One aircraft in particular, the P55 Tornado, caught the attention of enthusiasts by winning the prestigious Giro di Sicilia air race. From that success, the family gained enough notoriety and confidence to start the first company—Partenavia.

From humble, pre-World War II beginnings to multiple state-of-the-art facilities today, Tecnam strives to be a dominant player in the piston market. The plan to find niches that can be exploited and dominated by aircraft designed to be class leaders has served the company well and is gaining traction. Tecnam produces a range of aircraft from light sport aircraft, to piston twins used in short haul commercial applications, to the recent 2024 FLYING Innovation Award winner two-seat trainer P-Mentor, capable of taking students from zero time through instrument and commercial. 

The upscale variant of the P2010, the Gran Lusso, is another example of the company’s ability to fill a void with a well-designed product.

The P2010 (or “twenty-ten”) Gran Lusso, like all current Tecnam aircraft, begins its model designation with the letter “P” that pays homage to the proud Pascale family lineage—no harm there. The number that follows the P indicates the year when the design was born and the aircraft began to take shape. The challenge here is two-fold. First, aircraft development takes years to advance from paper airplane to fully certified aircraft. Thus by the time a model appears on the market, the model name gives it the illusion of being a couple years old. For example, the 2024 Gran Lusso I tested is dubbed the P2010. Second, the naming convention doesn’t provide much indication as to where various products fit in the model line-up. For example, the P2002 is a single, the P2006 is a twin, the P2008 is a single, the P2010 is a single, and the P2012 is also a twin. 

• READ MORE: We Fly: Piper M700 Fury

But what’s in a name? In the case of the 2024 P2010 Gran Lusso, the thing to focus on is why the aircraft is deemed Gran Lusso, Italian for “grand luxury.” The aircraft is elegant looking, tastefully appointed, and its refinements (thanks largely to its FADEC turbo-diesel powerplant) include simplicity of operation from one-button start to the elimination of both mixture and prop controls. 

Airframe

The aircraft has attractive, sleek contours, common among composite fuselages, accentuated by complementary finish of a beautiful paint scheme. Italian fashion models have long been heralded for their curvaceous lines and chiseled features, and the Gran Lusso has similar sex appeal on its own runway. 

Interestingly, the P2010 variants have three different tail configurations based on what is slung firewall forward. Empennage configuration changes slightly with different powerplants—Continental CD-170 (170 hp), Lycoming IO-360 (180 hp), and Lycoming IO-390 (215 hp)—to achieve the desired handling characteristics. Also curious is the blend of airframe construction methodology, including a metal wing mated to a composite fuselage. 

The beauty of composite construction lies in the speed of production (with far fewer parts and labor required), its favorable weight-to-strength ratio versus aircraft aluminum, and the ability to craft complex shapes seamlessly (with lower parasitic drag) from large-scale molds. However, carbon fiber materials are generally more expensive than aircraft-grade aluminum. Consequently, even with the added production time of riveting overlapping skins to stamped metal ribs and bulkheads, aluminum construction can be more cost-effective. Some may argue that making metal field repairs may also be easier in the case of hangar rash or bird strike. 

• READ MORE: Ultimate Issue: We Fly the Cessna T182T Skylane

Regardless of the manufacturing strategy, the airframe is a thing of beauty with attention to detail in such mundane items as a door handle portends that no detail is too small to be thoughtfully designed. And speaking of doors, the aircraft also boasts another thoughtful feature rare in a four-place piston single—a rear passenger door (more on that later). 

Cabin

Approaching luxury automotive fit and finish best describes the interior in a single sentence. Legacy aircraft designs have long perpetuated an odd juxtaposition between the bougieness of what one drives to the airport and what one flies away.

Aircraft designed in the 21st century have all benefited from and exploited a path that brings the aircraft experience closer to the auto interior experience (noise level aside). And given what new pistons single retail for these days compared to luxury cars, making the aircraft feel like a luxury auto experience helps make the price tag seem like a better value for those who need the justification. 

In the Gran Lusso, everything the pilot and passengers see, touch, and interface with has a premium feel, most of which is wrapped in Italian leather and hand-stitched—the French way. The interior is also available in six color schemes with carbon-fiber inlays.

Vents, cleverly ducted from the front of the engine cowl to the panel provide an immediate airflow for cooling upon engine start. Even if the fuselage has been turned into a terrarium by the summer heat, the airflow facilitates evaporative cooling until the temperature lapse rate of higher altitudes substitutes for air conditioning.

The front seats are electronically adjustable up and down, and manually fore and aft. At 6-foot-1, I had ample leg room without the seat at the rear stop leaving extra leg room for back-seat occupants. The rear passenger door makes ingress and egress more elegant than adjusting seats and seat backs and clambering from front to back. Even with the front seats fully aft, the rear door provides an unobstructed entry portal. Once comfortably seated, passengers will find ample options for charging devices, lighting, and cooling.

The baggage area is also flexible and accommodating. The rear seats are relatively easy to remove as are the baggage-area panels, making it easy to load larger, longer items like downhill skis through the rear passenger door, serving as a much larger cargo door.

Avionics

Garmin provides the interface for the last two-thirds of the aviate–navigate–communicate equation. The G1000NXi suite coupled to a GF700 autopilot is an increasingly familiar and incredibly robust panel. Both the G1000NXi and GFC700 have feature enhancements not found in earlier iterations.

The G1000 suite receives plenty of attention, largely because it has become so popular in new aircraft like the ones we cover in FLYING. In reality, fewer than 20,000 aircraft in the fleet boast G1000 avionics, so it’s still worth discussing what’s new. 

• READ MORE: Embraer’s Phenom 300E Full of Bossa Nova Style

The NXi version has an updated multifunction display (MFD) featuring a split-screen feature. This allows the pilot to have more pages visible, thereby reducing the need to switch between them to display desired information. The MFD screen can be split horizontally, vertically, or a combination of both for maximum customization. 

U.S. operators will benefit from enhanced terrain awareness through the addition of color-coded contouring when the aircraft is 2,000 feet (green shading), 1,000 feet (yellow), and 100 feet (red) agl. Map options include VFR sectional or IFR enroute.

Wireless connectivity now enables the pilot to stream information such as traffic and weather between compatible devices and apps so animated radar imagery can be overlaid on the MFD and the HSI inset on the PFD. Users can also transfer flight plans created on a remote device directly to the G1000NXi. 

The GFC 700 also includes visual approach capability for vectors or straight-in approaches with a coupled vertical flight path down to pilot-selectable minimums. 

The Gran Lusso’s G1000 is also equipped with features including synthetic vision (optional) and basic envelope protection in what Garmin calls ESP—electronic stability and protection. The system helps avoid loss-of-control scenarios by providing increasingly stronger forced feedback through the yoke if pitch or roll exceeds programmed limits. If the system is activated for an extended period, the autopilot will bring the aircraft back to straight and level flight. This feature can help avoid inadvertent stalls or other loss of control scenarios possibly induced by spatial disorientation.

The good news is, first, the forced feedback can be relatively easily overcome with firm control inputs, and second, the system can also be manually disabled for training purposes.

Engine

The Gran Lusso is powered by an overhead cam, liquid-cooled, fuel-injected, FADEC-controlled, turbocharged, intercooled, high compression, jet-A burning 170 hp powerplant. If that litany of engine tech sounds like something you’d find in an auto brochure, you’d be correct. This Continental CD-170 is a heavily modified Mercedes-Benz engine capable of a cruise speed of 140 knots on less than 9 gallons an hour.

Another welcome surprise is the much lower-than-expected ambient cabin noise than one generally experiences in a legacy piston single. While it isn’t the 65 decibel noise level of your family truckster at highway speed, in-flight conversations without a headset are possible with power pulled back to cruise.

Walkaround

My demo pilot for the day was Nate Weisman of CieloBlu, one of Tecnam’s U.S. dealers. Weisman is an instructor, demo and ferry pilot, salesman, marketer, and just all-around good guy. He is just what every aircraft dealer needs—someone who knows the aircraft, is easy to fly with, and can give you pointers while demonstrating.

During the walkaround for the aircraft  preflight inspection, Weisman pointed out the usual and customary items and also some that, again, speak to the attention to detail on the P2010. 

For example, there’s a small, almost unnoticeable drip sill attached above the front doors to divert rainwater away from the opening. Additionally, rather than hanging down into airflow, the wing fuel sumps are sculpted into the end of a small fairing. The baggage door doesn’t require a key and adds a level of security through a hidden release located inside the cabin.

Performance

Start-Up

The turbo diesel adds a number of practical benefits to this beautiful aircraft. But if you didn’t get a whiff of jet fuel while walking around the aircraft, the start-up procedure gives the first indication of what’s bolted to the firewall.

The aircraft has a single push-button start while still requiring a prestart checklist. The procedure is basically, flip the master on, engine master on, push and hold the engine start button until the engine fires, then release. 

Unlike gas-powered internal combustion engines, diesel engines do not have spark plugs but rather glow plugs to assist in the combustion process. Since glow plugs take a few seconds to heat up, there is a very brief pause required before cranking an engine to start. Once the GLOWSYS ACTV cas message appears, simply push and hold the start button until the engine fires.

Taxi

The fully castering nosewheel requires differential braking to taxi, but it also enables a very tight turning radius. Since the nosewheel isn’t connected in any way to the rudder, dancing with the rudder pedals isn’t going to provide any steering inputs while taxiing because the weak aerodynamic forces on the rudder at such low speeds typically will make the rudder ineffective.

Gently using the toe brakes for differential braking will keep you aligned on the centerline. For those who haven’t taxied a castering nosewheel, this may take a bit of driving around the airport to get a good feel for it.

When we taxied out to the runway for the demo flight, I couldn’t quite get a coordinated feel for where to place my feet to best manipulate the toe brakes. I wanted to rest my heels on the floor but couldn’t quite get the feel I wanted on the toe brakes. After landing, I realized that I could rest the balls of my feet on the top of the rudder pedals and work the toe brakes by rocking my toes forward.

