be a reasonably good cockpit companion. There was a lot of aviation software available for the iPhone when the iPad was launched and Apple did a good job of greasing the works for developers adapting their apps to the iPad.

The two standout iPad EFB apps are ForeFlight Mobile HD and SkyCharts Pro. The latest release of ForeFlight has fixed a few nagging bugs and made it the go-to app for preflight weather briefings. In the cockpit, I find ForeFlight requires a few more taps than I would like for accessing charts and terminal procedures. This is where SkyCharts Pro shines: Just a couple of taps and you've got the approach or SID that you need.

Some of the other essential iPad apps for me include LogTen, Penultimate, GoodReader, Numbers, and Square. Of course as a MobileMe user, it goes without saying that the built-in Mail and Calendar apps see a lot of use, too.

Register This

The aircraft registration process was changed in 2010 from one where an aircraft only had to be re-registered when it was sold to a three year affair. The stated goals, according to FAA administrator Randy Babbitt, are to provide "... more up-to-date registration data and better information about the state of the aviation industry” and to respond "… to calls from law enforcement and other government agencies for more accurate, up-to-date registration data." No worries, the FAA will send aircraft owners a renewal notice on a staggered schedule based on the month in which each aircraft was originally registered. The costs will reportedly increase from the old one-time $5 fee to $45 every three years. Owners who don't respond to the registration requests will have their aircraft's N-number revoked.

2010 also saw renewed efforts to get photographs on pilot certificates. The FAA appears to be supporting this effort but as of this writing there's not much detail about how the photographs will be taken. Given that most FAA Flight Standard District Offices barely have the staff they needed to provide the limited oversight they currently offer, it's unclear how all this will work. With all this additional workload related to aircraft registration and pilot photographs, the likelihood for administrative mayhem seems high. But perhaps the FAA (with the help of the redoubtable Lockheed-Martin) will be able to pull a rabbit out of their hat.

Unmanned Flight

Last year I opined that the integration of UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles) into the national airspace system was the underreported story of the past decade. Now it seems that awareness of UAVs has begun to increase, with some stories even making it into the mainstream media. Last August, an MQ-8B Fire Scout drone on a test flight from Patuxent River NAS had a "software problem" that caused the operator to lose the control link to the aircraft. The 31 foot long drone, which looks like helicopter, continued flying on its own for twenty-some miles and penetrated the restricted airspace around Washington D.C. before control was re-established. The fleet was then grounded until the cause could be identified. Good idea ...

Just last month, a small UAV operated by the Mexican government (presumably for drug interdiction) crashed into the backyard of an El Paso house. No one was reported to have been injured and the police declined to identify the exact location where the UAV crashed. The US Border Patrol transported the wreckage back to Mexico before the NTSB could investigate, which all pilots will remember is a violation of 14 CFR 49.830(10)(b). It's unclear exactly what type of UAV crashed, but it was reported to have a wingspan between 8 and 15 feet and was light enough to be carried away from the accident scene. If there was any doubt in your mind that 2010 is the year that privacy died, this should put that doubt to rest. Not to worry, NextGen will solve all life's ills.

Wiki-Everything

This isn't really related to aviation, but ... Speaking of  privacy and Americans not seeming to care that they have none, WikiLeaks and it's editor Julian Assange are probably the biggest story of the year. I have to confess to a feeling of schadenfreude when various governmental officials expressed outrage at their private and not-so-diplomatic dirty laundry being aired without their permission. Heck, since the introduction of Carnivore (and now Narus) and warrantless wiretaps, the average American has virtually no privacy. Of course we are all assured that we have nothing to worry about as long as we haven't done anything wrong. Right or wrong, thanks to WikiLeaks, governmental officials know how it feels to have no privacy.

What a year it's been! Here's hoping your New Year is productive, peaceful, and as private as is possible.

Your User Fees

Just found this over at Get the Flick. It's a bit long, but worth the time. Just don't check your blood pressure when you're done.

Taxi via Delta, Juliet ...

The main goal of any runway or taxiway safety initiative is simple: Prevent aircraft from running into each other whether they are taxiing, taking off, or landing. The FAA announced there were just 12 runway incursions for the 2010 fiscal year (ending in October), a 50% reduction from the previous year. The FAA's press release attributes the drop in runway incursions to new technology at airports, improved signage and markings, and improved pilot training on runway conflict scenarios. Surely all those capital improvements and increased pilot training helped reduce runway incursions, but there are low-cost improvements, too. There have also been FAA safety initiatives that may actually decrease safety as well as some widely used procedures that need to be changed.

Who's in Charge?

