A popular use of the word "myth" is to dismiss or discredit an idea by casting it as fantastic, factually false, or just an outright deception. Unfortunately this usage ignores what a myth actually is: Myths tell stories that illuminate basic values that connect us to one another and to the natural world. Myths aren't meant to be factually true or to be taken literally, but they do transmit the beliefs of a society from one generation to the next in a way that can't be accomplished by a talk show or a PowerPoint presentation. A society without meaningful myths is a culture without a bigger picture of the shared human condition. Without myth, a country becomes a wasteland of literal interpretation, lacking imagination. Without myth, a society may well consume itself in drone-like greed, gluttony, and self-interest.
A friend who used to fly freight under part 121 opined that the freight dog myth mixes the cowboy and a high-tech version of the Pony Express into an odd sort of stew. Few threads run deeper in American culture than the "don't fence me in" ideal - the proud, independent cowboy roaming the frontier - even if it isn't factually true. My friend, being a purist, didn't consider himself to have been a "freight dog" because he was flying in a two-crew environment. To use his phrase, "Freight dogs are not plural."
I often meet pilots who aspire to become freight pilots. I understand the desire, but it still baffles me. If these pilots don't understand bad pay for a long day's work, they soon will. They'll come to appreciate the term "cloud plow." They'll devise ways to stay awake during 14-hour duty days and to endure flying that is 95% boring-as-hell, 5% why-did-I-ever-sign-up-for-this. Pilots who aspire to fly bigger and faster aircraft usually view a freight dog stint as a stepping stone to the flying job they really want. Perhaps they imagine a future where they can sit in the left seat, in two-pilot air conditioned comfort, earning a half-decent wage, and look back fondly on when they were paying their dues. There's a myth for you!
I ran into a former commercial multi-engine student who expressed regret that his short-lived freight dog experience had not offered more nasty weather before he moved on to flying regional jets. I suggested he should be glad he was now flying an aircraft that spends most of the time above the weather, but I think he felt he missed a rite of passage (in the mythical sense): Crazy thunderstorms, nasty icing encounters, equipment malfunctions. Instead, his freight flying job just provided a few lines on his resume that got him his next job.
My flight instructor musing are inherently less interesting than when I used to write about flying freight precisely because the instructional world lacks a mythic quality. It is easy to romanticize "flying God knows what to God knows where in the middle of the night" or the glamorous life of an airline pilot, striding through the airport, the envy of young and old alike. But learning to fly and maintaining proficiency? Well that just sounds like a lot of work. So I'm going to do my part to change that situation by introducing the myth of the independent flight instructor.
Part ronin and part peripatetic philosopher, the independent instructor has few guarantees. They may instruct at several airports. They may teach people in their own aircraft as well as through one or more flying clubs. The variety in the flying is the best part; you get to fly a bunch of different types, doing a variety of maneuvers and procedures, at a variety of airports from big city to non-towered.
Flying several different types of aircraft, and doing it well, is a daunting task. You have to be an expert in each type (or least appear to be an expert). You have to develop strategies for remembering all the various V-speeds, systems, and limitations for each type. I've found ForeFlight Checklist Pro a handy and powerful way to create check lists and aircraft reference material for the various aircraft I fly. What's the main tire pressure for a Cessna 206? Piece of cake ...
Flight instructing isn't glamorous and to endure you must have two main qualities: An interest in what motivates people and a desire to help others succeed. No one is a professional flight instructor for the money because flying is not something just everyone can afford and there is a ton of downward pressure on instructor wages (sorry AOPA).
It's no wonder few people stick with instructing or rely on it as their primary source of income. In keeping with our national obsession of living for the future, many pilots train to become instructors so they can teach for a while, then move on. Others keep their CFI current while flying other aircraft as a sort of retirement plan. Some instructors teach on the side while working a day job that provides stability (like health care benefits), but they aren't really living the dream.
As with teachers in other fields, flight instruction is seldom respected by other pilots or potential employers. If there's little money, prestige, and respect, why do the handful of dedicated instructors out there stick with teaching? It's hard to say. Speaking personally, there are few walks of life remaining where you get to work one-on-one with dedicated, goal-oriented people. You help them through their roadblocks, their rough patches, their doubts and fears. And the majority of the time, you will see them succeed. It may sound corny, but you just can't put a price tag on knowing you helped someone find their wings.
The popular aviation myth, especially among younger pilots, is that getting a job with an airline or charter operation means you've made it to the top of the heap. Flying a big, shiny jet represents respect and power while working as a freight pilot is like being, well ... a dog. The thing is, these perceptions are themselves myths, something we tell ourselves to explain our place in the world, help us keep our dreams alive so we can reach our goals. If flying freight is a dog's life, that must make the freelance flight instructor the wolf at the door.
Showing posts with label commentary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label commentary. Show all posts
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Saturday, October 15, 2011
iOS 5 ... Debacle
Let me get right to the point:
If you own an original iPad and you have enabled multi-tasking gestures using Xcode, don't upgrade to iOS 5 just yet. If you do upgrade, you'll lose multi-tasking gestures altogether. What's more, you won't be able to re-enable multi-tasking gestures with Xcode. Simply put, you're screwed. At least for now.
*** Update on 10/21/11 ***
There is a workaround/hack for enabling gestures on an iPad 1 with iOS 5. It's described here.
*** Update ***
Apple makes a lot of good decisions and design choices, but any human organization makes mistakes. In this case the mistake was to disable multi-tasking gestures in iOS 5 for the original iPad. If you have an iPad 2, you're cool - go ahead and upgrade. Perhaps the decision to discriminate against the original iPad was made to ... um ... encourage those users to upgrade to the iPad 2. If so, this was bush league, below the belt, bull$hit.
To my knowledge, there is no technical reason to not allow the iPad access to multi-tasking gestures. I enabled this feature, using Xcode, for at least a dozen iPad owners running iOS 4.#.#. And guess what? Multi-tasking gestures worked just fine. The iPad 2's faster processor was not required. And I know several pilots who rely on multi-tasking gestures for their iPad to be a more useful and well-rounded EFB.
So what can you do?
Apple may choose to fix this. In fact, it could have been a mistake and not a marketing choice. For now, if you are an original iPad owner, don't upgrade to iOS 5.
If you are an original iPad owner and you've already upgraded or if you are miffed (I would be if I hadn't already upgraded to an iPad 2), go here and give Apple an earful. If enough people complain, surely Apple will see the error of their ways.
If you own an original iPad and you have enabled multi-tasking gestures using Xcode, don't upgrade to iOS 5 just yet. If you do upgrade, you'll lose multi-tasking gestures altogether. What's more, you won't be able to re-enable multi-tasking gestures with Xcode. Simply put, you're screwed. At least for now.
*** Update on 10/21/11 ***
There is a workaround/hack for enabling gestures on an iPad 1 with iOS 5. It's described here.
*** Update ***
Apple makes a lot of good decisions and design choices, but any human organization makes mistakes. In this case the mistake was to disable multi-tasking gestures in iOS 5 for the original iPad. If you have an iPad 2, you're cool - go ahead and upgrade. Perhaps the decision to discriminate against the original iPad was made to ... um ... encourage those users to upgrade to the iPad 2. If so, this was bush league, below the belt, bull$hit.
To my knowledge, there is no technical reason to not allow the iPad access to multi-tasking gestures. I enabled this feature, using Xcode, for at least a dozen iPad owners running iOS 4.#.#. And guess what? Multi-tasking gestures worked just fine. The iPad 2's faster processor was not required. And I know several pilots who rely on multi-tasking gestures for their iPad to be a more useful and well-rounded EFB.