Run-Up 

The benefits of the dual-channel FADEC engine were obvious and reduced workload. With no mags to test, and no prop to cycle, the run-up is a fairly simple process with the fully automated and redundant FADEC system testing itself—first FADEC channel A, then toggling to test the FADEC B channel.

The only other action was selecting takeoff flaps. There are only two flap settings, takeoff (15 degrees) and landing (40 degrees). That said, it probably took longer to write this paragraph than it did to complete the run-up.

Takeoff

Automated engine controls manage prop setting and fuel metering, leaving only a throttle lever in the center console for managing power.

With everything in the green and the modified Mercedes diesel up to temperature, we brought the power up and launched out of Appleton, Wisconsin, on a hot summer midday before EAA AirVenture with clouds building around us. 

After rotation, we targeted the century mark for the climb up to 6,500 to have some fun and see how the ESP would react. I was reasonably impressed by the climb ability—as a rule, diesel engines generally have more torque than gas. This makes the P2010 with the CD-170 a powerful combination that likes to climb yet doesn’t require an unusual amount of right rudder trim. 

Once stabilized at a safe altitude and clearing turns combined with familiarization with the controls and sight picture, we executed a power-on stall.

Pulling back on the yoke made the airspeed tape scroll below Vx and filled the windscreen with nothing but blue sky—one would be hard-pressed not to recognize the warning signs of an approaching power-on stall. As expected, the ESP system kept trying to convince me to lower the nose as I kept trying to put the yoke in my lap. The power-on stall was unremarkable and the aircraft recovered as expected.

The power-off stall characteristics felt a bit more squeamish with what I deemed to be a tendency to drop a wing more abruptly than I expected. Not disconcerting, just surprising, which brought up another point I was not aware of. Unlike some high-wing aircraft with gravity feed systems, the P2010 pilot must monitor fuel and switch fuel tanks periodically to maintain balance. Keeping an eye on fuel is a part of the routine scan, setting a timer is always wise, and programming a recurring MSG in the G1000 is also a great backup to help avoid a fuel imbalance that might aggravate a stall.

After a couple stalls, we leveled off and executed some steep turns that also woke up the ESP. As the bank angle increased beyond 30 degrees, an increasing amount of control input force was required to overcome ESP’s desire for the aircraft to rollout back to wings level. It would be difficult to overcontrol the aircraft with ESP on, but I can also envision times when I’d prefer to keep ESP off.

I also wanted to see if the Gran Lusso, which lived up to its name, also lived up to its marketing hype—I wanted to see 140 knots. With the GFC700 doing the flying, we pushed the throttle forward and yes, at 90 percent power on 8.9 gph, the airspeed tape scrolled to 140 ktas as advertised.

Conclusion

The Gran Lusso is a compelling product. At its core, it checks all three boxes for my trifecta of what a 21st century general aviation, cross-country aircraft design should be with regard to airframe, avionics, and powerplant.

Modern airframe—check.

While not fully composite, it includes a sleek, spacious fuselage that reduces weight and drag. The ramp presence is strong, the fit and finish is impeccable, and the interior appointments are stunning in this class of aircraft.

GA aircraft are expensive, no question. In the past however, the premium price didn’t seem to align with the technology, fit, finish, features, and comfort one might expect when reaching so deep into your retirement fund.

In this case, everything about the Gran Lusso seemed to indicate that no corners were cut in the process of delivering grand luxury. OK, maybe a heated seat would have been a nice addition—and a key fob to remotely illuminate underwing and interior LED lighting (I’ll be looking for that next).

Modern avionics—check.

The Garmin G100NXi suite needs no more explanation. The feature-rich package, digital autopilot, and safety attributes have altered the way many of us fly. There’s considerably more features in the NXi upgrade that aren’t covered here, but it will suffice to say that the G1000 is synonymous with modern avionics.

Modern powerplant—check.

The vast majority of GA aircraft are powered by very basic, generally low-tech, air-cooled engines designed in the previous century. While engine OEMs have made vast improvements over time in reliability, fuel delivery, electronic controls, and more, simply put, aviation engine technology has not kept pace with the modernization and performance found in today’s cars and motorcycles.

If a 4-cylinder liquid-cooled, double-overhead cam, motorcycle engine can produce more than 200 hp from only 1,000 cc displacement, why are we still slogging around with 360 ci air-cooled, pushrod engines pumping out 200 hp?

Granted it’s not easy. I get it, but you see the point. The Gran Lusso has a modern engine with arguably more reliability than its 1,800-hour TBR (time before replacement) would imply. 

Unlike other powerplants, the CD-170 is replaced, not overhauled, at the currently certified end of its service life. This could be because the OEM wants to eliminate the liability of having very hi-tech engines rebuilt in the field without proper tools, training, or parts. At the prescribed time, the engine is returned to the OEM for a core credit toward the purchase of a factory new, not remanufactured, engine.

But fear not, flying 100 hours per year still provides 18 years of enjoyment before TBR. And as for relative wear and tear comparison, 1,800 hours of operation may only equate to roughly five years of use in an auto application. Given the reliability of diesel engines, and the more than 10 millions hours of testing claimed by Continental on the engine, I suspect the CD-170 could fly considerably longer than the 1,800 TBR without flinching. So kudos for engine modernization. 

Perhaps what I find most compelling about the Gran Lusso is its mission capability and practicality. With an average useful load near 850 pounds and fuel efficiency of about 6.6 gph in cruise, it can be a four-place aircraft that can fill all four seats (depending on how carefully you choose your friends) and still have enough useful load remaining to carry the fuel needed to fly farther than the closest fuel stop.

The Tecnam Gran Lusso is a wonderful confluence of technology, features, luxury, and performance. With its production rate and growing popularity, the Gran Lusso may be as elusive as a dinner and drinks with an Italian model (but that certainly shouldn’t deter you from entertaining the possibility).

Cockpit at a Glance: 2024 Tecnam Gran Lusso

A. The Garmin G1000NXi suite coupled to the GFC700 digital autopilot boasts new features and supports options like synthetic vision and Flight Stream 510 to wirelessly stream data.

B. The Garmin flight management keypad provides push button data entry as an alternative to knob twisting.

C. The center console puts important controls like flaps, fuel valve, trim wheel, parking brake, and the single power control in one convenient location.

D. Approaching luxury automotive fit and finish, the interior is also available in six modern color schemes with carbon-fiber inlays.

Spec Sheet: 2024 Tecnam Gran Lusso

Price as Tested: $690,220 (including optional Synthetic Vision)

Certifications: FAA Part 23, Transport Canada Civil Aviation, European Union Aviation Safety Agency, and Civil Aviation Safety Authority (Australia)

Engine: Continental Aerospace Technologies CD-170 turbodiesel

Propeller: Three-blade MT MTV-6-R/190-69

Horsepower: 170 hp

Length: 25.95 ft.

Height: 9.32 ft.

Wingspan: 33.79 ft.

Wing Area:  149.6 sq. ft.

Wing Loading: at max gross weight = 17.98 lbs./sq. ft.

Power Loading: 16.01 lbs./hp

Cabin Width: 3.74 ft.

Cabin Length: 7.55 ft.

Max Takeoff Weight: 2,690 lbs.

Max Zero Fuel Weight: 1,687 lbs.

Standard Empty Weight: 1,841 lbs.

Max Baggage: 88 lbs. in baggage compartment

Useful Load: approx. 849 lbs., depending on options

Max Usable Fuel: 411.75 lbs. (61 gallons usable)

Service Ceiling: 18,000 ft.

Max Rate of Climb, MTOW, ISA, SL:  MTOW, ISA, SL:  579 fpm

Max Cruise Speed: 140 ktas

Max Range: 1,300 nm

Fuel Consumption at Max Cruise: 8.7 gph

Stall Speed, Flaps Up: flaps up 63 kias

Stall Speed, Full Flaps: flaps LND 49 kias

Takeoff Over 50 Ft. Obs: 2,306 ft. (ISA, sea level @ MTOW)

Landing Over 50 Ft. Obs: 1,808 ft. (ISA, sea level @ MTOW)

This feature first appeared in the September Issue 950 of the FLYING print edition.

The post We Fly: Tecnam Gran Lusso appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

First, in April 1996, I had spent an hour in recurrent training in my Skyhawk. We had done some air work, including steep turns and slow flight, as well as some partial panel flying. As we returned to the Purdue University Airport (KLAF), my instructor suggested a no-flap landing, something I had not practiced since primary training nearly 10 years previously. It went well, and I was reminded that no-flap landings are faster and with a more nose-high attitude.

Second, a few days later I went with my daughter’s preschool class to visit the KLAF tower. The day was solid IFR with little activity, so the tower controllers had to be creative to entertain 15 5-year-olds. They brought out the light guns and the kids were captivated. 

The main event occurred a few days later when my wife, daughter and I flew to Kalamazoo, Michigan (KAZO), on an early Saturday morning. We had made this trip many times, and it proved the utility of a small airplane. Instead of spending seven tedious hours on the highway to spend five hours with my wife’s family, we spent three pleasant hours in the air to spend nine hours with her family. The flight was easy, we had a relaxing day with my in-laws, and in late afternoon we returned to the airport for the flight home.

• READ MORE: Everyone Should Pay Close Attention in the Cockpit

The walkaround was normal, the tanks were full, and with a forecast for “severe clear,” we were set for a relaxing flight home. On the run-up pad with the engine to 1,700 rpm, the mags checked out, and the oil pressure and suction were in the green. The ammeter showed a discharge with the landing light turned on and returned to center with the light off—well, maybe not completely center but close enough. After all, many a CFI had complained that these gauges in Skyhawks were not precise. A small voice in the back of my head said, “Hmm, maybe I should investigate that,” but I ignored the voice and we departed. 