The dominant paradigm in aviation is to have an air traffic controller be the authority that manages conflicts, prevents collisions, and keeps the big picture. The ground controller gives instructions to pilots and flight crews and those guys and gals follow those instructions. Problems can still happen when pilots or controllers are confused or tired and make mistakes. Here's a simulation of a situation that occurred at Theodore Francis Green Airport during low visibility at night. A United flight crew makes a wrong turn while taxiing to the terminal, which takes them back to the active runway. The situation gets worse when the United crew realizes something is wrong, but twice they identify their position incorrectly to the tower controller. The tower controller loses The Flick and in the end, a US Airways crew makes a wise choice that averts disaster. (I chose this particular re-creation because it doesn't edit out the transmissions that reveal the tower controller's frustration, which I think figures prominently in this incident.)



This incident was probably the reason why Theodore Francis Green was one of thirty some airports where Airport Surface Detection Equipment, Model X (aka ASDE-X) was installed or will be installed to help  controllers keep The Flick during low-visibility situations. Pilots operating on taxiways or runways set their transponders to squawk altitude and the controller sees each aircraft's position on a color display. This is surely a welcome addition in low-visibility situations.

Where You At?

A supporting approach to the Controller is the Boss paradigm is to provide rules and a clear context to pilots and flight crews so they can prevent conflicts on their own initiative. Several years back, an experimental system was tested at the Concord airport that involved placing sensors in the taxiway pavement at hot spots - locations on the airport where history had shown pilot were likely to get confused. When an aircraft taxied onto one of the sensors, a low-powered transmitter would broadcast a recorded message of the pilot's position and the pilot received these messages through their marker beacon receiver.

Though this was a clever use of existing avionics equipment, this system was expensive to install. Pavement had to be ripped up, sensors placed, and pavement reapplied. I tried this system several times and found that it worked, but there were limits to its usefulness. A disoriented or confused pilot still had to interpret what the recording was saying, find their position on a taxiway diagram, and then get un-confused. The system was deactivated after about a year, if memory serves me.

One safety enhancement left out of the FAA's press release was an important change that became effective in June of this year: New air traffic control phraseology for issuing taxi instructions. The gist of these changes was that ground controllers were required to explicitly provide the taxiways that pilots were to use when repositioning or taxing for takeoff. Prior to this, controllers were not required to specify a taxi route and (here's the amazing part) clearance to cross any runways along the way was implied. This procedure had the advantage of requiring controllers to say less, but this always seemed like a recipe for trouble. Add to this some controllers' tendency to be ... impolite when under stress and you can have a really bad situation.

At one airport where I teach, approval was provided years ago for a large corporation to construct a hangar that blocked the line of sight between the tower and portions of two taxiways that cross a runway. So ground controllers would tell aircraft "taxi to the Old Tees via Delta, hold short of runway 15 and report holding short." Some controllers are extra careful and add "That area is not visible from the tower." After hearing this countless times, pilots taxiing in that area became accustomed to stopping at the runway and reporting to the ground controller.

There was a particular air traffic controller (long since retired) who had a widely recognized reputation for being terse and impatient (I'm being nice here). At the conclusion of a long night flight, my student requested taxi clearance from this controller, but missed what the controller actually said: "Cessna 123, taxi to the Old Tees via Delta." There was no mention of holding short at the runway. The airport was dead quiet and as we approached the usual hold short point, my student put on the brakes. Confused, he asked me "Did he tell us to hold short?"

Thinking this to be one of those teachable moments, I offered "Anytime you are in doubt, you should ask." So he reported holding short. The controller let loose with a verbal fusillade the likes of which few of us have heard on frequency. My student turned to me, his mouth was open, but no words were coming out. During the debrief, I spent much time trying to undo the damage done by the controller, explaining to my student that he had indeed acted correctly and the controller's response was both unprofessional and contrary to safety. Visibility to the area I mentioned should not be a problem once the new control tower is completed. The new tower will replace the two, separate towers and will be more centrally located (near the FedEx ramp).

Another change has been the FAA's long-anticipated adoption of the ICAO phraseology Line up and wait. The old phrase "Taxi into position and hold" was often elided to "position and hold" and could be easily confused with the phrase "hold your position." This phraseology change is certainly a step in the right direction and required no expensive equipment to be installed.

Enhanced Centerline, Runway Guard Lights

The enhanced centerline became a Part 139 standard a couple of years ago. The idea was to make a taxiway centerline change appearance as an aircraft approaches a hold short line at a runway crossing. While the motivation for this change was safety, it's my feeling that the enhanced centerline is actually visual noise. Assuming there are no other unusual surface markings nearby, the enhanced centerline may help a flight crew avoid blowing through a hold short line. In areas where taxiway edge markings and patched pavement exist, all the dashed lines can become a confusing distraction.

