Straw Man

Listen and you'll hear the voices of folks who say they have the solution to the shrinking GA pilot population. Some voices say we need initiatives that will encourage people to learn to fly. Others say that sport pilot training and low-cost sport aircraft are just the ticket. My belief is that we need more career instructors, flying late-model aircraft that are up to the task.

The soon-to-be-released Cessna Skycatcher would have been great, were it not for the marketeers who messed it up. Instead of a viable replacement for the aging fleet of versatile 150s and 152s, what is being offered is a glass panel two-seat aircraft that isn't even certified for IFR. Kinda makes the plane's glass panel seem silly, doesn't it? I don't think anyone honestly cares that the Skycatcher is in the sport aircraft category, though that seems to have been Cessna's primary goal.

Adding insult to injury, which new plane probably cannot be used for intentional spin training? Why the Skycatcher, of course. And which certificate is the only one that requires instructional training in spin recovery? That'd be the flight instructor certificate. And which aircraft are the subject of an Airworthiness Directive (which I think was necessary, by the way) that has resulted in many of them being placarded "Intentional Spins Prohibited"? That'd be the Cessna 150 and 152, the very aircraft that the Skycatcher is supposed to replace.

I've written before about the shortage of complex single-engine training aircraft suitable for initial flight instructor practical tests, so I won't belabor that point. The question remains: Who will teach all of the new GA pilots (not to mention the next wave of future airline pilots) and help the current pilot population stay current and proficient? Well that'd be flight instructors - the very group that has been mostly ignored in these solutions to growing the GA pilot population.

One of many reasons that GA is in this mess is that the people in a position to make things better, the people who could have made the right product choices, the people who could affect and change policy ... well, they did something no pilot should ever do: They lost situational awareness. They lost the big picture.

So here's my dream - a conscious and cooperative effort between the various alphabet pilot groups, the aircraft manufacturers, and the FAA to help grow the population of competent, career flight instructors.

Until something happens, those of us who are trying to teach the next generation of flight instructors can sing this song, with apologies to the Scarecrow from The Wizard of Oz.

We could while away the hours
while you teach us pitch and power
and why right rudder is germane.
You'd be ready for your check ride
Before the ink on your last check's dried
If we only had a plane.

We were teaching folks in Pipers
while you were still in diapers
To us instructing's not a game.
If your right seat landings are iffy,
We could fix that in a jiffy
If we only had a plane.

Oh, we would tell you about
stalls and spins galore.
And why our clothes are so tattered
and we're so poor.

Regarding our friends at the FSDO
You'd learn to do it 'cause they said so
Even if it seemed inane.
With every logbook you'd be signing
For the airlines you'd be pining,
If we only had a plane.

Exposé

Many pilots compare a trip to an aviation trade show as like being a kid in a candy store. I know at least one pilot who consciously leaves his credit cards at home so he won't buy something on impluse. This past weekend was the first AOPA Expo event I attended. Held at the San Jose Convention Center, with a static display of aircraft at nearby Mineta San Jose International Airport, I heard around 6,000 people attended the event. After a hour or so in the exhibit hall, I got that geeked-out feeling, like when I've done too much holiday shopping. That's when things start to look like this.



The exhibit hall contained a dizzying array of gadgets, accessories, aircraft, and simulators, but I had a plan: I had identified a few things I definitely wanted to see. And along the way, I ran into some unexpected discoveries.

The first stop for me was the Jeppesen booth where I wanted to look at and purchase the recently released VFR+GPS area charts for San Francisco and Los Angeles as well as the sectional-scale charts for Northern and Southern California. I tried to buy these on-line earlier the previous week at Jeppesen's web site, but their site has been recently redesigned and has plenty of kinks that need to be worked out. I struggled with it for 15 minutes, then decided I'd just buy the charts at Expo and save on the shipping costs.

Overall, I like these charts. I received belated permission from Jeppesen to show excerpts of these charts after my previous post. These charts are easier to read than FAA sectionals and area charts, but there are some minor annoyances. To their credit, the representatives at Jeppesen seemed receptive to the suggestions they were receiving, they seem intent on improving these charts, and they plan to eventually provide coverage for the entire US.

Next stop was the Garmin booth. I played with a G1000 with synthetic vision that was designed as a King Air retrofit. The simulator was running, the closest airport was Ely, Neveda, so I proceeded to the initial approach fix for the RNAV RWY 18 approach. I mostly wanted to play with the flight director/autopilot, but the synthetic vision features were interesting, too.