So what can you do?
Apple may choose to fix this. In fact, it could have been a mistake and not a marketing choice. For now, if you are an original iPad owner, don't upgrade to iOS 5.
If you are an original iPad owner and you've already upgraded or if you are miffed (I would be if I hadn't already upgraded to an iPad 2), go here and give Apple an earful. If enough people complain, surely Apple will see the error of their ways.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Move Toward the Light
Much has been said about the passing of Steve Jobs; his accomplishments, the way he was ousted from Apple only to return years later and turn the company around. The way he was instrumental in creating iconic personal computing products, the iPod, the iPhone, the iPad. Jobs was central in the success of Pixar and setting new standards for computer animated entertainment, too. To my mind, his most important contributions went beyond the success of any consumer product or movie. Who Jobs was and what he embodied was a rare type of ... dare we say it? Genius.
What first drew me to Apple products over 15 years ago was ease-of-use. I'd worked on a variety of operating systems on a variety of platforms from MVS and VM on IBM 390 mainframes to various flavors of UNIX on workstations from Sun, HP and others. When I started consulting, I wanted a platform that would just work without me having to futz with it. MacOS products weren't always perfect, but they worked very well for me. The fact that products themselves were elegant was just a bonus. Sure, Apple products cost a bit more, but in the long run I found they paid for themselves in terms of reliability and simplicity.
This strikes at the heart of what Jobs seemed obsessed with: Hardware and software that, to the greatest extend possible, stayed out of the way of the user. He even had the hutzpah to believe that he knew better what the user needed that the users themselves. Jobs eschewed just giving customers just what they wanted. Instead, he encourage, cajoled, threatened and drove his employees to create what the customer actually needed. And about 90% of the time, he was right.
When the iPod was introduced, my first impression of the user interface was that it was bare bones, even amateurish. It turns out I was wrong. The iPod became wildly popular because it wasn't about the device, it was about allowing the user to access and enjoy music. It was all about the music. Oh, and digital rights management, too, because there needed to be money coming in to fund more ground-breaking designs.
If genius is defined as vision, then it is also equal parts arrogance and tenacity in pursuing what you believe in. In a world where businesses simply want to post good numbers for the next two quarters and to produce short-lived, blockbuster products, regardless of whether or not they are good or even excellent products, Jobs was an anachronism. He had the long view and the nerve to stay the course. And he had the ability to convince others to work with him to achieve those goals.
People who know have told me that working for Jobs intimidating. He could be demanding, brutally frank, maybe even a bastard because he expected that whatever the product, it had to be the best that they could produce. It had to be excellent. It had to be great or embody greatness. Jobs didn't always succeed, but even his failures were inspiring.
With Job's passing the world has lost something, but we've gained something, too. Not just the legacy of his products and the successful companies he led. We have an example of a different way to conduct business and a model of success that is defined not simply by profit and market share, but by the single-minded pursuit of greatness and an abiding respect for the end user. With hard work and the long view, it's possible for any one of us to move toward the light. That is the true Jobs Legacy.
What first drew me to Apple products over 15 years ago was ease-of-use. I'd worked on a variety of operating systems on a variety of platforms from MVS and VM on IBM 390 mainframes to various flavors of UNIX on workstations from Sun, HP and others. When I started consulting, I wanted a platform that would just work without me having to futz with it. MacOS products weren't always perfect, but they worked very well for me. The fact that products themselves were elegant was just a bonus. Sure, Apple products cost a bit more, but in the long run I found they paid for themselves in terms of reliability and simplicity.
This strikes at the heart of what Jobs seemed obsessed with: Hardware and software that, to the greatest extend possible, stayed out of the way of the user. He even had the hutzpah to believe that he knew better what the user needed that the users themselves. Jobs eschewed just giving customers just what they wanted. Instead, he encourage, cajoled, threatened and drove his employees to create what the customer actually needed. And about 90% of the time, he was right.
When the iPod was introduced, my first impression of the user interface was that it was bare bones, even amateurish. It turns out I was wrong. The iPod became wildly popular because it wasn't about the device, it was about allowing the user to access and enjoy music. It was all about the music. Oh, and digital rights management, too, because there needed to be money coming in to fund more ground-breaking designs.
If genius is defined as vision, then it is also equal parts arrogance and tenacity in pursuing what you believe in. In a world where businesses simply want to post good numbers for the next two quarters and to produce short-lived, blockbuster products, regardless of whether or not they are good or even excellent products, Jobs was an anachronism. He had the long view and the nerve to stay the course. And he had the ability to convince others to work with him to achieve those goals.
People who know have told me that working for Jobs intimidating. He could be demanding, brutally frank, maybe even a bastard because he expected that whatever the product, it had to be the best that they could produce. It had to be excellent. It had to be great or embody greatness. Jobs didn't always succeed, but even his failures were inspiring.
With Job's passing the world has lost something, but we've gained something, too. Not just the legacy of his products and the successful companies he led. We have an example of a different way to conduct business and a model of success that is defined not simply by profit and market share, but by the single-minded pursuit of greatness and an abiding respect for the end user. With hard work and the long view, it's possible for any one of us to move toward the light. That is the true Jobs Legacy.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Go For the Burn(out)
A very busy summer has left me with blogger fatigue and general irritability. I changed my blog template. Didn't help. So I'm going to whinge on for a bit, but I'm including some pretty pictures at the end. You may just want to skip ahead ...
And That's Not All!
AOPA is really annoying me, whining about how the FAA should provide tail-number blocking for wealthy aircraft owners. Business jets make sense for business (Duh! Hence the name!). If business aircraft are so profitable then they don't need tax breaks and accelerated depreciation schedules to make them make business sense. Right?
AOPA keeps sending me solicitations for life insurance, renter's insurance, and the latest - the opportunity to purchase a subscription to their DVD series. Oh, and you can return the DVD or just recycle it. Who do they think they are, National Geographic?
The editorial tone of AOPA Pilot sure has changed. First there is the faux controversy of their Dogfight series where two diametrically opposed writers (or so we're led to believe) disagree with each other about whether pitch controls airspeed or altitude. Yawn! Or a photo spread about aviation tattoos. Very hip and edgey! What's next, aviation piercings?
AOPA members shouldn't be surprised at the changes that have taken place. Just enter the AOPA president's name into a Google search and see what he was doing back in the early 1990's.
See what I mean? Irritable ...
Amazon to the Rescue!
Amazon has cancelled their associates program for residents of California. Why? Because California legislators and the governor passed legislation that requires them to collect sales tax. Being the magnanimous folks they are, the management at Amazon pulled the plug. Okay, fine. Then they turn around and start lobbying California legislators for sales tax amnesty. Hello? Amazon? Did you not read the news about the State's budget hovering around the edge of the porcelain pony? We're trying to have a civilization here!
So I'm no longer an Amazon Associate. I'm all busted up about that ...
No Taxes, No User Fees
And That's Not All!
AOPA is really annoying me, whining about how the FAA should provide tail-number blocking for wealthy aircraft owners. Business jets make sense for business (Duh! Hence the name!). If business aircraft are so profitable then they don't need tax breaks and accelerated depreciation schedules to make them make business sense. Right?
AOPA keeps sending me solicitations for life insurance, renter's insurance, and the latest - the opportunity to purchase a subscription to their DVD series. Oh, and you can return the DVD or just recycle it. Who do they think they are, National Geographic?