On our IFR flight plan, as I spoke with air traffic controllers, the radio seemed scratchier than usual, but this was probably just some random electrical glitch, right? No. Just as the sun was setting, we lost all electrical power—no radios, no transponder, no lights, and, of course, no flaps. 

This happened as we were about 25 minutes from KLAF, but we were directly over a small airport where I had frequently practiced touch-and-goes. I told my wife that we could land immediately—without flaps—but otherwise all would be straightforward, and we could call a friend to fetch us. Alternatively, we could continue homeward. I explained that although ATC had lost our data block when the transponder lost power, the primary return was still visible on radar, moving steadily to KLAF. Chicago Center would tell the KLAF tower that a NORDO was inbound. We would fly 1,000 feet above pattern altitude, looking for the steady green light that meant we were cleared to land.

• READ MORE: Beloved Flight Instructor’s Lessons Continue to Replay in Airline Captain’s Head

My wife said that we should go ahead to KLAF. I was grateful for the vote of confidence. I grabbed my flashlight so that I could see the instruments and on we went. And it worked out exactly as I had told her: We approached KLAF above pattern altitude, saw the steady green light, entered the pattern, and made an easy landing in the dark with no landing light and no flaps. (And it was really dark—when we left KLAF that morning, I was wearing my prescription sunglasses and had left my regular glasses in the car in the hangar). After we had put the plane in the hangar, I called the tower and thanked the folks for their help. They confirmed that Chicago Center had forewarned them of my arrival and that they had alerted everyone in the pattern to be especially vigilant.

On the drive home, I reflected on the evening’s events. On the one hand, I was pleased that I had handled the emergency calmly and by the book. And I was grateful that the event had occurred in familiar airspace with no additional challenges associated with bad weather. On the other hand, I was annoyed that I had misread the signs that led to the emergency. 

What did I learn from the episode? 

First, periodically expand my scan of the panel to include instruments, such as the ammeter, that are on the far side of the panel. Second, receive recurrent training regularly to get feedback from a CFI about skills that may have grown rusty and should be practiced. Third, use the ATC system. These folks provide great service that can simplify a pilot’s tasks and can be a tremendous asset in an emergency. Fourth, when there are signs that something might be wrong, don’t weave a story to explain and then dismiss those signs. Instead, when the little voice says, “all is not right here,” pause to evaluate what’s going on.

Finally, keep a spare pair of glasses in the flight bag! 

This column first appeared in the July/August Issue 949 of the FLYING print edition.

The post Listening to That Inner Pilot Voice appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

A) Back Course (BC)

Sometimes, a back course (BC) is present even when it is into the prevailing winds instead of having a full ILS aligned with those winds. It might be for obstacles or equipment-positioning reasons that a glideslope is not able to be established from a particular direction. The BC is “the other side” of an ILS approach and traditionally requires a pilot to “reverse sense” while flying the approach. This means that instead of flying toward the deflected side for course alignment, a pilot would fly away from the direction, or, as most of us remember, “fly the needle to the ball.” Many modern avionics packages have HSI equipment or are digitally able to “flip” the signal and make it so a pilot doesn’t need to fly using reverse sensing. Knowing how your system works is critical to making sure you are correcting in the proper direction when flying this approach.

• READ MORE: Chart Wise: Charlottesville RNAV (GPS)-Y Rwy 21

B) Disregard Glideslope

Note 4 on this approach, like on many back-course approaches, indicates that a pilot should “disregard glideslope indications.” Glideslopes are typically generated on the opposite end of a runway when there is a back course and would lead a pilot along an incorrect descent path. This is a nonprecision approach,and a pilot should establish an appropriate descent rate to arrive at the minimum descent altitude before reaching the missed approach point.

C)  Discrete VOR and LOC Frequencies

On this approach the inbound course is generated through using the localizer (I-ESC) on 109.3. The VOR is also on the airport (ESC on 113.55), so be sure you are using the correct navigation source when you are inbound. This becomes especially confusing if you were using the VOR to navigate to the area and then along the DME ARC. Be sure to be selected to the LOC frequency for the inbound course.

• READ MORE: Chart Wise: Ocean City (KOXB) LOC Rwy 32

D) DME ARC Alternative

If you are flying this approach and don’t want to do the DME ARC to establish onto the approach, you can also track outbound from the VOR on a 092-degree radial to the KULAH waypoint, where you will intercept the localizer and then conduct a procedure turn after you are out past the waypoint, which is either 6 DME from the ESC VOR or 5.7 from the I-ESC LOC.

E) VDP and Map Differences

A visual descent point (VDP) is noted with the dark “V” at 1.1 DME from I-ESC, the localizer-based DME. A missed approach point (MAP) is noted at 0.5 DME from I-ESC and is where a pilot would need to go missed if they did not see the runway environment. Be careful not to confuse these DME readings with ones from the ESC VOR a pilot may have previously used to navigate onto the approach or while conducting a DME ARC.

F) Missed Hold Entry Turns Nonprotected Side

When going missed on this approach, a pilot would execute a climb to 2,500 feet, turn right back to the ESC VOR, and then hold. The turn in this case is toward the nonprotected side of the hold for the entry, and once established you will continue right turns while in the hold at 2,500 msl.

• READ MORE: Chart Wise: Spirit of St. Louis ILS 26L

G) Magnetic Disturbance Note

A note on the chart indicates that “magnetic disturbances of as much as 14 degrees exist at ground level in Escanaba.” A pilot is going to want to take that into account when setting their directional gyro. You might be best served to set it based on runway alignment rather than using a comparison to your magnetic compass.

This column first appeared in the July/August Issue 949 of the FLYING print edition.

The post Escanaba (KESC) LOC BC Rwy 28 appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Convective outflow boundaries emanating away from thunderstorms are generated as cold, dense air descends in downdrafts then moving outward away from the convection to produce a mesoscale cold front also known as a gust front. Some gust fronts can be completely harmless or may be a precursor for an encounter with severe turbulence and dangerous low-level convective wind shear. The direction of movement of the gust front isn’t always coincident with the general motion of the thunderstorms. If the gust front is moving in advance of the convection, it should be strictly avoided. The pilot’s best defense is to recognize and characterize the gust front using METARs, ground-based radar and visible satellite imagery.

According to research meteorologist and thunderstorm expert, Dr. Charles Doswell, “cold, stable air is the ‘exhaust’ of deep, moist convection descending in downdrafts and then spreading outward like pancake batter poured on a griddle.” As a pulse-type thunderstorm reaches a point where its updraft can no longer support the load of precipitation that has accumulated inside, the precipitation load collapses down through the original updraft area. Evaporation of some of the rain cools the downdraft, making it even more dense compared to the surrounding air. When the downdraft reaches the ground, it is deflected laterally and spreads out almost uniformly in all directions producing a gust front. 

• READ MORE: Keeping an Eye on the Storm

Gust fronts are normally seen moving away from weakening thunderstorm cores. Once a gust front forms and moves away from the convection the boundary may be detected on the NWS WSR-88D NEXRAD Doppler radar as a bow-shaped line of low reflectivity returns usually 20 dBZ or less. Outflow boundaries are low level events and do not necessarily produce precipitation. Instead, the radar is detecting the density discontinuity of the boundary itself along with any dust, insects and other debris that may be carried along with the strong winds within the outflow. The gust front in southwest Missouri shows up very well on the NWS radar image out of Springfield as shown below. 

 An important observation is to note the motion of the gust front relative to the motion of the convection. In this particular case, the boundary is steadily moving south while the thunderstorm cells that produced the gust front are moving to the east. This kind of outflow boundary is usually benign especially as it gains distance from the source convection. On the other hand, a gust front that is moving in the same general direction in advance of the convection is of the most concern. These gust fronts often contain severe or extreme turbulence, strong and gusty straight line winds and low-level convective wind shear. 

As mentioned previously, gust fronts are strictly low-level events. As such, even the lowest elevation angle of the radar may overshoot the boundary if it is not close to the radar site. Shown above at 22Z, the NWS WSR-88D NEXRAD Doppler radar out of Greenville-Spartanburg, South Carolina is the closest radar site and clearly “sees” the gust front (right image). However, the NEXRAD Doppler radar out of Columbia, South Carolina (left image), is further away and misses the gust front completely. As the gust front moves away from the radar site, it may appear to dissipate, when in fact, the lowest elevation beam of the radar is simply overshooting the boundary. 

As a result, it is important to examine the NEXRAD radar mosaic image before looking at the individual radar sites.

Not all gust fronts are easy to distinguish on visible satellite imagery; the gust front could be embedded in other dense clouds or a high cirrus deck may obscure it. It is also possible that the boundary may not have enough lift or moisture to produce clouds. In many cases, however, it will clearly stand out on the visible satellite image. When the gust front contains enough moisture, as it was in this situation, cumuliform clouds may form along the boundary and move outward. This is very common in the Southeast and coastal regions along the Gulf of Mexico given the higher moisture content.  

As this particular gust front passed through my neighborhood located south of Charlotte, North Carolina, strong, gusty northerly winds persisted for about 10 minutes. As is common, the main core of the precipitation didn’t start to fall for another 10 minutes. When a gust front such as this appears on satellite or radar, it is important to monitor the METARs and ASOS or AWOS closely for the occurrence of high winds. Several airports in the vicinity reported wind gusts peaking at 30 knots. The sky cover went from being just few to scattered clouds to a broken sky with these cumuliform clouds moving rapidly through the region.

• READ MORE: The Ins and Outs of Pilot Weather Reports

As mentioned earlier, a gust front moving away from thunderstorms is a low-level event that can contain very strong updrafts and downdrafts. The graph shown above is a time series, plotting the upward and downward motion or vertical velocity in a strong gust front as it moved over a particular point on the ground. The top half of the graph is upward motion and the bottom half is downward motion. 