I definitely like the magenta boxes - the highway in the sky feature - but none of the fixes were highlighted. In the Chelton version of highway-in-the-sky, each fix or waypoint appears on the display as a "tethered balloon" through which you fly. That's a great way to help the pilot keep 3D situational awareness.

There was a big crowd around the new 696, but I found this new unit mostly disappointing. The 696 and 695 seem to me to be electronic flight bags, first and foremost, with XM weather thrown in. I could imagine many corporate flight departments lining up to by them so their flight crews would not have to haul around 40 pounds of approach chart binders. The price point for this unit (over US$3000) puts it out of reach for most GA pilots, who are probably going to purchase a 396 or 496 and carry paper charts. Add the XM weather subscription and the US$400+ annual subscription for NACO charts and you have a hefty price tag that keeps on tugging at your wallet.

Though the 69X form factor is larger than the 396 and 496, I didn't find the approach chart display to be very easy to read - even with my reading glasses on. The Garmin folks told me there weren't any plans to support Jepp charts while the Jepp representatives told me the opposite. Either way, the current approach chart display does not provide a geo-referenced display of the aircraft's position on the approach. I understand that there are technical reasons that make a geo-referenced display difficult, but that is a feature that pilots expect from an electronic chart display and it's something that should be addressed.

Garmin had a chance to replicate the knobs and button used in the G1000 flight plan feature, or at least keep a similar user interface policy. Instead, the designers chose to create a similar looking interface that is actually very different: You use the joystick on the G1000 to move around the map display and to zoom in or out. On the 69X, you use the joystick to make menu selections and there is a separate range rocker switch.

While I don't see many GA pilots having interest in the 69X series, Garmin should nevertheless be commended for getting into the EFB market. Unlike most other EFB implementations currently available, Garmin has a reputation for creating stable hardware and software. I'd expect the 69X series to be just as reliable. Time will tell.

The Cessna Skycatcher looked too uncomfortable to crawl into, but eventually I did contort my average five foot eleven inch frame into the right seat. I'm still amazed the plane won't be IFR certified nor will it be certified for spins. I discussed this with a Cessna representative and he seemed interested in my comments and observations. The ballistic parachute will be located in part of the baggage compartment. I assume the solid motor rocket will eject the parachute package through the plastic window that makes up the roof of the baggage compartment. I bet deploying the cute will create enough noise to really get the pilots' attention! The cockpit doors hinge from the top and if they can be opened in flight, it should allow for some nice aerial photo possibilities.



The Cessna representative assured me that the aircraft has recovered from spins in all sorts of center-of-gravity loadings, but I was struck by the small surface area of the rudder when compared to a C150 or C152.

I eventually sat in the Diamond, Cirrus and Piper Jet mock-ups - yawn! I chatted with the Cirrus rep and he was receptive to my comments about the way they have structured CSIP, so I let him play with the X-Plane Cirrus jet model on my iPhone.

The Bendix/King booth had a nice display of their new Av8tor hand-held GPS and their soon-to-be-released GPS/Com/Nav units. I chatted with them about the Av8tor user interface, which one of the pilots I fly with purchased a few months ago. Though the Av8tor may not be as sexy as the equivalent Garmin hand-held GPS, at least Bendix-King has gotten the price-point right. You can purchase an Av8tor without XM weather for a fraction of the cost of a comparable Garmin unit. And you can add XM weather capability later and still save a wad of dough. Kudos to Bendix-King for thinking of the GA pilot's wallet: Few other manufacturers seem to be doing so.

Many of my readers know that I'm a fan of diesel engines, so I just had to visit the Thielert booth to see their Centurion 2.0 and 4.0 engines on display. The representative was deftly fielding constant questions about the company's recent emergence from bankruptcy and the status of their relationship with Diamond Aircraft and Cessna. But what struck me was the sheer size and weight of these engines. They looked massive and though they offer outstanding fuel economy, the acquisition and maintenance costs seemed quite high.