The editorial tone of AOPA Pilot sure has changed. First there is the faux controversy of their Dogfight series where two diametrically opposed writers (or so we're led to believe) disagree with each other about whether pitch controls airspeed or altitude. Yawn! Or a photo spread about aviation tattoos. Very hip and edgey! What's next, aviation piercings?
AOPA members shouldn't be surprised at the changes that have taken place. Just enter the AOPA president's name into a Google search and see what he was doing back in the early 1990's.
See what I mean? Irritable ...
Amazon to the Rescue!
Amazon has cancelled their associates program for residents of California. Why? Because California legislators and the governor passed legislation that requires them to collect sales tax. Being the magnanimous folks they are, the management at Amazon pulled the plug. Okay, fine. Then they turn around and start lobbying California legislators for sales tax amnesty. Hello? Amazon? Did you not read the news about the State's budget hovering around the edge of the porcelain pony? We're trying to have a civilization here!
So I'm no longer an Amazon Associate. I'm all busted up about that ...
No Taxes, No User Fees
I'll be the first to admit that user fees for GA will hurt. I'd hate to see them implemented. On the other hand, a lot of people seem to be in a budget-slashing, anti-government mood. To quote a line from The Right Stuff - "No bucks, no Buck Rogers." The aviation gasoline tax is apparently not bringing in enough moolah, so something has to give.
Many pilots have multiple personalities when it comes to taxes and government. No one wants to pay, no one want to be regulated, but everyone is upset when local airports can't make ends meet. Do they think runways, taxiways, control towers, ATC salaries and FBO facilities simply appear out of thin air? Where will the funds for the much vaunted NextGen come from? Maybe AOPA can donate proceeds from one of the marketing promotions ...
NOTAM Madness
There are a bunch of NOTAMs for my local airport due to a bunch of construction projects and the cranes and equipments associated with same. While trying to explain the NOTAM system to a student pilot recently, he had an epiphany: "The trick to NOTAMs is knowing which ones to ignore." Leave it to a neophyte to come up with the good insights.
The NOTAM system has been changed so that it is supposedly easier to wade through, but the almost indecipherable content of each NOTAM remains maddeningly the same. Dates and times in the most foreign format imaginable. Contractions and abbreviations that make normal human beings cringe. And mind-numbing legal boilerplate makes it seem like the FAA and TSA actually want someone to bust a TFR.
Comment Etiquette
I've been getting more and more comments that are lame attempts at using my blog for third-party marketing. The comments are usually complimentary, but they contain a link to some site that often has little to do with the post I've written. How very crafty and clever! Folks who post these things need to know that they aren't fooling anyone and their lame links will never see the light of day on this blog.
Some commenters post things when they really want to send me a message. Please, use my email address. It's shown on the right edge of my blog. If you're using a blog reader, you may need to actually visit my blog directly to see it. Please don't comment if you're trying to send me a personal message. Use email, 'K?
If you don't agree with something I written and you want to post a comment, by all means do so. Keep in mind that I have the final say in which comments are published. Comments that I find rude, inflammatory or otherwise piss me off will go to /dev/null. If you don't understand irony, this might not be the place for you and you are hereby advised to avoid reading my blog. If you don't like my ideas, that's fine, too. Don't waste your time with verbal jousting, move on to another blog you like. Or send a letter to the AOPA editors and tell them how much you like arguments about engine leaning and racy photos of tattoos.
At least I'm not irritated when I'm flying.
Now the pretty pictures I promised ...
 |
| Alameda Sunset |
 |
| Another Bay Area Sunset |
 |
| FAF VOR 6 at KAPC |
 |
| Odd Valley Stratus for Summertime |
 |
| Delta Farmland |
 |
| Slipping the Surly Bonds |
 |
| More Odd Stratus |
 |
| Right turn 090, Join V244, Resume Own Nav ... |
 |
| Montezuma Windmills |
 |
| More Windmills |
 |
| Tiny Full Moon (see it?) |
 |
| Northwest of KNUQ |
 |
| Sonoma Valley Sunset |
 |
| Northeast of Eden |
 |
| Vectors across the Bay |
 |
| VFR, Kinda, Sorta ... |
 |
| Contact Norcal Departure ... |
 |
| Salt Ponds and Stratus |
 |
| Again with the Salt Ponds? |
 |
| San Pablo Bay at Sunset |
 |
| Guess Where? |
 |
| Short final, KHAF RNAV RWY 12 |
 |
| Again with the marine layer? |
 |
| Surreal Delta Light |
 |
| Alameda Estuary at Sunset |
Friday, June 3, 2011
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.
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.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Going Around
Based on persistent news reports, it's clear that someone needs to help the non-piloting public understand a few things about landings, go arounds, and missed approaches. Several media reports have been describing aircraft go-arounds or missed approaches in a way that implies someone made a mistake or danger may have been involved. So in the spirit of The Onion, I've taken up the gauntlet. Here's how expanded media coverage on go-arounds or missed approaches might eventually read.
Aborted Landings Linked to Flight Instruction
(Berserkly News Network) Oakland, California -- While veteran flight instructor John Ewing was supervising his student pilot's landing practicing today, he instructed him to "go around." In that moment, Ewing had no idea of the controversy that was to follow. In the wake of recent high-profile aborted landings, first of the plane carrying First Lady Michelle Obama on April 19 and then Air Force One today, FAA administrator Randy Babbitt announced that he has instructed all FAA personnel to record and report each and every go-around that occurs. Babbitt, under increased pressure, wants to reassure the public that pilots really do know how to land their aircraft."When an aircraft has been cleared to land, we expect them to land, dammit!" Mr. Babbitt said. "The US government didn't authorize the creation of all those runways just so pilots could fly around in circles without landing."As soon as the order came down, tower controllers around the country began to complain. "This is like being asked to count all the fish in the sea," complained one Oakland Metropolitan Airport controller, who asked not to be identified. "How are we supposed to ensure the orderly flow of air traffic when we're filling out paperwork each time an aircraft goes around?"Right after Ewing's student informed the Oakland Tower of their intentions to abandon the landing, all hell broke loose. "The tower told us to make right traffic and that we were cleared to land on 27 right, no ifs, ands or buts" Ewing stated. "We reminded them that we were practicing touch-and-goes, but they just repeated the clearance to land," Ewing said. "After my student landed, the ground controller said they had a phone number for us to call." What followed was the nightmare every pilot dreads."They interviewed me, they inspected the aircraft and my certificates, they asked why we went around, and I tried to tell them that my student's approach was destabilized. I was just teaching him to do the safe thing," Ewing said "but they said all these go-arounds indicated instructors like me were doing a piss-poor job." In the end, Ewing was exonerated and allowed to continue to teach the go-around maneuver. "The go-around is in the private pilot practical test standards," Ewing observed. "I mean, for crying out loud."But the controversy surrounding go-arounds hasn't ended. Babbitt, under intense scrutiny, announced NextGen will be modified to automatically record data on each and every go-around or missed approach. In addition, each and every landing made by any pilot will be rated on a scale of 1 to 10. Pilots executing an excessive number of go arounds as well as those who don't consistently perform flawless landings will be automatically notified that they must undergo remedial training. Cost estimates for adding these features to NextGen were unavailable. NextGen implementation has been delayed, but is slated for roll-out sometime in 2095.All of this hasn't deterred Ewing from continuing to teach student pilots how to fly. "Sure, I could throw in the towel and go work for Starbucks," Ewing said, "but then I'd have health care benefits. Besides, I'd just be watching espresso magically come out of a machine without any grinding or tamping of coffee whatsoever. Where's the fun in that?"
Monday, May 16, 2011
Rumors of my demise ...