Time increases from left to right. As the gust front approaches, the vertical velocity of the air upward increases quickly over a one or two minute period. While the maximum vertical velocities vary with height in the outflow, a common maximum number seen is 10 m/s at about 1.4 km or 4,500 feet agl (25 knots is roughly 12 m/s for reference). As the gust front moves through, the velocities abruptly switch from an upward to a downward motion creating strong wind gusts at the surface. Most outflow boundaries don’t extend above about 2 km or 6,500 feet agl. What is remarkable is that upward to downward motion changes in just about 30 seconds over the ground point where this was observed. But imagine flying an aircraft at 150 knots through this; the up and down exchange will happen in just a few seconds producing a jarring turbulence event.

Just in case you were wondering, gust fronts are conveniently filtered out by your datalink weather broadcasts as shown above for XM-delivered satellite weather. This is because the broadcast only provides returns from actual areas of precipitation. Often outflow boundaries or gust fronts produce low reflectivity returns that fall below the threshold used to filter out other clutter not associated with actual areas of precipitation. When in flight, pay particular attention to surface observations looking for strong, gusty winds before attempting a landing at an airport when storms are approaching. 

This feature first appeared in the July/August Issue 949 of the FLYING print edition.

The post Know Your Convective Outflow Boundaries appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

After starting up, calming my nerves, keying the mic, and receiving my taxi clearance, I joined the slow parade of aircraft taxiing up to the departure point of Runway 27. This looked startlingly familiar to the long lines of aircraft I’ve seen for years on the taxiways at KOSH during the real AirVenture.

Fond memories returned to me of short breaks taken beside the taxiway watching aircraft, a northerly breeze keeping the summer heat in check, puffy white cumulus clouds rolling softly over the field as innumerable one-of-a-kind, rare, and well-loved GA, warbirds, antique, and homebuilt aircraft slowly roll by on their way to go flying.

Although I’m in my home flight simulator, I am excited to be trying this bucket list flight simulator activity, knowing that landing at KOSH this afternoon will be a test of concentration and flying skill as I join my fellow sim pilots in attempting to traverse the famous Fisk arrival. 

Snapping out of this momentary reverie, I receive my clearance from the tower to line up and wait on Runway 27, and then: 

“November 3-8-3-Romeo-Sierra, cleared for takeoff, Runway 2-7.”

• READ MORE: Earning Your Winter WINGS

Then, with as much calm in my voice as I can muster: “Roger, 383RS, cleared for take-off, runway 2-7.” 

Ahead of me, another Cessna 172 is on the upwind, a safe distance ahead. On either side I can see many more GA aircraft waiting their turn to launch, propellers all spinning in anticipation. We are 12 miles due south of KOSH, but my heart rate is up, left hand on the yoke, push the throttle forward, and the takeoff roll begins. A quick glance at the oil pressure, it is in the green, and my airspeed is alive: 30, 40, 50 knots, but no faster—something’s wrong. 

I can hear something is not right with the engine. But this is near impossible as I thought I had turned off major failure modes for the event. Another check of oil pressure—still green. A bit exasperated and running out of runway, I contemplate what it will feel like to botch this takeoff in front of 30 other sim pilots who are probably watching and listening on the radio.

If I don’t figure this out, I will need to abort the takeoff. I have only a few seconds to make the decision when I look across my sim cockpit and spot the culprit of the engine trouble. I leaned the mixture on the long taxi to the takeoff point, and it was still at roughly 50 percent. I jammed the mixture full forward, the engine responded, and the 172 returned to normal acceleration, up through 70 knots. I pulled back on the yoke and cleared the end of the runway to my upwind climb. Certainly an inauspicious start to the most exciting live flight sim event in which I have participated.

Having failed to double-check the mixture, I made a silent promise to myself—no more big mistakes. After all, this is the big live event of the summer for sim pilots. 

With my heart rate settling back to normal and Fond Du Lac fading into the distance behind me, it was time to get ahead and stay ahead of the aircraft. One of my goals for the flight was to hand fly it, which was made easier by the calm weather programmed into the flight simulator. 

I turned the heading bug on my Real Sim Gear G1000 PFD CDI and steered my 172 in a south-westerly direction over the small town of Waupun, Wisconsin. I set my altitude bug for 1,800 feet, per the arrival instructions, and trimmed to maintain the altitude.

• READ MORE: Highlights From FlightSimExpo 2024

Just like in the real world, twins and faster aircraft could opt for the 2,300-foot altitude arrival, but I purposefully chose the slower single-engine piston Cessna 172 Skyhawk, knowing that it would still provide plenty of challenge. Once I reached Waupun, I would turn the aircraft in a north-westerly direction toward the Fisk arrival Transition starting point. This would be revealed as soon as I checked the ATIS, which functioned in this SimVenture event exactly as it does in real-world flying. 

There were a few important differences between the real-world EAA AirVenture Oshkosh arrival and the SimVenture version. To coordinate the same flight sim environment for all participants, pilots were asked to set their simulator weather to CAVU skies, calm winds, and standard pressure altitude of 29.92 on the barometer. This assured that all pilots were flying at the same altitude and that there were no major crosswinds, given the high density of live aircraft in the simulation.  

The most interesting and compelling similarity to the real-world AirVenture experience was the fact that real Oshkosh ATC were controlling all pilots participating in SimVenture. Some of the participating controllers were even using SimVenture to warm up for the real AirVenture environment just like some pilots use simulators to fly routes in advance.

Having some of the real-life KOSH air traffic controllers join the flight simulation community to provide the ultimate full-immersion experience made it a can’t-miss event. Working from their own homes, the controllers were provided with software and access so they could see the activity on their screens and control the sim participants effectively. As soon as I tuned into the ATIS to learn which Fisk arrival transition was in use, I recognized the familiar voice, having watched numerous real-world arrivals on YouTube as part of my preparation.

PilotEdge delivers the integration of the live ATC service with participating sim pilots connecting to the event through their software client. For SimVenture, PilotEdge designated one of the four runways at KOSH for each day, providing incentive for sim pilots to fly the Fisk arrival all four days of the event. For those pilots wishing to be surprised, the runway information can be picked up when listening to ATIS or from the announcements of the approach controllers. Trying to preserve that element of surprise and realism, I briefed all four runways as part of my prep work and felt reasonably prepared for each. 

I experienced some trepidation about how much of the critical scenery I would be able to see out my left window, even at 1,800 feet. Spotting the railroad tracks at Ripon, for example, and picking up Fisk Avenue over the town of Fisk were both critical details. So, a few days before SimVenture, I took a practice flight on my sim from Ripon to Fisk, trying the Fisk Avenue transition first, and then looping back to try the railroad track transition over the gravel pit second.

• READ MORE: Here Are 2 Quick VFR Flights to Try on Your Home Flight Simulator

My justification for this practice flight was simply that I would use my home simulator to do the same thing if I was flying the arrival in real life, so why not get a quick familiarization ahead of the big event? Also, I knew how task-saturated I would feel on the day of SimVenture, and I wanted to ease that a bit. 

I was 10 miles south of the start of the Fisk arrival now and dialed in the SimVenture ATIS, confirming that Puckaway Lake was the selected transition starting point and that Runway 27 was the active arrival runway for the day at KOSH. I then tuned to the Fisk Approach frequency and started to listen to the controller providing a series of directions to aircraft far ahead at the RIPON checkpoint. For now, I turned my attention to the aircraft forming up over the lake. Whatever aircraft I could form up with would become the loose formation that would make the run up the railroad tracks to the town of Fisk, and then on to landing at KOSH. 

When I arrived over Puckaway Lake, the informal formation of aircraft had the organizational qualities of what I remember my middle school dances looking like— a few parts of chaos and a lot of improvisational choreography as we danced with two left feet—trying to find an aircraft of similar size and speed to fly with. It was a group assembly en masse, like a murmuration of starlings but with much more function and a lot less beauty. 

Aircraft of all varieties were moving generally eastward but at a wide range of altitudes and speeds. I counted no fewer than 30 aircraft and did my best to join a small group near the southern edge of the lake. There was a concerted effort among us to order ourselves, with some jockeying for position. I slowed down to 82 knots momentarily to set myself in the back of the flying-V formation that was beginning to take shape. It wasn’t pretty, but we were Oshkosh-bound.  

The next transition point ahead of us was Green Lake. Per the notice, we had until the town of Ripon to form a single file line, and this had to be completed without talking to each other on the radio. All of us were doing our best to balance the many simultaneous tasks of navigating visually, watching out for nearby traffic, holding altitude and airspeed, and listening to the controllers. The leg from Green Lake to RIPON isn’t more than 10 miles, so there wasn’t much time to make it all work. It was odd to be so close to other aircraft but with no direct way to communicate with them. The flying-V shape was holding on the right side, but there was a bevy of aircraft that still needed to sort themselves into order off to my left. 

Farther ahead, the radio was alive with the Fisk Approach controller turning around a group of sim pilots that couldn’t get themselves into a single file. They were receiving the “turn back” instructions, which meant the whole group had to enter a left turn counterclockwise and fly over the northern shore of Green Lake, then fly nearly 20 miles back to the transition point on Puckaway Lake and try the entire process again. In my group, we had 6 miles to go until RIPON and we still had some work to do.  

I used the hat switch on my yoke to move the camera view to my left and right so that I could read our position and progress towards single-file-ness. Satisfied with my relative position to the other aircraft, I clicked the button to return my camera view to straight ahead out my windscreen, and without warning, another single-engine piston aircraft flew directly in front of me from the left, giving me cause to wonder if I would feel the prop wash in sim.

If it had been real life, it would have been a nerve-wracking close call, and I suspect that I could have seen the other pilot’s eye color. I immediately corrected more to the right and tried to slow down by a few knots, wanting to avoid the accordion effect of stacking up the sim pilots behind me. Not an ideal situation, but one I probably should have been expecting given all of the traffic. By now, the frequency was alive with activity from the Fisk Approach controllers, who were exercising equal parts patience and directness. 

Soon we were on the doorstep of the RIPON transition, and I began looking for the railroad tracks that would lead us to Fisk. I was confident that I could see the tracks from 1,800 feet, having run the practice flight a few days before. I was glad I had done so since Route 44 runs closely alongside and can be visually mistaken in the sim environment if glanced at casually.