The Rolls Royce booth provided a real contrast to the Thielert. Their RR500 direct-drive turboprop engine is being marketed as a retrofit for high performance single-engine aircraft. I'm not sure how the cost compares with a comparable Centurion engine, but the 2000 hour interval before hot section inspection seems more reasonable than replacing a diesel engine's gear box every 300 hours. If the Thielert Centurion engines looked heavy, complicated and massive, the Rolls Royce turbo-prop looked small, elegant, simple, powerful, and bullet-proof. I'm not that fond of direct-drive turbo-props, but if I had my jet-A druthers and my wallet was big enough, I'd fly behind a Rolls Royce RR500 any day of the week.



I left this year's Expo with my wallet intact, having only spent money on parking and a bite to eat. I ran into dozens of Bay Area pilots as well as several friends who flew in from points far away. I got to see lots of cool toys and it was certainly worth the freeway traffic and the cost of entry.

What were they thinking?

I make spin training an option for private pilot and commercial candidates, but the regulations in the US require flight instructor candidates to receive ground and flight training in stall/spin awareness, spin entry and spin recovery. Instructor candidates must demonstrate instructional proficiency in these areas, too.

The other day I did spin training with a flight instructor candidate (one of the areas of flight instruction that I can do while I wait for my medical status to be resolved). The aircraft we chose was a trusty old Cessna 152. In theory we could have used a Cessna 172, assuming it was loaded in the utility category, but most 172 owners don't want their aircraft used for spin training. And for good reason: Spins wreak havoc on gyro instruments unless the instruments are designed to be caged. Many 172s are flown in instrument conditions, something you don't want to do if some of the flight instruments are questionable from being subjected to intentional spins.

My usual approach to teaching spin entry and recovery is to demonstrate two entries, first to the right and then to the left. Most Cessna aircraft designs enter a spin reluctantly, but predictably. Due to the inherent left-turning tendency at high pitch attitudes, the spin to the right is more docile so I start with that. After demonstrating two spin entries, I coach the pilot I'm instructing in doing the same. After a total of four spin entries and recoveries, assuming the pilot feels okay, we do some more. After the initial rush wears off, most pilots want to do at least a few more spins.

Some pilots want to see fully developed spins, where the rotation becomes faster and more stabilized. A 152 Aerobat Texas Taildragger conversion I once flew liked to really wind up in developed spins, probably due to the replacement of the nose gear with a tail wheel and the repositioning of the main gear. For instructor candidates, I like to do some scenario-based teaching where I pretend to be a student who inadvertently enters a spin during a stall demonstration and the instructor candidate takes control of the aircraft - the "I got it" maneuver. Another scenario is a cross-controlled stall during the infamous base-to-final turn.

A while ago I wrote about the dwindling number of complex single-engine airplanes for training (those with retractable landing gear, controllable pitch prop, and flaps). There's only one complex single-engine trainer airplane currently in production - the venerable Piper Arrow. There's a similar, but somewhat less serious problem in the decreasing number of training aircraft approved for intentional spins.

For spin training, there are numerous specialty aerobatic aircraft and some flight schools even specialize in "upset" and spin recovery training. Remember that the requirement for flight instructor candidates is to demonstrate instructional proficiency and I think that is best done in a training aircraft: An Extra 300 is a cool plane, but it's not representative of the types of aircraft used to train GA pilots.

This got me to thinking again about the soon-to-be-certificated Cessna SkyCatcher, which I wrote about a while back. As my instructor candidate and I squeezed ourselves into the vintage Cessna 152 we were going to use for his spin training, complete with older radios and a serviceable, but funky intercom, I found myself revisiting Cessna's decision to not design the SkyCatcher for intentional spins. Granted, the primary intent of this design seems to be sport aircraft market, but it is also the de facto replacement for the no-longer-manufactured C150 and C152. The fact that this plane cannot be spun intentionally is a huge oversight.

Most readers probably have read about the crash of a protoytpe SkyCatcher during spin testing. Reports say that the aircraft entered a flap spin and the test pilot bailed out after an unsuccessful attempt to recover from the spin and then an unsuccessful deployment of the aircraft's ballistic parachute. Just looking at the aircraft, it is not hard imagine it having an slightly aft center of gravity. The ballistic parachute, a laudable design goal, would also put additional weight aft of the center of gravity. If these observations are correct, perhaps a redistribution of weight in the aircraft would solve the spin recovery problem? Of course, additional weight might put the aircraft over the 1320 pound maximum takeoff weight limit for sport aircraft.