The last few weeks have been hectic and have offered precious little time for writing blog posts. A trip to SoCal, some pressing house projects, and a busy teaching schedule all conspired to keep me otherwise occupied. Nevertheless, I've been reading, flying and teaching and have been making mental notes about blog-worthy topics.
CFI Punching Bag
Two of the current hot topics in GA are the shrinking number of pilots and the effectiveness of flight training. The newly revised Flight Instructors Model Code of Conduct is the latest installment in the "what's wrong with flight training" discussion. AOPA started banging this drum at one of their conventions and has been repeatedly mentioning it in virtually all of its publications and emails.
Like it or not, we live in an age where public discourse and debate often involve a peculiar use of language and a reliance on repetition to manufacture consent. Whether you call it double-speak, framis, or baffle-gab, we are bombarded with repetitive slogans designed to appeal to emotion rather than intellect. Using logic and reasoning requires us to get our thoughts in order, assemble the facts that are known, consider competing claims, and simultaneously hold conflicting ideas in our minds so that we may evaluate them: In short, it's hard work. The fact that someone saw the need to create a model code of conduct for flight instructors (there's one for mechanics and others, too) would indicate that there are problems within the flight instruction community. Just what those problems are depends on one's perspective.
The code addresses instructor responsibilities, training and proficiency, security, environmental issues, using technology, and promoting aviation instruction. Just a few of the stated benefits of adopting this model include improved pilot training, personal responsibility, instructor contributions to society at large, self-regulation as an alternative to regulations, and promoting recognition of instruction as a highly respected and rewarding profession. The code encourages instructors to be respectful of the risks and dangers of flying, act like professionals, manage stress and fatigue, conduct their flights like airline pilots, and not have sex with their students. The opposite of this sounds like pretty average behavior for 17 to 22 year olds and though I don't have the data to back this up, this is likely the average age range for the majority of active aviation instructors.
What the Market will Bear
The most important aspects of aviation safety start with flight instruction, yet CFIs are enduring low pay and long hours. Regulations allow CFIs to give up to 8 hours of flight instruction per 24 hour period, 7 days a week, 365 days a year and that's what many instructors do just to make ends meet. By the time an instructor has finished teaching his or her second flight lesson of the day, the instructor's ability to provide quality instruction has likely been exhausted. Income levels that encourage instructors to teach three or more lesson per day do not contribute to high-quality learning experiences or professional behavior. The mere existence of a model code of conduct is not going to change the situation.
Most pilots become instructors because they dream of a better flying job and to get that dream job, a young pilot needs to log flight time. So many instructors are a young, motivated group at the bottom of the aviation food chain desperate to provide low-cost labor in exchange for flight time. This is an aviation tradition that the FAA has long supported if not enabled outright.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with pilots who do a stint as an instructor so that they can move on, but let's not cloak it in high flautin' talk about professionalism, high levels of proficiency and customer service. This is a business relationship between employers and employees, plain and simple. The profit margins in aviation are so razor thin there is no way to pay instructors like professionals. The mere existence of a model code of conduct is not going to change the situation. One benefit of the current flight training model is that it separates the wheat from the chaff because by the time an instructor is ready to move on to an airline job, they will have already been acclimated to long hours and low pay.
Easy Target
Flight instructors are the most active pilots in the GA community, they fly more hours than the average GA pilot, and they are crucial to training the next generation of pilots. The impact of flight instruction on the pilot population is unmistakable, but there are many reasons why student pilots decide to drop out. AOPA says that the cost of flight training, aircraft rental, and aviation fuel are not important factors. I find this claim to be utterly fantastic and unsupported: The folks they are sampling in their research must travel in different circles than the pilots I talk to.
While AOPA and others are busy trying to "fix" the flight training model so that fewer pilots drop out, little is being done to improve the average flight instructor's day-to-day life. Quite the opposite, from where I sit the solutions being put forth simply perpetuate the status quo with regard to flight instructors' working conditions.
Flight instruction, like all aviation endeavors, is a tough business. Learning to fly is a difficult, complicated, and expensive proposition. Those who stick with it, whether we're instructors or weekend flyers, do so because we love aviation. I'm all for making the flight training experience as rewarding and efficient as possible. I strive to do my best as an instructor because I enjoy teaching, mentoring other instructors, and helping pilots reach their flying goals. Being a CFI is one of the most rewarding things I've ever done, in spite of the hardships that come with living at the bottom of the food chain. From my perspective the model code of conduct is, at its best, a distraction and, at its worst, insulting. The efforts of AOPA and the folks who authored the Flight Instructor's Model Code of conduct may be based on good intentions, but good intentions can also lead to a decidedly undesirable destination.
CFI Punching Bag
Two of the current hot topics in GA are the shrinking number of pilots and the effectiveness of flight training. The newly revised Flight Instructors Model Code of Conduct is the latest installment in the "what's wrong with flight training" discussion. AOPA started banging this drum at one of their conventions and has been repeatedly mentioning it in virtually all of its publications and emails.
Like it or not, we live in an age where public discourse and debate often involve a peculiar use of language and a reliance on repetition to manufacture consent. Whether you call it double-speak, framis, or baffle-gab, we are bombarded with repetitive slogans designed to appeal to emotion rather than intellect. Using logic and reasoning requires us to get our thoughts in order, assemble the facts that are known, consider competing claims, and simultaneously hold conflicting ideas in our minds so that we may evaluate them: In short, it's hard work. The fact that someone saw the need to create a model code of conduct for flight instructors (there's one for mechanics and others, too) would indicate that there are problems within the flight instruction community. Just what those problems are depends on one's perspective.
The code addresses instructor responsibilities, training and proficiency, security, environmental issues, using technology, and promoting aviation instruction. Just a few of the stated benefits of adopting this model include improved pilot training, personal responsibility, instructor contributions to society at large, self-regulation as an alternative to regulations, and promoting recognition of instruction as a highly respected and rewarding profession. The code encourages instructors to be respectful of the risks and dangers of flying, act like professionals, manage stress and fatigue, conduct their flights like airline pilots, and not have sex with their students. The opposite of this sounds like pretty average behavior for 17 to 22 year olds and though I don't have the data to back this up, this is likely the average age range for the majority of active aviation instructors.
What the Market will Bear
The most important aspects of aviation safety start with flight instruction, yet CFIs are enduring low pay and long hours. Regulations allow CFIs to give up to 8 hours of flight instruction per 24 hour period, 7 days a week, 365 days a year and that's what many instructors do just to make ends meet. By the time an instructor has finished teaching his or her second flight lesson of the day, the instructor's ability to provide quality instruction has likely been exhausted. Income levels that encourage instructors to teach three or more lesson per day do not contribute to high-quality learning experiences or professional behavior. The mere existence of a model code of conduct is not going to change the situation.
Most pilots become instructors because they dream of a better flying job and to get that dream job, a young pilot needs to log flight time. So many instructors are a young, motivated group at the bottom of the aviation food chain desperate to provide low-cost labor in exchange for flight time. This is an aviation tradition that the FAA has long supported if not enabled outright.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with pilots who do a stint as an instructor so that they can move on, but let's not cloak it in high flautin' talk about professionalism, high levels of proficiency and customer service. This is a business relationship between employers and employees, plain and simple. The profit margins in aviation are so razor thin there is no way to pay instructors like professionals. The mere existence of a model code of conduct is not going to change the situation. One benefit of the current flight training model is that it separates the wheat from the chaff because by the time an instructor is ready to move on to an airline job, they will have already been acclimated to long hours and low pay.