Our informal gaggle of aircraft formed a decent single-file line of four, and we made it to RIPON without getting sent back to the end of the line. The others in our group had pressed ahead, probably at faster than 90 knots. No matter. I double-checked my altitude, airspeed, engine instruments, fuel remaining, and that I was still tracking correctly over the railroad just out of my left window.

This feature first appeared in the July/August Issue 949 of the FLYING print edition.

The post SimVenture Adventure Doesn’t Disappoint appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

That statement is precisely what one does not wish to hear when test-running an aircraft following a maintenance event. The situation worsens when the aircraft is a $109 million F-35A Lightning II fighter. In January, Stars and Stripes reported that on March 15, 2023, “a hand-held flashlight left inside an F-35 engine by maintainers at Luke Air Force Base last year caused $4 million in damage.” It seems that after using a flashlight to inspect the poorly lit intake of the F-35, the maintainer failed to clear the tool before test-running the engine.

During the post accident investigation, investigators found a flashlight missing from one toolbox. The 56th Fighter Wing aircraft suffered an excess of $4 million in damage to the engine. Thankfully, no one was injured in the accident, but the engine could not be repaired locally.

This is a classic and all-too-common case of foreign object damage (FOD).

This Is FOD

FOD can be categorized as foreign object damage or debris based on the context one is referencing. FOD is a broad term that applies to just about anything. The FAA defines in Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5210-24 Airport Foreign Object Debris (FOD) Management that FOD is “any object, live or not, located in an inappropriate location in the airport environment that can injure the airport or air carrier personnel and damage aircraft.”

FAA AC No. 150/5380-5B Debris Hazards at Civil Airports addresses FOD and the ramifications of such. One key highlight states that “foreign objects on airport pavements can be readily ingested by aircraft engines, resulting in engine failure.” The FAA lists several possible FOD objects, many of which you will instantly identify as commonplace in aircraft operations. In section B of the AC, the FAA calls out “aircraft and engine fasteners (nuts, bolts, washers, safety wire, etc.); mechanics’ tools; flight line metal (nails, personnel badges, pens, pencils, etc.); stones and sand; paving materials; pieces of wood; plastic and polyethylene materials; paper products; and ice formations in operational areas.” 

FOD-Related Accidents

Just how bad is the FOD problem? One might say that the issue is an epidemic. The FAA devotes quite a bit of attention to it, and rightly so. FOD is hazardous and can negatively impact operations.

The FAA website cites the Current Airport Inspection Practices Regarding FOD (foreign object debris/damage) report, stating that FOD exists in many forms, comes from many sources, and can be found anywhere in an airport’s air operations area (AOA). The report explains how damaging FOD can be to aircraft, puncturing tires, punching holes in airframes, and nicking turbine blades or propellers. And in extreme cases, engine failure. Damage is not isolated to just aircraft or equipment. Airport employees are also susceptible to FOD-related injuries. Errant bolts or other foreign objects on the ramp could be propelled by prop wash, jet engine blasts, or helicopter rotors, turning them into mini-missiles.

• READ MORE: Breaking Down Sudden Stoppage Inspections

The report states that FOD costs the U.S. aviation industry $474 million annually. The global aviation industry’s losses are an estimated $1.26 billion annually. These totals include direct and indirect costs, such as flight delays. The FAA is asking for airports, airlines, and the general aviation community’s assistance in documenting the occurrence of FOD and submitting data to the FAA FOD database.

Despite all the awareness campaigns and actions taking place, FOD is still a significant problem that may be growing. A recent Air Force Times article states that “foreign object debris was one factor that led the number of ground accidents to nearly double from 11 in 2022 to 21 in 2023.” If anything, rates of occurrence are headed in the opposite direction. In March, USA Today reported that United Flight 1118, a Boeing 737 taking off from Houston’s George Bush Intercontinental Airport (KIAH) ingested bubble wrap into the engine, causing a midair fire. Thankfully, the incident did not result in injury.

Unfortunately, the losses are not solely in physical damage. One of the more infamous FOD-induced incidents did not fare so well. On July 25, 2000, Air France Flight 4590 departed Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport (LFPG). Prior to rotation, Concorde struck a piece of metal with its right front tire, causing it to explode and rupture the integral fuel tank. Fuel leaking from the ruptured tank ignited, creating a loss of thrust in engines 1 and 2. The aircraft lifted off momentarily but crashed into a hotel, killing all nine crew, 100 passengers, and four people on the ground. 

The Bureau Enquêtes-Accidents (BEA) report identified the FOD as a Continental Airlines DC-10 thrust reverser door wear strip that had fallen off after maintenance. 

FOD awareness and prevention deserves our attention. These examples and others illustrate that there is seemingly no end to stories of FOD causing significant property damage and loss of life, including one instance of a self-inflicted fatal FOD accident. Columbia STS-107 was lost and its space shuttle crew perished upon reentering the atmosphere while returning from a mission. According to NASA, a loose insulation panel dislodged and damaged the carbon heat shield material on the orbiter’s left wing, eventually causing the craft to succumb to the extreme heat of reentry.

FOD can come from a variety of sources, and not all incidents are the result of negligence—nature can be equally culpable. Most people are familiar with the story of Captain Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger and the “Miracle on the Hudson.” On January 15, 2009, US Airways Flight 1549 departed New York’s LaGuardia Airport (KLGA) bound for North Carolina’s Charlotte Douglas International Airport (KCLT). Approximately six minutes into the flight, the Airbus 320-214 ingested a flock of Canada geese, disabling both engines. Thankfully, Sullenburger’s skill saved the lives of all souls on board by safely ditching in the Hudson River. 

Even smaller flying objects can cause huge problems. Andrew Warwick and Blake Love recently reported to KJWN in Nashville, Tennessee, for a service call. A Challenger 350 experienced a dual-engine, nonstart condition. They arrived to find the APU inlet packed with dead cicadas. It appears that cicadas are drawn to the APU’s warmth and noise. Operators in heavy cicada areas like this are advised to run their APUs sparingly and check for FOD frequently.

FOD Prevention

To begin a FOD prevention program, start with the following:

• Identifying causes.

• Establishing an FOD awareness program.

• Establishing a maintenance program.

The AC mentioned earlier then breaks down each of the above actions with detailed guidelines to help one succeed in the fight against FOD.

• READ MORE: 5 Things You Can Do to Help Prevent Foreign Object Debris

Another resource the FAA makes available is its Foreign Object Debris Program. The website (faa.gov/airports/airport_safety/fod) reveals several tools, resources, and technical publications for managing a successful FOD program.

Marcela White, co-owner of Tavaero Jet Charter, knows FOD is serious business. When asked who was responsible for FOD risk mitigation at Tavaero, White’s simple response was—everyone.

“Pilots, mechanics, and airplane cleaners are all trained to check for any FOD damage on the airframe or in the engines,” White said. “Pilots are the last line of defense and perform their preflights with a sharp eye. Anything beyond obvious visual damage gets escalated to the maintenance department. The job is not over after the flight either. The pilots go back through everything during post-flight inspections. Crewmembers follow an extensive checklist that includes servicing the aircraft fluids, cleaning the windows and windshields to ensure no chips are found, checking oxygen levels, and checking the airframe and engine blades for FOD.”

I met John Franklin, the head of safety promotion at the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), during the T-C-Alliance online coffee chats early in 2020. I asked Franklin about his legacy of fighting FOD.

“In terms of FOD, it’s where I started my safety career, as the U.K. Defense FOD Prevention Officer, or the ‘Fodfather’ as it was called at the time,” he said with a smile.

Franklin broke down the steps EASA is taking to raise FOD awareness. 

“From our side, we are trying to promote the topic wherever the opportunity arises,” he said. 

“Every year, the EASA team participates in the annual FOD Walk at our local airport at Dusseldorf [Germany]. This provides a great opportunity to promote the importance of active FOD prevention. After the FOD Walk last year, we published an article on our Air Ops Community website [easa.europa.eu/community/topics/fod-prevention].”

Even with all EASA’s efforts, more work remains, especially with regard to getting the word out. 

“We also promote FOD, particularly when we have other promotional events and webinars on maintenance safety and airport ground handling,” Franklin said. “From our analysis, these certainly seem to be the communities that have the largest role in stopping FOD from causing a safety issue to an aircraft. Additionally, we promote the topic of clean cockpits to airlines having had some occurrences with FOD jamming flight controls or causing other problems to avionics.”

Much like a 12-step program, Franklin recognizes that awareness of the FOD problem is only the first step. One must put in parameters to stop FOD at the source.

“It’s also important to have a FOD analysis program to further identify the sources of FOD, so you can manage them at the source,” he said. “There is no point just continually cleaning away FOD without thinking where it is coming from and how to stop it.”

How the Experts Stop FOD 

FOD control begins with attention to detail, tool control, and housekeeping. There are solutions designed with this in mind. FODS LLC, located in Centennial, Colorado, provides FODS mats to prevent any material from entering the airfield by clearing the tire treads before entering the airport. They recently completed a project at Terminal 5 at Chicago O’Hare International Airport (KORD).

I asked some of the top names in the industry to help me map out strategies to deal with FOD. James Logue, the director of maintenance at Latitude 33 Aviation in Carlsbad, California, told me how his team approached the FOD issue, and provided a new perspective.

“It’s important to think about FOD proactively,” Logue said. “Think about an object and its placement in terms of how it might become FOD. I’ve seen large water bottles in a galley cabinet leak out, causing water to get under the floor and into the belly, then freezing in flight, causing a fuel valve cable to become jammed. Consider what can happen if an item breaks, spills, moves in flight, where it might migrate to, what holes it could fall in, etc.”

Despite best efforts, FOD will eventually find its way to the airport. But once you identify an object as FOD, how do you dispose of it? 