Can you find the Enhanced Centerline?

Flashing runway guard lights can be installed adjacent to a hold short line or they may be embedded in the pavement prior to the hold short line. When these lights are embedded in pavement, they can actually obscure the runway centerline unless lead-in lights are also installed. Lastly these lights aren't the best for preserving night vision adaptation.

Taxi My Frequency

A very hazardous procedure that is often used by ATC is having one controller at an airport running both tower and ground frequencies. While this may save money by having one person doing two jobs during off-peak hours, it a dangerous practice. With one controller listening and transmitting on two frequencies, pilots and flight crews are robbed of The Flick because they can only hear one side of the conversation. This was a contributing factor to a near collision I had while taxiing one night.

I'd called ground to taxi to parking from the fuel island and received my clearance. As I began taxiing I saw a business jet rolling out on the runway parallel to me. The jet taxied clear and I heard the controller ask the jet where they were headed, but since the jet was still on the tower frequency I didn't hear their response. I did hear the controller tell them "You can taxi either route" and my spidey senses started tingling.

Sure enough, the jet chose the route that had it headed right toward me, the controller hadn't mentioned my presence to them, and they didn't appear to see me. I turned on my strobes and poured on the coals. The jet missed hitting me by a few feet and the irony was at the time, we were the only two aircraft on the airport. I mentioned to the controller that we'd nearly had a collision to which he simply replied "Roger." Had there been a separate ground controller and had the jet been on the same frequency that I was on, everyone could have cooperated to prevent a conflict. The FAA really needs to stop this practice of one controller running multiple frequencies because, quite frankly, it's dangerous.

More Progress Needed

The drop in runway incursions is a significant achievement. The latest hi-tech and high-cost initiative is NexGen and ADS-B, which we're told will enhance safety, reduce airline delays and prevent athlete's foot. Hopefully the folks at the FAA (and their contractors) will keep in mind that along with these expensive solutions, there are still many simple, low-tech, and low-cost changes that can provide significant safety enhancements. Of course that means that pilots, controllers, and the FAA must have the will to change old habits.

How Many Engineers Does it Take?

OAK 09/200 OAK NAV VORTAC OTS TIL 1010312359

The Oakland VORTAC has been out of service for, well ... I think it was NOTAMed back in April or May of 2010. Pretty amazing when you consider this is one of the major navigation aids on the West Coast: It defines six Victor airways, six Jet airways, and numerous airports have instrument approaches, departure procedures, and arrivals that rely on it. So what is the FAA doing to the Oakland VORTAC and why is it taking so long? This isn't the entire story, just some of the pieces.

The Oakland VORTAC was missing in action for an extended period about six years ago when a range of radials had become unusable and an effort was undertaken to figure out why. Around that time the Ron Cowan Parkway had just been completed, named after the developer of the nearby Harbor Bay business and residential developments.

Sometimes called the road to nowhere, the project to build the Cowan Parkway figured in an FBI probe that started after allegations of impropriety between Mr. Cowan and then state senator Don Perata. It seems that some folk thought the road was primarily designed to increase the value of Mr. Cowan's real estate holdings at Harbor Bay at taxpayer expense, but that's a deep topic. So moving on I'll point out that the Cowan Parkway divides the Oakland Airport in half, provides alternate access to the FedEx ramp and the South Field terminal as well as an alternate route for residents of Bay Farm Island. Cyclists also benefit from bike lanes that flank the road.

Building the parkway was a big project, in part because a tunnel had to be constructed under Taxiway Bravo, the only connection for taxiing aircraft between Oakland's South Field and the North Field. In addition, airport perimeter barriers had to be adapted and new chain link fencing and razor wire installed. After investigating, it was determined that the new fences were close enough to the VORTAC that they were distorting the signals. Sections of the fencing were replaced with redwood (which you can see in the photo above), the FAA's flight check aircraft conducted various tests, there were still some radials in the Northwest quadrant deemed unusable, but the VORTAC was returned to service and life got back to normal, mostly.

Recently an initiative was undertaken to dopplerize the Oakland VORTAC to increase its accuracy and eliminate or reduce the number of unusable radials. This is the project that started in earnest last spring and after a month or so, a bunch of little mushroom-shaped antennae were seen ringing the main bowling pin antenna.