Easy Target
Flight instructors are the most active pilots in the GA community, they fly more hours than the average GA pilot, and they are crucial to training the next generation of pilots. The impact of flight instruction on the pilot population is unmistakable, but there are many reasons why student pilots decide to drop out. AOPA says that the cost of flight training, aircraft rental, and aviation fuel are not important factors. I find this claim to be utterly fantastic and unsupported: The folks they are sampling in their research must travel in different circles than the pilots I talk to.
While AOPA and others are busy trying to "fix" the flight training model so that fewer pilots drop out, little is being done to improve the average flight instructor's day-to-day life. Quite the opposite, from where I sit the solutions being put forth simply perpetuate the status quo with regard to flight instructors' working conditions.
Flight instruction, like all aviation endeavors, is a tough business. Learning to fly is a difficult, complicated, and expensive proposition. Those who stick with it, whether we're instructors or weekend flyers, do so because we love aviation. I'm all for making the flight training experience as rewarding and efficient as possible. I strive to do my best as an instructor because I enjoy teaching, mentoring other instructors, and helping pilots reach their flying goals. Being a CFI is one of the most rewarding things I've ever done, in spite of the hardships that come with living at the bottom of the food chain. From my perspective the model code of conduct is, at its best, a distraction and, at its worst, insulting. The efforts of AOPA and the folks who authored the Flight Instructor's Model Code of conduct may be based on good intentions, but good intentions can also lead to a decidedly undesirable destination.
Monday, April 18, 2011
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.
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.
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.
Monday, April 4, 2011
Funny Business
To students and low-time pilots, aviation may seem busy, business-like and serious. But the truth is there's often plenty of room to have a bit of fun on the radio. Here's a sampling of a few things I've heard on frequency over the past few years that I've been saving up. In some cases, I was personally involved, but in other cases I was just listening and chuckling.
Gulfstream: Oakland Tower, Gulfstream 123, ILS 27 Right, request 27 Left.
Tower: Gulfstream 123, Oakland Tower, Howdy! I can offer you 27 Left, but expect about an 8 hour delay. Right now it's occupied by a bunch of service vehicles.
Gulfstream: Okay, we'll take 27 Right
Ground: Duchess 123, Oakland ground, taxi 27 right via delta and charlie, maintain VFR at our below 2000', standby for a transponder code
Me: Delta, charlie, 27 right, VFR at or below 2000, Duchess 123.
Ground: Ah, Duchess 123, where did you say you were parked?
Me: Well we actually park in the Bat Cave, but we tell everyone the Port-a-Ports.
SFO Tower: Stationair 456, I have several heavies I need to depart runways 28, do you have to take photos right there?
Me: Everyone has to be somewhere.
Delta: Ground, Delta 123, ready to push gate 18.
Ground: Delta 123, Howdy, Oakland North Ground, contact South ground on 121.75
Me: Oakland Ground, Cessna 456, ready to push at the Port-a-Ports, VFR Ukiah with Foxtrot.
Ground: Cessna 456, Oakland Ground, push at your discretion, runway 33 taxi via delta, juliet, ...
JetBlue: Norcal, JetBlue 1122, one two thousand descending eight thousand with Foxtrot, How ya doin'?
Norcal: JetBlue 1122, Norcal Approach, when able proceed direct GILRO, How YOU doin'?
Monday, February 21, 2011
Troubling Times
I don't post political stuff on this blog, but this isn't a democrat versus republican versus independent issue. The questions at hand are more basic that political wrangling. "What kind of country do we want to live in? What kind of country is ours becoming? Are the rich and powerful the only ones who can affect and influence governmental policy?"
(NATIONAL) -- Could it be the U.S. government thinks peaceful, civilian protest against government is fine on the streets of Cairo, Egypt but not on U.S. soil?As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave a speech at George Washington University yesterday condemning governments that arrest protestors and do not allow free expression - and lauding freedom of speech on the Internet - 71-year-old military veteran Ray McGovern was grabbed from the audience in plain view of her by police and an unidentified official in plain clothes and hustled out of the building and, according to McGovern and his supporters, was “brutalized and left bleeding in jail.”What McGovern did was simply remain standing silently in the audience and turned his back on her as Secretary Clinton began her speech.That was it.McGovern, a veteran Army officer who also worked as a C.I.A. analyst for 27 years, was wearing a Veterans for Peace t-shirt ...
We live in troubling times.
Sunday, January 2, 2011
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.
Friday, December 17, 2010
Elephant in the Room
The repercussions from FlightPrep's enforcement of it's patent on flight planning technology continue. SkyVector has reached a licensing agreement which prevents them from discussing the specifics. RunwayFinder has closed down after a lawsuit was filed against them, agreement could not be reached, and as of this writing the lawsuit has not been withdrawn. NACOMatic, apparently out of fear that they might soon be in the crosshairs, has shutdown. AOPA and Jeppesen have announced that the AOPA flight planner does not infringe on the patent, but have not provided details. Numerous other businesses may be affected, so the pilot community is still waiting for the other shoe to drop.
We've all become familiar with verisimilitude, truthiness, and bafflegab, but it's important for pilots to make informed choices about the companies they choose to support with their patronage. My intent today is to draw attention to the some under-reported details of this situation that are publicly known in an otherwise opaque situation.
Dave Parsons has reported that the FlightPrep lawsuit claimed over $3 million in damages and the way those damages were calculated is creative to say the least: The figure appears to be based on $149, the cost of FlightPrep's product, multiplied by the total number of monthly visits to RunwayFinder's web site. These calculations do not seem to attempt to take into account that much of RunwayFinder's web site traffic was repeat visits from the same people. The advantage of a simplistic calculation like this is that it results in a large dollar figure for damages, which is certainly disconcerting to the person being sued. The idea that there are 20,000 or more people per month who, where it not for RunwayFinder, would have bought FlightPrep's products seems hyperbolic, at best.
Given the lack of transparency surrounding SkyVector's licensing arrangement with FlightPrep, it's hard to know exactly what's going on. Despite FlightPrep's claim of goodwill and not wanting to put others out of business, that's exactly what appears to be happening. Given the lack of transparency, it's difficult to know what else is going on. Who has entered into a licensing agreement with FlightPrep? No one but FlightPrep and their licensees know all the details, but the legal fees must be driving up everyone's cost of doing business. And it seems reasonable to assume that will be passed on to consumers.
Trying to reconcile the lawsuit and the damage claims with FlightPrep's recent statements about how they want to deal with the aviation community is hard work. It appears FlightPrep will fiercely defend its patent and keep licensing details cloaked under non-disclosure agreements. The short term result is that pilots have a shrinking number of choices for preflight planning and patent rights notwithstanding, that's just sad.
Every day, each of us has the opportunity to make a choice about the businesses we want to patronize. For some the decision is based on the quality of the product or service being offered and the value being offered, but it can also be based on how that business behaves in the community. While FlightPrep may be legally entitled to do what they are doing, I find I can no longer support them and have no plans to purchase any of their products. My hope is that FlightPrep will abandon their combative approach to doing business and that they will eventually be seen in a better light. Each of us needs to weigh the facts that are known, come to our own decision, and make our own choices. What will your decision be?
We've all become familiar with verisimilitude, truthiness, and bafflegab, but it's important for pilots to make informed choices about the companies they choose to support with their patronage. My intent today is to draw attention to the some under-reported details of this situation that are publicly known in an otherwise opaque situation.