The GA pilot population is dwindling. We need instructors to train new pilots. Instructor candidates need to undergo spin training. Without an influx of new instructors, there will be fewer instructors available to train new pilots. Without an influx of new pilots and affordable (and versatile) aircraft for those pilots to use, the market for new aircraft can only shrink.

What were they thinking?

'Scuse Me While I Catch the Sky

After more than a year of teasing the public with glimpses of various prototypes, Cessna has announced that it will be producing a new, single-engine light sport aircraft called the Skycatcher. Kinda of a dumb name, but it looks like Cessna pretty much has it's ducks in a row in terms of price, performance and market. Their web site is even in a faux blog format - posers!

Now I don't have access to one of these beasts and I don't have any friends in high places at Cessna, but here are my observations based on the photos and specs that are currently available. I won't copy any of the photos from the gallery at the Skycatcher web site, seeing as the site (oh, excuse me, the Blog) has a copyright notice, but you can go there and view them.

Some have commented that the plane looks futuristic, but I'd disagree. Cool paint scheme aside, the Skycatcher looks remarkably similar to a Cessna 152 on the outside. Right down to the stubby prop spinner. The engine cowling does have a more LoPresti-like appearance than the old 150's and 152s.

The main change in physical appearance is the nose gear. Instead of a steerable nose wheel with an oleo strut, the Skycatcher has a spring steel, castering nose gear which generally have lower maintenance costs - as long as the aircraft touches down with the longitudinal axis aligned with the runway. A castering nose wheel requires differential braking to steer the aircraft, so the Skycatcher will need to have beefier brakes than a 152. Brakes on Cessna singles (all the way up to the Caravan) are nothing to write home about and often problematic. Let's hope Cessna gets this right.

Cessna decided on the Continental O-200D engine, which I think was a good choice. A fuel-injected Continental variant is used in Diamond Eclipse, which I always found to be smooth-running and economical. The plan is to mate the Continental engine to a composite propeller and frankly, I'm skeptical: Composite props, in my experience, tend to be less durable than metal props and more difficult to service, too. Probably not the best choice for a training aircraft, but as we'll see later, Cessna had to keep the weight on this plane to a minimum.

The location of the wing strut on the Skycatcher appears behind the cabin doors rather than in front of the doors. There will have to be some sort of door stop/catch/stay to prevent the doors from being whipped when the plane is stopped when faced with high surface winds. From what I can see in the photos, there do not appear to be windows on the cabin doors. Now Cessna trainers generally have pretty good ventilation, but a dark, purple aircraft is going to be hot inside. I'd assume that the production models will have more conventional paint schemes and that will keep the cabin temperatures lower, but without a cabin window, how's a flight instructor supposed to work on his or her one-armed suntan?

There is no foot step on the prototype's landing gear strut, but that's probably to keep it looking sleek. In the production models, I'd expect to see a foot step on both the landing gear strut and the wing strut. Which leads to observations about the wing, which from what I can see looks more laminar-flow than Hershey Bar. I can't make out any fuel caps, but it would be cool if Cessna provides single-point fueling with just one gas cap. Think of the thousands of hours saved during refueling ...

The interior is planned to be painted metal, which sounds good since the plastic interior components used in aircraft over the years have just not proven to be very durable, even on the Cirrus. Let's hope there's some insulating material in there somewhere between all that metal or flying the Skycatcher will be like flying a snare drum.

The seats look ... Spartan. Actually, they make my back sore just looking at them, but I'll reserve judgement.

The 490 pound useful load, combined with a 24 gallon fuel capacity means with full fuel, the plane can accommodate two 170 pound passengers, some charts, a ham sandwich, and a water bottle. This isn't a lot different from the useful load of the old 150 and 152, though the Skycatcher promises to cruise 10 to 15 knots faster.

The control stick choice seems like a good one, unless the implementation ends up loose and flimsy. Of course, a stick offers no place to clip your approach charts and given the clean and simple Garmin G300 primary flight display and multi-function display with no back-up, steam gauge instruments, I'd go out an a limb and say that the Skycatcher will never be certified for IFR. The Diamond Eclipse has the same VFR-only limitation and I know first-hand how much this limits the utility of a training aircraft.

With a maximum takeoff weight of 1320 pounds, the Skycatcher is obviously not going to be a serious IFR platform, but not being able depart IFR or get back in on an approach through a Bay Area marine layer will mean a lot of cancelled lessons. Without even rudimentary IFR capability, this plane won't be catching any sky other than the clear blue variety. But have no fear. Cessna is developing a FITS training program (thank god!) that will undoubtedly put a lot of emphasis on staying on the ground or getting on the ground if the weather is questionable.