Foreign Object Debris is a company specializing in FOD receptacles. According to its website (foreignobjectdebris.com), the firm “educates the community about FOD in hopes of helping to save a loss of money and potentially lives.” If you visit the site, check out its series of FOD blogs.

Jon Byrd, executive director of aviation and TCSG state aviation program adviser for Georgia Northwestern Technical College (GNTC) in Rome, contracts with Shark-Co Manufacturing to build custom foam molds that incorporate the minimum tool list and fit them into the student’s toolbox. This could have helped out the F-35 maintainer with the missing flashlight.

Speaking of tooling, Snap-on now sells a line of FOD prevention tools. I recently read about its quarter-inch Drive Dual 80 Technology Standard Handle Foreign Object Damage Ratchet design online and how it helps to prevent FOD in sensitive work environments. The cover plate and reverse lever are permanently affixed to the ratchet head with rivets to prevent debris from small parts. The tool meets FOD and foreign material exclusion (FME) program conformance.

Duncan Aviation is the world’s largest privately owned business jet service provider. I recently met with the team and inquired about Duncan’s FOD efforts. Darwin Godemann, the team leader of the Technical Education Center, offered the following insights: FOD can be anything—a wrench, pen, eyeglasses, or even rocks and stones, and i originate in many ways—objects falling out of pockets, a wayward tool, dirt and debris, or a pilot spilling their coffee.

FOD does pose a significant threat to aircraft, one that can cost the operator tens of thousands of dollars and compromise the safety of the aircraft and its function. For example, debris can result in improper stress and wear on a wire, causing an electrical fire. Coffee spilled six months ago can drip into nooks and crannies and cause corrosion. A tool left where it shouldn’t be can shift and jam a flight control. Debris from an airfield can be sucked into an engine.

Here are some examples of Duncan Aviation’s program:

• Tool control policies require shadowboxing all toolboxes and the end-of-work inventorying of tools

• Regular FOD awareness and training with a clean-as you-go policy. If you see something, pick it up.

• Double-inspection systems. Before it puts a panel back on or closes an area of the aircraft opened for work, a second set of eyes checks it out. In addition to a QA check, this ensures there is nothing in there that doesn’t belong.

• Awareness campaigns companywide. The line department tugs have magnets under them that pick up magnetic objects as they drive on the ramp.

Here are Duncan’s best practices implemented to develop an MRO FOD program:

• General housekeeping: A clean-as-you-go mentality is the most important first step in FOD prevention.

• Effective tool control system: Account for all tooling regularly and at the end of a job. Inventory lists or tool shadowing make this task much easier.

• OK to close inspection: Inspecting all areas where maintenance was performed to ensure nothing unwanted is left behind.

FOD control is potentially everyone’s problem, so it’s also everyone’s responsibility. Safety is mission critical in aviation. Failure to control FOD could be deadly.

This feature first appeared in the July/August Issue 949 of the FLYING print edition.

The post Fight Against FOD Never Ends appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Out of power, altitude and options, Captain Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger and copilot Jeffrey Skiles ditched the aircraft in the Hudson River near midtown Manhattan. There were 155 souls on board. There were injuries but no loss of life, and the term “Miracle on the Hudson” was coined since it was viewed as one of the most successful ditchings ever performed.

What Is Ditching?

According to the Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM), ditching is defined as “a controlled emergency landing of an aircraft on water.” If the aircraft isn’t equipped with floats, it’s usually a one-time-only event, and unlike power-off landings to full stop on a runway, it is not something you can practice. But you can prepare mentally by studying what to do in the unlikely event of a water landing.

Any time you fly over water, you should be thinking about it, especially when the aircraft is beyond gliding distance of the shoreline.

Always Consider It When Flying Over Water

“Do you know how to swim?”

A pilot of the J-3 Cub asked me this the first time I took off from Runway 17 at the Tacoma Narrows Airport (KTIW) in Washington. The airport sits on a peninsula that leads onto the Puget Sound. If you have seen the 1983 movie War Games, the scene with the ferryboat and the island was shot just south of KTIW.

The pilot asked the question after I wondered out loud where we’d land if we had an engine issue. I assured him I could swim as in my teens I trained to be a lifeguard and was thrown out of boats in the middle of a lake fully clothed, with no life vest to test my skills. Until that flight all my training had been over land.

Most of my information about ditching comes from interviewing colleagues who have done it.

• READ MORE: For Those Aviators Attracted to Water

In July 2022, John La Porta, a CFI in the Seattle area experienced an uncommanded loss of engine power while flying a Cessna 150 over the water west of Seattle. La Porta was alone in the aircraft at the time. According to La Porta, the aircraft was at less than 2,000 feet when he noticed a loss of oil pressure. He was attempting to reach King County International Airport-Boeing Field (KBFI), but when the engine lost power, he knew he wouldn’t make it. He didn’t want to take a chance on flying over the hilly terrain, homes, and streets, so he set up to put the aircraft in the water next to Alki Beach.

Things happened quickly, he recalled. He tightened the lap belt and cinched the shoulder harness as tightly as he could. He did not lower the flaps to 40 degrees per the ditching instructions in the POH, but that may have been a blessing as the flaps would have possibly blocked his egress from the aircraft, which flipped over. He was upside down but couldn’t tell in the submerged aircraft.

Although the shoulder harness probably saved his life since it kept him from slamming into the panel, it also pinned him inside the airplane.

“I could not get the belts to release until the airplane’s tail settled into the water. I had one hand on the window, and I was able to sort of stretch up and take a breath of air, and then I found the lap belt and was able to get it undone. I held on to the window as I released the shoulder harness, and then I swam out of the window,” La Porta told FLYING, adding that, if he had someone else in the airplane, he’s not sure if they both would have survived because of the seat belt jamming.

After that experience, La Porta became a big believer in carrying a seatbelt cutter on his person.

Training for the Worst

When it’s more than just you in the airplane, ditching reaches a whole new level, said Amy Laboda, an ATP/CFI and FLYING contributor.

On June 14, 2001, Laboda was in her Cessna 210 with her two daughters, ages 9 and 10, their 15-year-old babysitter, and an adult family friend heading for the Cayman Islands. Shortly after takeoff from Key West International Airport (KEYW) in Florida, as the aircraft passed through 1,500 feet, there was a loud bang and a loss of engine power.

• READ MORE: Stearman Pilot Found Guilty of False Statements in Water Crash

“It was the kind of sound that makes you push the nose over and start turning back,” said Laboda, adding that she drew upon her experience as a glider pilot to get the most distance out of the altitude available but quickly realized she wasn’t going to be able to make it back to land.

She declared an emergency and was cleared to any runway but had to respond, “Unable.”

“The last thing I heard from ATC was ‘services on the way,’” she said.

The aircraft came in like a bobsled, and the windscreen popped out. “It was like getting hit in the face with a fire hose,” said Laboda, noting they were lucky because the water was flat, warm, and smooth.

Laboda boasts years of experience teaching the ditching seminars for the FAA FAASTeam, and from an early age she taught her kids how to quickly put on the overwater safety gear.

“When they were little, we made a game of it,” she explained, adding that part of the preflight briefing is what to do if they had to put it down in the water.

Everyone did what they had been told to do and survived with just cuts and bruises. “There were several boats in the area, and we were in the water for less than 10 minutes,” she said.

Train to Ditch

If you have the opportunity to take a water survival course for aviators, do so. If not, chapter 6 of the AIM provides illustrations and textual descriptions of how to ditch an aircraft. There are a great many variables that result in a successful ditching.

The condition of the landing area is key. Is the aircraft coming down in rough seas or a calm lake? Does the pilot have the skill to come in at the slowest possible airspeed? Was there time to prepare?
The AIM advises stowing or jettisoning loose objects from the cockpit so they don’t become projectiles. Tighten seat belts and unlatch doors because if the aircraft frame is bent, they might jam. If you have time, jam a shoe in the door crack to prop it open.

The National Search and Rescue Manual along with the emergency section of most POHs advise pilots to attempt to bring the aircraft in at a slightly tail-low attitude—slower, the better.

Once the airplane comes to a complete stop, keep your seat belt on and reach for the door. When you have found the door and opened it, release the seat belt. It is important to stay belted until you have grasped the door handle because it helps with orientation. It’s dark underwater, and if the airplane is upside down, you won’t know it. Use the seat belt cutter if you have to—but still hang on to the door.

Once you are free of the belt, pull yourself clear of the aircraft and activate the life vest if you are wearing one. If you are underwater, blow one bubble and follow it to the surface.

Unlacing your shoes so you can kick them off easily is also a good idea because of all the articles of clothing you are likely wearing they are the heaviest and will drag you down.

This feature first appeared in the July/August Issue 949 of the FLYING print edition.

The post The One-Time Water Landing appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The contest, which typically occurs on grass or dirt areas parallel to paved runways, was to take place alongside Runway 5-23. 

On Friday afternoon the wind picked up. It blew out of the northwest across the STOL Drag course. Qualifying heats were postponed until the next day. 

A number of the competitors then decided to conduct an impromptu “traditional STOL” event, omitting the drag racing component. They would use the grass Runway 31, which was conveniently aligned with the wind. The pilots, organizers, and FAA inspectors who were present held a safety briefing, and the participants were divided into four groups of five or six aircraft to prevent clogging the pattern. The objective of the contest was to see who could come to a full stop in the shortest distance after touching down beyond the target line.

Each group completed two circuits without incident. Two groups had completed a third circuit, and now the third group was landing. The third airplane in that group was a modified Rans S-7, the fourth a Zenith STOL 701—unusual among the participants in having tricycle gear—and the last a Cessna 140. The S-7 landed, came to a stop in less than 100 feet, and taxied away. The 701 was still a fair distance out, and the 140 seemingly rather close behind it and low. 

• READ MORE: A Cautionary Tale About Pilot Freelancing

A STOL Drag representative who was coordinating the pattern operations radioed the 140 pilot: “Lower your nose. You look slow.” The 140 pilot did not acknowledge. Half a minute later, the coordinator again advised the pilot to lower his nose. 