Dave Parsons has reported that the FlightPrep lawsuit claimed over $3 million in damages and the way those damages were calculated is creative to say the least: The figure appears to be based on $149, the cost of FlightPrep's product, multiplied by the total number of monthly visits to RunwayFinder's web site. These calculations do not seem to attempt to take into account that much of RunwayFinder's web site traffic was repeat visits from the same people. The advantage of a simplistic calculation like this is that it results in a large dollar figure for damages, which is certainly disconcerting to the person being sued. The idea that there are 20,000 or more people per month who, where it not for RunwayFinder, would have bought FlightPrep's products seems hyperbolic, at best.
Given the lack of transparency surrounding SkyVector's licensing arrangement with FlightPrep, it's hard to know exactly what's going on. Despite FlightPrep's claim of goodwill and not wanting to put others out of business, that's exactly what appears to be happening. Given the lack of transparency, it's difficult to know what else is going on. Who has entered into a licensing agreement with FlightPrep? No one but FlightPrep and their licensees know all the details, but the legal fees must be driving up everyone's cost of doing business. And it seems reasonable to assume that will be passed on to consumers.
Trying to reconcile the lawsuit and the damage claims with FlightPrep's recent statements about how they want to deal with the aviation community is hard work. It appears FlightPrep will fiercely defend its patent and keep licensing details cloaked under non-disclosure agreements. The short term result is that pilots have a shrinking number of choices for preflight planning and patent rights notwithstanding, that's just sad.
Every day, each of us has the opportunity to make a choice about the businesses we want to patronize. For some the decision is based on the quality of the product or service being offered and the value being offered, but it can also be based on how that business behaves in the community. While FlightPrep may be legally entitled to do what they are doing, I find I can no longer support them and have no plans to purchase any of their products. My hope is that FlightPrep will abandon their combative approach to doing business and that they will eventually be seen in a better light. Each of us needs to weigh the facts that are known, come to our own decision, and make our own choices. What will your decision be?
Monday, December 13, 2010
Prometheus and the Cowboys
The 19th century author Horatio Alger, Jr. wrote numerous books containing what came to be known as rags-to-riches stories and though few of Alger's characters became extremely wealthy, the myth worked its way into the American collective unconscious. Who wouldn't want to believe the optimistic message that with hard work, the right ideas, and good timing any one of us could accumulate wealth? The promise or pursuit of wealth is commonly used to brush aside concerns about centralization of power, social responsibility, even morality.
The recent announcement that FlightPrep filed a patent infringement lawsuit against the popular website RunwayFinder has sent shock waves through the aviation community. One doesn't have to be an intellectual property attorney to understand this case, but it would probably help. At the center of the controversy is a patent granted to FlightPrep that appears to credit them (I'm a layperson paraphrasing here) with the invention of software depicting a navigational course on a chart for the purposes of flight planning where much of the source data (charts, obstructions, weather) are stored on a host computer and displayed on a less powerful computer.
It appears that FlightPrep's intention is to license their invention and those who may already be using their patented concept in their products will presumably need to pony up. I say "presumably" because while it appears FlightPrep and RunwayFinder are working to reach an agreement, as of this writing that agreement is pending.
Those old enough to remember the late 1980's may remember the Grand GIF Debacle. A developer named Terry Welch created a high-performance variation of the LZ78 lossless data-compression algorithm called LZW. A patent was granted for LZW which eventually came to be held by Unisys. Compuserve, one of the early pioneers of on-line services, was hampered by limited network bandwidth (weren't we all?) at a time when 56 kbit/second modems were the coolest thing since punched cards. The use of the LZW for compressing graphic image files (GIFs) became widespread and in the early 1990s, Unisys and Compuserve began licensing negotiations and reached an agreement.
Then Unisys dropped a bombshell: They expected all on-line services and users of the now widespread LZW GIF format to pay licensing fees. Since the use of GIF images had become popular, this action after the fact was widely condemned. Though Unisys tried to ease the financial burden of licensing, the damage to their reputation had been done: They were seen by many as trying to stifle innovation and hindering the development of the fledgling internet. Eventually the patent expired, things got back to normal, and the internet continues to develop.
A few years before this debacle, I was employed at a now-defunct mainframe computer manufacturer and together with a co-worker, developed a method for exchanging data between an operating system and the underlying propriety hardware for a data communications interface. Someone, I think it was our manager, suggested that we try to patent this scheme. We rolled our eyes as if to say "Hey, this is just software written to solve a design problem." The idea that we were the first people to think of, let alone implement such a scheme seemed unlikely, but more importantly patents had nothing to do with what was interesting to most of us programmers. What floated our boats was solving problems, creating new designs, innovating, and moving on to the next project. Some of us may have even felt ourselves to be like the cowboys of yore, hard-working, self-reliant folk who savored the freedom to roam a digital frontier.
I'm not an expert on patents or intellectual property, but as someone with significant programming experience the fact that a patent was granted to FlightPrep seems fantastic to me. Sailors have been laying plotters on charts and drawing course lines for centuries. Pilots have been doing the same for decades. The idea that this process would ultimately be done by a computer or a network of computers is a obvious extension of a manual activity already in practice. The concept of some of the input data being accessed from different computers, to my mind, is not at all novel: Data stored on different computers is what the internet is all about. It appears that the patent attorneys and the US Patent Office came to a different conclusion. Like it or not, we live in a world where corporations try to patent an individual's DNA or apply to trademark the word "face."
So the question remains: Will a few individuals try to assert control of something so basic and widespread, presumably for their own financial gain, or will they learn from history and see the folly of such a course of action? Without knowing the exact intentions of FlightPrep, it's hard to say how their patent claim and desire to license their "technology" will affect GA and flight planning software services. FlightPrep claims they don't want to stifle innovation or increase costs, but the fact remains they filed a lawsuit against Runway Finder. GA pilots have come to expect a variety of flight planning options and the last thing we need is a riches-to-rags story.
The recent announcement that FlightPrep filed a patent infringement lawsuit against the popular website RunwayFinder has sent shock waves through the aviation community. One doesn't have to be an intellectual property attorney to understand this case, but it would probably help. At the center of the controversy is a patent granted to FlightPrep that appears to credit them (I'm a layperson paraphrasing here) with the invention of software depicting a navigational course on a chart for the purposes of flight planning where much of the source data (charts, obstructions, weather) are stored on a host computer and displayed on a less powerful computer.
It appears that FlightPrep's intention is to license their invention and those who may already be using their patented concept in their products will presumably need to pony up. I say "presumably" because while it appears FlightPrep and RunwayFinder are working to reach an agreement, as of this writing that agreement is pending.
Those old enough to remember the late 1980's may remember the Grand GIF Debacle. A developer named Terry Welch created a high-performance variation of the LZ78 lossless data-compression algorithm called LZW. A patent was granted for LZW which eventually came to be held by Unisys. Compuserve, one of the early pioneers of on-line services, was hampered by limited network bandwidth (weren't we all?) at a time when 56 kbit/second modems were the coolest thing since punched cards. The use of the LZW for compressing graphic image files (GIFs) became widespread and in the early 1990s, Unisys and Compuserve began licensing negotiations and reached an agreement.
Then Unisys dropped a bombshell: They expected all on-line services and users of the now widespread LZW GIF format to pay licensing fees. Since the use of GIF images had become popular, this action after the fact was widely condemned. Though Unisys tried to ease the financial burden of licensing, the damage to their reputation had been done: They were seen by many as trying to stifle innovation and hindering the development of the fledgling internet. Eventually the patent expired, things got back to normal, and the internet continues to develop.