In July the flight check aircraft was testing the results. I remember one of the days because the FAA's flight check King Air made quite a stir, flying the OAK VOR RWY 9R approach when all other traffic was landing runways 29, 27 Left and 27 Right. A student I was flying with had to break off a practice approach, but I didn't mind because I assumed this meant progress was being made. Yet as the end of July approached, the NOTAM was changed to show the VORTAC returning to service at the end of September. Then I got wind of some of what was going on.

It seems that the new configuration failed the high-altitude flight check and a new effort was underway to determine why. At one point a theory was that surplus concrete debris that the airport facilities folks use to repair the numerous dikes and levees around the airport was causing the problem. The concrete chunks were piled up near the VORTAC, some of the chunks contained rebar, and the thought was this was distorting the VORTAC's signals. This isn't the first time rebar has affected aviation at Oakland: A few years ago it was discovered that both compass roses had been constructed with concrete that contained rebar, which could explain why so many compasses that were swung at Oakland seemed screwed up. The compass roses remain closed.

USD 05/081 NUQ AIRSPACE SOUTHLAND ONE DEPARTURE... NA EXCEPT FOR AIRCRAFT EQUIPPED WITH SUITABLE RNAV SYSTEM WITH GPS. OAK VORTAC OTS.

USD 05/083 LVK AIRSPACE LIVERMORE ONE DEPARTURE... PROCEDURE NA EXCEPT FOR AIRCRAFT EQUIPPED WITH SUITABLE RNAV SYSTEM WITH GPS. OAK VORTAC OTS.

USD 05/085 SFO AIRSPACE PORTE THREE DEPARTURE TAKE-OFF RUNWAYS 10L/R AND 19L/R: PROCEDURE NA EXCEPT FOR AIRCRAFT EQUIPPED WITH SUITABLE RNAV SYSTEM WITH GPS. OAK VOR OTS. 

USD 05/097 SFO AIRSPACE SHORELINE ONE DEPARTURE...
PROCEDURE NA EXCEPT FOR AIRCRAFT EQUIPPED WITH SUITABLE RNAV SYSTEM WITH GPS. OAK VORTAC OTS. 

USD 05/082 OAK AIRSPACE SKYLINE THREE DEPARTURE...
RWYS 9L, 9R, 11 NA EXCEPT FOR AIRCRAFT EQUIPPED WITH SUITABLE RNAV SYSTEM WITH GPS. OAK VORTAC OTS.

USD 05/084 OAK AIRSPACE MARINA FOUR DEPARTURE...
NA EXCEPT FOR AIRCRAFT EQUIPPED WITH SUITABLE RNAV
SYSTEM WITH GPS. OAK VORTAC OTS. 

USD 05/149 OAK AIRSPACE SALAD ONE DEPARTURE NA EXCEPT FOR AIRCRAFT EQUIPPED WITH SUITABLE RNAV SYSTEM WITH GPS. OAK VORTAC OTS.

USD 05/087 CCR AIRSPACE BUCHANAN NINE DEPARTURE PITTS TRANSITIONS: NA EXCEPT FOR AIRCRAFT EQUIPPED WITH SUITABLE RNAV SYSTEM WITH GPS. OAK VORTAC OTS.

USD 05/086 APC AIRSPACE LIZRD THREE DEPARTURE OAKLAND TRANSITIONS: NA EXCEPT FOR AIRCRAFT EQUIPPED WITH SUITABLE RNAV SYSTEM WITH GPS. OAK VORTAC OTS.

Another repercussion has been that a local freight carrier cannot use the SALAD ONE departure because many (or all?) of their aircraft are not RNAV equipped. So instead of departing runway 27L or 27R, turning East over the San Leandro Bay, and intercepting the 060˚ radial, they have to fly heading 310 until high enough to be vectored to the East. The 310 heading takes them right over residential areas of Alameda late at night and in the early morning hours.

Pilots who wish to fly the HWD LOC/DME RWY 28L approach are required to be flying aircraft equipped with a suitable RNAV system because the missed approach holding fix is (wait for it) ... the Oakland VORTAC. I got bitten by this one a couple of weeks ago when the weather into Hayward didn't clear as forecast. My student had to fly the ILS into Oakland, then we sat and waited for VFR weather so we could reposition back to nearby Hayward. Live and learn.

VORTAC with new Counterpoise

I don't know if the theory about rebar in scrap concrete interfering with the VORTAC was itself scrapped, but the latest development was an assessment that the counterpoise (the roof of the VORTAC building) was too small. An effort was undertaken to enlarge the roof, increasing its diameter by some 16 feet to a total diameter of 84 feet. It looks like this part of the project is mostly completed and the latest NOTAM claims the OAK VORTAC should be back in service by the end of October, 2010.