A few seconds later, the 140 yawed to the right, its right wing dropped, and with the awful inevitability of an avalanche or a falling tree, it rolled over into a vertical dive and struck the ground an instant later. A groan went up from the small crowd of onlookers. “Oh, my God, what happened!” one voice exclaimed. What had happened was all too clear—a low-altitude stall-spin that resulted in the pilot’s death.

The 140 pilot, 45, had an estimated 470 hours total time, more than 300 of which were in the 140. He had already qualified for STOL Drag competitions at a previous event.

The wind at the time of the accident was 15 knots gusting to 21. (As with all aviation wind reports, the 15 is the sustained wind and the 21 the maximum observed; no information is provided about lulls or wind speed variations below the sustained value.) The pilot of the 701 said that he had been maintaining about 50 mph (44 knots), as he had on several previous approaches, and that the wind on this approach felt no different than on the others. 

The 701 is equipped with full-span leading-edge slats, which make it practically incapable of unexpectedly stalling. Operating at a likely wing loading of less than 7 pounds per square foot, it could probably fly at around 35 mph. For the 701, an approach speed of 50 mph was conservative. The 140’s wing loading was only slightly higher, but its wing was not optimized for extremely slow flight. The 140’s POH stalling speed at gross weight was highly dependent on power setting, ranging from 45 mph power off to 37 mph, flaps down, with full power.

• READ MORE: Two Fatal Cases of the Simply Inexperienced

An FAA inspector who witnessed the accident reported his observations to a National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigator. He noted that the 140 generally took longer to get airborne than other airplanes in its group, in part because the pilot, after first lifting the tail, rotated prematurely, so that the tailwheel struck the ground and the airplane continued rolling for some distance before finally becoming airborne. The pilot, he said, would climb steeply at first, but then have to lower the nose to gain speed. He appeared low and close behind the 701 on the last approach.

Earlier videos also showed that, on landing, the 140 rolled farther than other contestants, despite braking to the point of almost nosing over.

On previous circuits the pilot had used flaps, but on his last approach he failed to put the flaps down. The omission could account for the coordinator’s observation that the nose seemed high. Full flaps would have resulted in a more nose-low attitude.

The NTSB blamed the accident on the pilot’s obvious “exceedance of the airplane’s critical angle of attack.” It went on to cite as a contributing factor the “competitive environment, which likely influenced the pilot’s approach speed.” Since there were many knowledgeable observers of both the accident and of several previous takeoffs and landings by the 140, and everything was recorded on video from several angles, the NTSB’s diagnosis could probably have been even more specific and mentioned the failure to use flaps and the premature downwind-to-base turn.

If, by a chance misjudgment, the 140 pilot found himself too close behind the 701, he still had options other than slowing to the lowest possible speed. Since there was no one behind him, he could have gone around or made a 360 on final. The aircraft waiting to take off would have had to stand by a little longer, but only a fool would grumble because another pilot was being wisely cautious.

• READ MORE: Three-Mile Limit: Novice Pilots Succumb to the Perils of Total Darkness

Instead, the 140 pilot chose to maintain his spacing by flying as slow as he could.

The decisive factor in the accident was most probably the failure to use flaps. It was almost certainly inadvertent. He probably forgot to put the flaps down, then believed they were down—because he had them down on the previous circuits—and chose his speeds accordingly. Adding flaps would have brought the stalling speed down 3-4 mph and also obliged him to use a little more power. Actually, it would have been quite a bit more because he was low, and the added power would have given him still more cushion.

The 140 was a goose among swans in this flock of dedicated STOL airplanes that possessed a near-magical ability to take off and land in practically no distance at all. Still, it was OK to be an outlier. The point of the contest was to have fun. You didn’t need to go home with a trophy—not that there even was one for this impromptu event.

But integrating an airplane with somewhat limited capabilities among more capable ones required special attention to speed and spacing. It would be easy to make a mistake. Once the mistake was made, and compounded by the failure to use flaps, all the pilot had left to lean on was luck—or willingness to recognize an error and go around while there was still airspeed and altitude to recover.

Note: This article is based on the National Transportation Safety Board’s report of the accident and is intended to bring the issues raised to our readers’ attention. It is not intended to judge or reach any definitive conclusions about the ability or capacity of any person, living or dead, or any aircraft or accessory.

This column first appeared in the July/August Issue 949 of the FLYING print edition.

The post Nothing Short of a Fatal Mismatch appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

One of the things I love about aviation is that it’s the great equalizer. Being a pilot is a shared space that seems to allow who you are and what you’ve accomplished melt into the background for a while allowing the experience and joy of flying an aircraft to become the tie that binds. And if you’re paying attention, there’s almost always something you can learn from listening to another pilot.

Siebel started flying in the early 1980s. Considering the training fleet of the day—the airframes, avionics, interiors, and engines—not much was new or exciting other than the intrinsic value of exploring the science and fun of learning to fly. Like many pilots, he stepped away from flying for a while but never lost his love of aviation.

A few years later, Siebel found himself back in the seat of a GA aircraft—a Cirrus SR22—only to discover that a great deal had changed. Mesmerized, as we all were at the time, he described the integration of technology in a piston GA aircraft as “almost unimaginable.” Imagine having last climbed out of steam gauge (circa mid-1950s design) aircraft and being introduced to a sleek, composite, glass-cockpit, parachute-equipped aircraft with more bells and whistles than a model train museum. Clearly a great deal had changed, and he was ready to jump in again and not look back.

Aviation is a huge part of Siebel’s life—it’s an invaluable business tool, a source of recreation, and the mechanism to support some of his philanthropic endeavors. As one might expect of someone of his stature, he owns a Boeing BBJ, but he never once mentioned it in our conversation—probably because he can’t fly it inverted like the GB1 GameBird that he is enamored with.

Listening to Siebel talk about his aviation experience is fascinating and inspirational. As I mentioned earlier, if you pay attention, it’s easy to learn from fellow aviators, and I did. Something that fascinated me about his aviation experience (and inspired me to do better) is his unwavering commitment to safety and training.

“I’m a super enthusiastic pilot who likes to be safe,” Siebel said.

And it shows. Once, while getting some mountain flying training with a CFI, he inadvertently got into a spin while executing an aggressive 180-degree turn to simulate retreating from a canyon. That experience prompted him to get spin training, which as he explained, “the next thing you know I own a GameBird.” 

Siebel shared that he flew 300 hours last year—a big number for anyone who doesn’t fly for a living, let alone someone who’s busy day job is running a Fortune 100 tech company. But even more impressive is the fact that 50 percent of that time was devoted to training and becoming a better, safer pilot. Staying proficient in all five of the aircraft he flies certainly requires training, but dedicating half of one’s flight time to that speaks volumes. 

• READ MORE: In Depth with JoeBen Bevirt Illuminates the Joby Vision

We all have an intelligence quotient (IQ) and an emotional quotient (EQ). If pilots have a safety quotient (SQ), an ability to understand, assess, and manage the need to be safe and proficient and to take the steps necessary to maximize and maintain that, I’d say that Siebel’s SQ is very high, and he continues to stack the deck in his favor.

To that end, his new love, which also makes him a safer pilot in the realm of unusual attitudes and upset recovery, is aerobatics—something he didn’t start until he was in his 60s. His beautiful GB1 GameBird comes out of the nest for those flights of fancy. Siebel trains with world champion and aerobatic pilot Sean D. Tucker (another pilot whose SQ is off the charts). 

When not tossing the GameBird about while arguing with it over the laws of aerodynamics and physics, Siebel also has an affinity for birds that swim, owning both a Daher Kodiak and a CubCrafters XCub on floats. Also in the fun-to-fly category is his wheeled XCub.

“It’s hard to have more fun in an aircraft than in a Carbon Cub,” he said. “You can land these things anywhere. They’re unbelievable. We land in the driveway, alfalfa fields, cow pastures, mountaintops, the highway…[But] let me clarify this first—it’s lawful to land on the highway in Montana.”

His Montana ranch is also home of an annual fly-in Siebel hosts. Through his connections who share the love of aviation, his charity event generates funds to provide college scholarships for children of Montana state troopers and fish, wildlife, and parks officers.

From business to pleasure and philanthropy, aviation is woven into the fabric of Siebel’s life.

• READ MORE: In Depth With an ‘Airport Kid’

With time running short, I didn’t want to leave our conversation without asking his opinion about the role of AI in aviation. Automation in aviation (think autopilot) is nothing new, but the concept of AI (like machine learning) and the speed of its integration can be a great source of debate: Is it good thing, bad thing, and how soon will we see a required crew of two be reduced to one or even zero pilots? What should we look forward to or be cautious about?

His Q&A responses were both surprising and refreshing.

FLYING Magazine (FM): What was the first aircraft you owned?

Tom Siebel (TS): My first plane was a 140 hp Cherokee. I used to have a B36TC, a Malibu, a couple of Maules, PC6, PC12, Falcon 2000, Global Express, and others, but I’d say the planes I fly now are by far the most fun.

FM: What has been your greatest aviation experience thus far?

TS: I was able to do some formation training with the Chilean national acrobatics team. And I also trained with Sean Tucker doing formation flight in the GameBirds. It was really exhilarating and really exciting. It’s been one of the most exciting experiences of my life.

FM: What is the future of AI in the cockpit? Will we see pilotless aircraft any time soon?

TS: I don’t think so. The UAV problem is very difficult to solve. C3.AI has built some of the largest and most complex enterprise scale AI applications on earth for places like the United States Air Force, the intelligence agency, and others.

We can spool up 10,000 virtual machines in the cloud doing 24-bit floating point operations, say 20,000 of them on three-, four-, or five-gigahertz cycles—this is an unimaginable computing capacity. A $100 million worth of computing capacity to train a learning model, which actually has very, very little intelligence and it requires two gigawatts of power. The human brain has 60 billion neurons that make 100 trillion analog connections simultaneously. And it operates on only 17 watts of power.