A few years before this debacle, I was employed at a now-defunct mainframe computer manufacturer and together with a co-worker, developed a method for exchanging data between an operating system and the underlying propriety hardware for a data communications interface. Someone, I think it was our manager, suggested that we try to patent this scheme. We rolled our eyes as if to say "Hey, this is just software written to solve a design problem." The idea that we were the first people to think of, let alone implement such a scheme seemed unlikely, but more importantly patents had nothing to do with what was interesting to most of us programmers. What floated our boats was solving problems, creating new designs, innovating, and moving on to the next project. Some of us may have even felt ourselves to be like the cowboys of yore, hard-working, self-reliant folk who savored the freedom to roam a digital frontier.
I'm not an expert on patents or intellectual property, but as someone with significant programming experience the fact that a patent was granted to FlightPrep seems fantastic to me. Sailors have been laying plotters on charts and drawing course lines for centuries. Pilots have been doing the same for decades. The idea that this process would ultimately be done by a computer or a network of computers is a obvious extension of a manual activity already in practice. The concept of some of the input data being accessed from different computers, to my mind, is not at all novel: Data stored on different computers is what the internet is all about. It appears that the patent attorneys and the US Patent Office came to a different conclusion. Like it or not, we live in a world where corporations try to patent an individual's DNA or apply to trademark the word "face."
So the question remains: Will a few individuals try to assert control of something so basic and widespread, presumably for their own financial gain, or will they learn from history and see the folly of such a course of action? Without knowing the exact intentions of FlightPrep, it's hard to say how their patent claim and desire to license their "technology" will affect GA and flight planning software services. FlightPrep claims they don't want to stifle innovation or increase costs, but the fact remains they filed a lawsuit against Runway Finder. GA pilots have come to expect a variety of flight planning options and the last thing we need is a riches-to-rags story.
Friday, November 26, 2010
Blame Game
When I heard that AOPA was researching why 70 to 80% of people who start flight training end up quitting and that they were to release the results at their trade show in Long Beach, I wondered what was up. At the heart of this debate are two basic claims: The pilot population is shrinking and 70 to 80% of those who start flight training end up dropping out without ever earning a pilot's certificate. An additional claim is that an 80% drop-out rate is unreasonable, but it's not clear that any of these claims are supported by the new "research." Still a public debate of these issues is reasonable and since I wasn't in Long Beach, I'll observe that it seems AOPA has an agenda and they went in search of evidence to support that agenda.
A few weeks before pilots began gathering for the AOPA Summit, press releases informed us of the high drop out rate for student pilots. Those who know me heard my prediction: The AOPA study would blame the high drop out rate on shoddy instruction offered by inept and unmotivated flight instructors because ... wait for it ... CFIs are easy targets. Largely powerless, underpaid, and seldom recognized, being a professional flight instructor isn't a career path for the faint-of-heart.
In point of fact, shoddy flight training is exactly how some people have summarized what was presented in Long Beach. I won't go into the issues of time-building CFIs and pilots who just don't have the interest or ability to be effective instructors, but if you watch the entire 30 minute on-line video of the AOPA presentation you'll hear that flight instructors (and the conditions under which they work) were only two of the contributing factors identified in these opinion polls. Paradoxically, the opinion polls (which is what this research really is) indicate that people seem to think that:
I'm not an expert on research surveys nor on the techniques used to gather such data, but if we want to truly understand the state of flight training there seems to be a bunch of useful data that is missing. Early in the presentation, Mark Benson, chairman of an opinion research firm called APCO Insight, explained that they didn't want to do a conventional customer service survey into the flight training problem. Unfortunately, the polling methods don't seem to have been published and so we don't know how their procedures might compare with, say, this NASA study.
Some questions I'd like to see answered include the following. What percentage of private pilots pass their check ride on the first attempt? How many hours of flight time does the average pilot have when they take their check ride and how are those hours distributed across the age range of the pilots? How many times on average does a student pilot change instructors and was the change voluntary or involuntary? How many pilots begin flight training with no intention of ever soloing or earning a certificate? How many pilots who hold a current medical certificate are flying at least 25 hour a year? How many flight instructors recommend three or more candidates per year? How many instructors train under 14 CFR part 61 versus part 141? In short, some measurable evidence about the overall effectiveness and health of flight training rather than just soliciting the opinions and perceptions of those trained by said instructors.
Back in 2008, I offered some ideas on the shrinking pilot population along with some modest suggestions on making the process of learning to fly a bit easier based on thousands of hours of dual instruction I have given to all types of pilots. I just took for granted the assertion that the pilot population was indeed shrinking, but FAA data covering the years from 1999 to 2009 seems to show a stable pilot population. This is remarkable considering the unemployment rate of the last few years. Could it be that AOPA is assuming a premise that isn't supported by facts?
When considering whether or not a 70-80% drop-out rate for students is reasonable, we have to consider the skills a person must acquire to pass a check ride. Based on my teaching experience, I'd estimate that about 20% of the population is simply not equipped to be pilot-in-command. First are medical certification issues that preclude someone from getting a third class medical certificate, though these folks may still be able to fly under sport pilot rules (don't get me started on sport pilot and aircraft regulations).
Then there more complicated issues. Flying involves high workload moments that require a combination of skills involving language, listening, spatial awareness, visualization, motor planning, prioritizing, and multi-tasking. Flying an airplane can be a lot like riding a mountain bike while simultaneously playing chess: Most people can do a subset of these tasks, but fewer people are able to do all of them.
Consider what is sometimes called "reaction to flight." A person may be afraid of flying or they may become motion sick or anxious. No matter how hard they try, these may be insurmountable problems. This doesn't make them bad or defective people, it just means they aren't cut out to be pilots. Heck, as a young adult I dreamed of being another Adolph Herseth, but wishing doesn't make it so. Occasionally a flight instructor has to sit down with a student and have the difficult conversation. It's not something that I look forward to, but it is an important part of the job.
Without the basic skills and abilities, there is no amount of training, simulator experience, advanced avionics, customer service, instructor charisma, or good will that will keep these people from dropping out or get them through a check ride. This gets to the crux of the problem with AOPA's initiative: A better process, better customer focus, and happier customers will not guarantee that more people will end up earning a pilot certificate. More money may end up being spent, but that's another goal that is not necessarily aligned with helping GA grown. And as one seasoned instructor I know quipped "General aviation doesn't need any more substandard pilots."
It seems reasonable to assume that attempts to increase the pilot population would likely increase AOPA's membership and perhaps that is one of their goals. Frankly, some if this "research" seems to border on truthiness. Don't get me wrong, AOPA has done some great things for GA and the Air Safety Foundation is probably the most valuable resource available to pilots and instructors. While AOPA works on their initiatives, dedicated flight instructors will continue to do the hard work on the front lines, giving instruction, helping students solve problems, helping them succeed, endorsing their logbooks and, occasionally, having the difficult conversations that must be had.
A few weeks before pilots began gathering for the AOPA Summit, press releases informed us of the high drop out rate for student pilots. Those who know me heard my prediction: The AOPA study would blame the high drop out rate on shoddy instruction offered by inept and unmotivated flight instructors because ... wait for it ... CFIs are easy targets. Largely powerless, underpaid, and seldom recognized, being a professional flight instructor isn't a career path for the faint-of-heart.