I just hope it will be certificated for spins ...

When Spins go Bad

On April 11, 2005, about 1308 eastern daylight time, a Cessna 152, N24779, crashed into a field near Williamsburg, Ohio, after the rudder jammed during spin recovery training. The certificated flight instructor (CFI) and the student pilot were killed, and the airplane was substantially damaged. The flight departed Clermont County Airport, Batavia, Ohio, about 1230 and proceeded to a practice area about 10 miles east of the airport. Witnesses reported that, while at an altitude of about 3,000 feet above ground level, the airplane descended in a nose-down spiral from which it did not recover and crashed into a field. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the local instructional flight, which was conducted under 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 91.

This accident, along with a similar accident that occurred in Canada, led the NTSB yesterday to issue a letter to the FAA recommending a that an Airworthiness Directive be issued for all Cessna 150 and 152 aircraft requiring the inspection of the rubber rudder bumpers (try saying that fast, five times). It seems that Cessna issued a service bulletin covering the possibility of the rudder becoming jammed, but compliance with the SB was not mandatory. The NTSB also cannot determine if the bumpers installed on the accident aircraft were improperly installed when the aircraft was manufactured or when it was recently re-painted.

If you fly one of these aircraft, I recommend you read the text of the NTSB letter here, which includes photos and diagrams of the bumpers. You can read the NTSB accident report here.

Visualizing a Different Plane

My instructor candidate had demonstrated a few spin entries when it happened: His window popped open unexpectedly. We thought it was a benign fluke, but it happened again. After the third unexpected opening, the window became difficult to keep closed. I flew the plane for a bit while he fiddled with the latch. The sudden rush of air and noise when the window opened was annoying, but I started asking myself "What's the worst that could happen?"

It's been said that good pilots are pessimists: They don't assume everything will be okay. Instead, they look for potential problems, holes in their own theories. I think good pilots are also able to simultaneously hold conflicting theories in their head. All of this leads a good, safe pilot to make conservative decisions and to imagine worst-case scenarios.

Each time the window popped open we were climbing back to altitude for the next spin entry. I figured the window opening unexpectedly during the descent portion of the spin recovery would be the worst. I had visions of the rickety window hinge and stay arm being ripped loose, the detached window traveling backward and hitting an important part of the plane, perhaps a control surface. That would be bad. So what were the options?

I thought about demonstrating a spin recovery technique for this particular plane that allows you to keep the airspeed within the greed arc during the recovery, but decided against it. My instructor candidate was now having to hold the window shut with one hand and that made it pretty difficult to fly the plane and talk on the radio. So we headed back to the airport. Once on the ground, he discovered a simple way to fix the latch. I think we both felt regret and I wondered if I'd made the best decision.

A few days later, I happened to read about an instrument rating candidate and an instructor in Florida who flew into some heavy weather. They had asked ATC if the radar showed any cell of precipitation and ATC had said "no." But soon they found themselves in heavy rain with lots of turbulence. The turbulence became so bad that one of the cockpit doors came out of its hinges. In the process, the cabin window popped open, was ripped loose, and struck the horizontal stabilizer on its way into oblivion. The aircraft landed safely and during the post-flight inspection the pilots discovered that the free-wheeling window had struck and bent the horizontal stabilizer downward about 30 degrees.

Less than two weeks after doing spins with the above-mentioned instructor candidate, I found myself with another instructor candidate in the same plane, making our way to the same practice area to do spin training. The spins were going to be a bit of a formality since this candidate, until about six months ago, had been flying F14s for the Navy. Here was a pilot who had flown 1.4 times the speed of sound, flown 500 feet over deserts and mountains at high speed, and performed countless carrier landings. Spin entry and recovery were not the issue. The task at hand was learning techniques for teaching GA pilots about spins while flying a small airplane.

I demonstrated an intentional spin entry and recovery first to the right, then to the left. This candidate learned very quickly and judging by the look on his face, this was the most fun he'd had in over a dozen hours of flight and ground instruction with me. I think he was happy to finally be pulling 2 or 3 Gs, even if for just a few seconds. For my part, I like to see people I instruct feeling happy. I also like it when the window stays shut.