In 2002, the man for whom the road was named defaulted on over $43 million in loans from Lehman Brothers and the investment bank and its property management company seized much of what Cowan owned at Harbor Bay Business Park. The road itself is not heavily travelled, though it did end up reportedly costing taxpayers over $100 million. The road appears indirectly responsible for trouble faced by pilots and a noise-sensitive community. The weather is bound to get worse as winter approaches and fixing the Oakland VORTAC could go down to the wire. We'll just have to wait and see if the FAA can pull a rabbit out of their hat or if the Cowan Parkway will continue to be the gift that keeps giving.

Privileged to Fly

The beginning of the New Year is a time when many of us look back, take stock of what's happened, and look forward. There are other important dates, anniversaries, birthdays, graduations, deaths. Some prominent dates for pilots include the expiration of their flight review and their medical certificate. If you're over 40 years of age or if you hold a 1st or 2nd class medical, you get used to your medical certificate expiring more often. If you've ever had your medical certificate denied or revoked, the medical expiration date takes on even more significance, reminding you how precious our flying privileges are.

It's been nearly one year since I was awarded a special issuance 2nd class medical certificate after waiting out a one year "recovery" period. A lot has happened in the intervening months.

I'm 25 pounds lighter, within the "average" Body Mass Index for my height.

My total cholesterol dropped over 45 points and my HDL/LDL readjusted to levels considered healthy, all without taking statins. Diet and exercise worked for me. Being mostly vegetarian to start with, the key seemed to be giving up cheese and most milk products, though I still occasionally partake.

In the last year I logged just under 500 hours compared with 210 hours during my year sans medical certificate. And if you're wondering if it is legal for an instructor to teach without a medical, the answer is "yes," you just can't do so in situations that require you to act as pilot-in-command.

The most fun in the last year was flying a C441 Conquest for a few hours, doing aerial survey. Flying in the flight levels in pressurized, climate-controlled comfort, above the weather, at 280+ knots - what's not to like? The aerial survey part was tedious and tiring, but still.

Other miscellaneous statistics:
Candidates recommended - 1 private, 1 commercial, 1 instrument, 1 CFI
Wings flights given - 9
Flight Reviews given - 8
Instrument Proficiency Checks given - 5
Types of aircraft flown - 12

The clouds on my horizon have to do with renewing my special issuance certificate, which is only good for 12 calendar months: It does not revert to a 3rd class after a year. The letter I received from the FAA last year explained what was required for renewal, so I started the process in July. There were delays in getting the required examination, but by the last week of August I had the doctor's report. By the way, these reports have to be current within 60 days of the day you apply for a medical certificate.

I promptly faxed the doctor's favorable report to the FAA's medical certification folks, waited 10 days, and then called to see where things stood. The good news is they received the report, the bad news is they can't guarantee they'll be able to review it before the end of September. So rather than waiting for a letter that would give my medical examiner permission to issue a certificate after performing the required exam, I chose to get the exam knowing it would be deferred back to the FAA in Oklahoma City. The exam went well, I learned I was a couple of pounds lighter, with a low resting pulse rate and normal blood pressure. Now all the paperwork is in the FAA's hands and all I can do is wait.

Several people have expressed and continue to express incredulity that I reported the medical problem to the FAA in the first place. We live in a culture that tells us we don't have to play by the rules as long as we don't get caught and in a hyper-competitive environment, it's natural to look for ways to get ahead. One way is to opt out and the thought process, to the extent that higher-level thought actually takes place, goes something like this: "These rules/regulations/laws are really inconvenient/outdated/stupid. I'm really smart/savvy/well-educated and I know better, so I'm just going to do what I want or think is best." One colleague told tell me they respected me for choosing to disclose what happened and that they thought it took guts. That meant a lot to me.

My hope is that I will get a new medical certificate before my current certificate expires at the end of September. I have called Oklahoma City a few times and will call once a week until this is resolved. When I informed the last person I spoke with that I need a medical certificate in order to work, they seemed unmoved. I'm just a one of many cases they have to sort through. Next year, my hope is that I will be allowed to return to a normal medical issuance process and we all live for hope.

Don't wait for New Year's Eve to take stock of what's happen or think ahead to the future. Just sit down with your logbook, look back through the pages, count the landings, the aircraft flown, recall the people who flew with you, the aircraft check-outs, and the check rides. Make plans for your flying future. Get a tailwheel endorsement, earn a new certificate or rating, share the joy of flight with a friend, split safety pilot duties with another instrument pilot, or transport an ill child to their chemotherapy treatment. The world is your oyster when you have the privilege to fly.

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.