In point of fact, shoddy flight training is exactly how some people have summarized what was presented in Long Beach. I won't go into the issues of time-building CFIs and pilots who just don't have the interest or ability to be effective instructors, but if you watch the entire 30 minute on-line video of the AOPA presentation you'll hear that flight instructors (and the conditions under which they work) were only two of the contributing factors identified in these opinion polls. Paradoxically, the opinion polls (which is what this research really is) indicate that people seem to think that:
The flight training industry is, in fact, well aligned; doing the important things well.Furthermore, the industry is reportedly providing good value, good instructor support, effective instruction, and good information sharing. One thing that seems to have been glossed over is that the poll revealed that 40% of people who actually solo and become student pilots never continue to earn a pilot certificate. The 70 to 80% failure rate that keeps being reported includes those who drop out before soloing (never become official student pilots) as well as those that never earn a pilot certificate.
I'm not an expert on research surveys nor on the techniques used to gather such data, but if we want to truly understand the state of flight training there seems to be a bunch of useful data that is missing. Early in the presentation, Mark Benson, chairman of an opinion research firm called APCO Insight, explained that they didn't want to do a conventional customer service survey into the flight training problem. Unfortunately, the polling methods don't seem to have been published and so we don't know how their procedures might compare with, say, this NASA study.
Some questions I'd like to see answered include the following. What percentage of private pilots pass their check ride on the first attempt? How many hours of flight time does the average pilot have when they take their check ride and how are those hours distributed across the age range of the pilots? How many times on average does a student pilot change instructors and was the change voluntary or involuntary? How many pilots begin flight training with no intention of ever soloing or earning a certificate? How many pilots who hold a current medical certificate are flying at least 25 hour a year? How many flight instructors recommend three or more candidates per year? How many instructors train under 14 CFR part 61 versus part 141? In short, some measurable evidence about the overall effectiveness and health of flight training rather than just soliciting the opinions and perceptions of those trained by said instructors.
Back in 2008, I offered some ideas on the shrinking pilot population along with some modest suggestions on making the process of learning to fly a bit easier based on thousands of hours of dual instruction I have given to all types of pilots. I just took for granted the assertion that the pilot population was indeed shrinking, but FAA data covering the years from 1999 to 2009 seems to show a stable pilot population. This is remarkable considering the unemployment rate of the last few years. Could it be that AOPA is assuming a premise that isn't supported by facts?
 |
| Chart from FAA data on pilots, 1999 through 2009 |
When considering whether or not a 70-80% drop-out rate for students is reasonable, we have to consider the skills a person must acquire to pass a check ride. Based on my teaching experience, I'd estimate that about 20% of the population is simply not equipped to be pilot-in-command. First are medical certification issues that preclude someone from getting a third class medical certificate, though these folks may still be able to fly under sport pilot rules (don't get me started on sport pilot and aircraft regulations).
Then there more complicated issues. Flying involves high workload moments that require a combination of skills involving language, listening, spatial awareness, visualization, motor planning, prioritizing, and multi-tasking. Flying an airplane can be a lot like riding a mountain bike while simultaneously playing chess: Most people can do a subset of these tasks, but fewer people are able to do all of them.
Consider what is sometimes called "reaction to flight." A person may be afraid of flying or they may become motion sick or anxious. No matter how hard they try, these may be insurmountable problems. This doesn't make them bad or defective people, it just means they aren't cut out to be pilots. Heck, as a young adult I dreamed of being another Adolph Herseth, but wishing doesn't make it so. Occasionally a flight instructor has to sit down with a student and have the difficult conversation. It's not something that I look forward to, but it is an important part of the job.
Without the basic skills and abilities, there is no amount of training, simulator experience, advanced avionics, customer service, instructor charisma, or good will that will keep these people from dropping out or get them through a check ride. This gets to the crux of the problem with AOPA's initiative: A better process, better customer focus, and happier customers will not guarantee that more people will end up earning a pilot certificate. More money may end up being spent, but that's another goal that is not necessarily aligned with helping GA grown. And as one seasoned instructor I know quipped "General aviation doesn't need any more substandard pilots."
It seems reasonable to assume that attempts to increase the pilot population would likely increase AOPA's membership and perhaps that is one of their goals. Frankly, some if this "research" seems to border on truthiness. Don't get me wrong, AOPA has done some great things for GA and the Air Safety Foundation is probably the most valuable resource available to pilots and instructors. While AOPA works on their initiatives, dedicated flight instructors will continue to do the hard work on the front lines, giving instruction, helping students solve problems, helping them succeed, endorsing their logbooks and, occasionally, having the difficult conversations that must be had.
Monday, November 8, 2010
Stardust
Anyone who's been involved in GA or flight instruction at Hayward or Oakland, California has undoubtedly met or heard of Mal Raff. Mal passed away last week at his home, a mere three months after being diagnosed with a rare form of cancer.
I didn't know Mal well, yet I considered him a friend. When I lost my medical in 2008, Mal was both sanguine and supportive. He recognized the fragile nature of aviation and human health. To him the most important thing seemed to be teaching and he encouraged me to continue sharing my knowledge in whatever capacity I could while I waited for my medical issue to be resolved.
Mal was an accomplished fixed-wing pilot and flight instructor, but he was also a helicopter pilot. Though he flew them infrequently, he once confided to me that he enjoyed the particular challenge of doing his flight review in a helicopter.
Mal was famous for holding strong opinions on many topics, especially those that involved aviation. In spite of his strongly held beliefs and opinions, I knew Mal to be a person who would listen, and I mean actually listen to people who held a position different from his own. He may not have agreed with you after hearing you out, but I didn't know him to be a person who would reject other people's ideas out of hand. In current American culture where everyone seems obligated to annihilate those who disagree with us, Mal was a gentleman.
Mal was straightforward and up-front, almost to the point of being ingenuous. In a society marked by double-speak, duplicity, and self-interest, Mal was unique because what you saw was mostly who he was. I say mostly because he once revealed to me that his original training was in astrophysics.
I did two aircraft check-outs with Mal and enjoyed flying with him because, like all true instructors, he loved to fly and it showed. Pilots who where thoughtful, who were trying to do their best, who weren't full of false bravado, who wanted to learn, those pilots were likely to get a fair shake from Mal. The others? Well let's just say he didn't suffer fools gladly.
I imagine that Mal has returned to the stars in the heavens that so fascinated him. Godspeed my friend.
I didn't know Mal well, yet I considered him a friend. When I lost my medical in 2008, Mal was both sanguine and supportive. He recognized the fragile nature of aviation and human health. To him the most important thing seemed to be teaching and he encouraged me to continue sharing my knowledge in whatever capacity I could while I waited for my medical issue to be resolved.
Mal was an accomplished fixed-wing pilot and flight instructor, but he was also a helicopter pilot. Though he flew them infrequently, he once confided to me that he enjoyed the particular challenge of doing his flight review in a helicopter.
Mal was famous for holding strong opinions on many topics, especially those that involved aviation. In spite of his strongly held beliefs and opinions, I knew Mal to be a person who would listen, and I mean actually listen to people who held a position different from his own. He may not have agreed with you after hearing you out, but I didn't know him to be a person who would reject other people's ideas out of hand. In current American culture where everyone seems obligated to annihilate those who disagree with us, Mal was a gentleman.
Mal was straightforward and up-front, almost to the point of being ingenuous. In a society marked by double-speak, duplicity, and self-interest, Mal was unique because what you saw was mostly who he was. I say mostly because he once revealed to me that his original training was in astrophysics.
I did two aircraft check-outs with Mal and enjoyed flying with him because, like all true instructors, he loved to fly and it showed. Pilots who where thoughtful, who were trying to do their best, who weren't full of false bravado, who wanted to learn, those pilots were likely to get a fair shake from Mal. The others? Well let's just say he didn't suffer fools gladly.
I imagine that Mal has returned to the stars in the heavens that so fascinated him. Godspeed my friend.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
+copy.jpg)