As somebody who is a leader in artificial intelligence and knows something about it, I do not think we’re going to see fully autonomous, ground-based terrestrial vehicles or aircraft really anytime soon. I don’t think we need to worry about [pilotless aircraft] anytime soon. That being said, will artificial intelligence assist pilots in single pilot operations? Absolutely.

I think one of the most sophisticated applications of computing in aviation—I’m not sure there’s any artificial intelligence in there—is definitely what Garmin has done with this Safe Return system. That’s almost unimaginable.

FM: What is the best application of AI in aviation?

TS: Predictive AI is a good example. We’ve taken all of the aircraft weapons systems, F-15, F-16, F-18, F-22, F-35, KC-135, and aggregated all of the telemetry off these systems, all of the maintenance data, all of the flight history, all the information about flight stories, and the weather where they were flying. We’ve aggregated about 100 terabytes of data in a tool called PANDA (Predictive Analytics and Decision Assistant).

We run those data through machine-learning models to predict system failure before it happens. And so the idea is, if we can identify the system, auxiliary power unit, flap actuator, igniter, whatever it might be, and can identify it’s failure 50 or 100 flight hours before it happens, we can then dispatch the personnel and the materiel to converge with the aircraft, maintain it, and it flies off and doesn’t break. 

In doing so we’re able to increase aircraft availability. The United States Air Force has 5,000 aircraft, and this AI can increase availability by 25 percent on any given day.

FM: Could AI have changed the outcome of any historic crashes, like US Airways 1549 “Miracle on the Hudson,” or United Airlines Flight 232 “Impossible Landing?”

TS: Miracle on the Hudson: Could a computer have pulled that off? I don’t think so. Impossible Landing: No hydraulics, no flight controls. Whoever was flying that was thinking out of the box. A computer’s not going to do that. No way, no how.

FM: What do you find most compelling about aviation right now?

TS: I think the most interesting thing I’m seeing in aviation is things like what Sean Tucker is doing with the Bob Hoover Academy, and I think the work that AOPA has done with their STEM curriculum, using aviation as a means of teaching science, math, and engineering.

This feature first appeared in the July/August Issue 949 of the FLYING print edition.

The post C3.AI Top Executive Possesses High Aviation Quotient appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

While precious little meaningful lawmaking occurred in year one of the 118th Congress, there is one very bright spot in year two—the 2024 FAA Reauthorization Act. 

This legislation demonstrates the good work that can be accomplished when the gap between the party aisle gets as narrow as the aisle in a regional jet. Since most people understand the value of aviation as a safe and efficient time-saving mode of transportation, a powerful job-creating, revenue-generating economic engine at the local and national level, and it’s just plain fun (pun intended), it’s no surprise that the industry is common ground that enables politicians to reach across that narrow aisle and do some serious bipartisan problem solving.

Now that President Biden signed the FAA Reauthorization Act into law, good things will begin happening for aviation, and general aviation specifically. Hidden within the 4-inch stack of paper are mandates that will launch feasibility studies, authorize spending, and create deadlines for decisions that will make GA pilots happy. Not found in the legislation are bizarre amendments often used as concessions to gain necessary support. So, no, there’s no crazy amendment to create a national 100 mph speed limit on interstates with 100 miles between exits. It’s all about solving aviation challenges and planning for the future.

In order to break down the 1,083-page legislation into bite-size pieces to make it easier to digest, start by searching the document for keywords like “general aviation.” You’ll immediately be rewarded with 41 instances of the exact search that lead to where the treasure is buried. Before you get too excited though, a similar doc search for the word “wheelchair” generates 68 occurrences—so there’s that.

• READ MORE: Thoughts on FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 and Data Privacy

This legislation marks the first time the GA has been added as a stand-alone section title addressing its issues. That said, it’s worth taking a deeper dive into what it has to offer that we can all look forward to during the next five years. Keep in mind that some aspects of the legislation are merely an authorization for exploration, not a promise to spend money or fix something.

Still the law draws a line in the sand as to when recommendations must be made so the next step can be taken—that’s progress. And in some cases, like Modernization of Special Airworthiness Certification (MOSAIC), the bill states that a final decision must be made as opposed to kicking the can down the road for five years until the next reauthorization.

What follows are a few examples of how GA benefits from the law. If your interest lies in unmanned aircraft systems, advanced air mobility, commercial transportation, high-altitude balloons, or supersonic flight, you’ll find those topics and more addressed in detail—there is literally something for every GA enthusiast. If your interests are in other areas of aviation, such as commercial seat dimensions, black boxes, wheelchairs, family seating policies, or whatever, there’s plenty of that too, but we’ll not delve into it here.

For the purpose of this piece, we’ve grouped items into airports, airspace, aircraft, and aviators. 

Airports

Section 716: Small airport fund 

This section helps simplify the distribution of funds to small airports to be allocated for the expansion of aprons intended for transient parking, as GA ramp space is often consumed by locally-based personal, training, and/or derelict aircraft, leaving little or no space for transient parking. 

Section 719: Protecting GA airports from closure

Closing even a single airport sets a dangerous precedent. This is often caused by residential areas encroaching on airports that were once well outside of city limits. An example of this is the much publicized battle over the fate of the Santa Monica Airport (KSMO) in California, facing a planned permanent closure in 2028. 

An airport’s remoteness does not provide protection either. Some 16 airstrips in Utah’s backcountry are at risk of closure. Countless other airports are being scrutinized by the nonflying public. This section ensures the FAA will help protect GA. Also related is Sec. 756, Banning Municipal Airport, which requires a GAO study on Banning Municipal Airports in California.

Section 726:  GA airport runway extension pilot program

While intended to improve safety and accessibility by extending runways at small airports through the Airport Improvement Plan (AIP), one unintended consequence could also be the attraction of larger aircraft and new businesses—there goes the ramp space. Generally speaking, making airports more accessible and attracting larger aircraft and businesses keep the airport strong and attractive for its contributions to the local economy, and making runways longer, wider, and safer is a positive thing.

Section 732: Populous counties without airports 

This section requires the FAA to include a new airport in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) as long as the new facility is planned for the most populous county of a state that does not already have one. 

Section 740: Permanent solar powered taxiway edge lighting systems

Exploring the feasibility of solar-powered taxi lighting at regional, local, and basic general aviation airports, this engineering brief resulting from this project is a first step that could lead to new lighting at airports that currently have none and possible cost-saving as a replacement for existing lighting.

• READ MORE: Bipartisan FAA Reauthorization Act Signed Into Law

Section 745: Electric aircraft infrastructure pilot program

As the electrification of GA advances rapidly, this section launches a five-year pilot program allowing up to 10 eligible airports to acquire, install, and operate charging equipment for electric aircraft and to construct or modify related infrastructure as needed to support the project.

Section 749: Airport diagram terminology 

This section requires the FAA to update guidance for the clear and consistent use of the terms used to identify the types of parking available to GA pilots. For those of us who have landed at an unfamiliar airport and didn’t know where to park, this will help—especially after more ramp space is created as a result of Section 716.

Section 770: Grant assurances

As work ramps up to eliminate 100LL from airports by 2030, there is increasing concern about availability of the avgas until a new solution is readily available. Section 770 states that airports that offered 100LL in 2022 must continue to do so until 2030 or the date on which a FAA-certified unleaded avgas alternative is available to GA aircraft operators (some limitations apply). Airports not in compliance are subject to fines up to $5,000 per day.

Section 783: Expedited environmental review and one federal decision 

This section reforms and expands the applicability and responsibility of the FAA’s expedited environmental review process for airport capacity enhancement projects, including new ramp space and safety improvements. 

Section 1024: Technology review of artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies

There’s no denying the fact that artificial intelligence and machine learning will have an increasingly greater impact on aviation. This section directs the FAA to conduct a review of existing and proposed AI and machine-learning technology applications that may be used to improve airport safety, efficiency, and operations. The directive requires the FAA to submit a report to Congress by May 2025.

Airspace

Section 760: Washington, D.C., metropolitan Special Flight Rules Area 

While not a nationwide issue, airspace around the nation’s capital can be unfriendly to GA pilots—particularly those not based in the area and therefore unfamiliar with the challenges and procedures. The FAA and Departments of Homeland Security and Defense will collaborate on a study of the Washington D.C., Special Flight Rules Restricted Zone to identify possible changes to decrease adverse operational impacts and improve GA access to airports in the national capital region.

• READ MORE: Stakeholders Commend Drone, AAM Measures in FAA Reauthorization Bill

Section 1012: Electric propulsion aircraft operations study

In conducting the study, the section directs the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to assess the relevant technical competencies required for the necessary regulatory guidance and airport infrastructure requirements to support electric aircraft operations. The section directs GAO to submit a report to Congress with recommendations for legislative and administrative action by May 2026.

Section 1025: Research plan for commercial supersonic research 

Supersonic flight has largely been held back by the fact that regulation hasn’t caught up to technology (that has largely reduced the window-rattling, goat-frightening sonic boom to that of distant thunder). The FAA will collaborate with NASA and industry experts to provide a congressional briefing that identifies any additional research needed to support the development of revised federal and international policies, regulations, and standards relating to the certification and operation of civil supersonic aircraft for overland flight.

Section 627: Low-altitude routes for vertical flight

Far below supersonic flight levels, this section directs the FAA to initiate a rulemaking process to establish or update low-altitude routes and flight procedures for safer rotorcraft and powered-lift operations in the national airspace system. In initiating a rulemaking, the FAA must consult with various stakeholder groups, including the U.S. Helicopter Safety Team and the union representing air traffic controllers. Low-altitude airspace will become increasingly congested with electric vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL) aircraft including the drone delivery fleets employed by Walmart and Amazon—see also Section 930 beyond visual line of sight [BVLOS] operations in the aircraft section below.

Section 919: Review of regulations to enable unescorted UAS operations

This section directs the FAA and DOD to review requirements necessary to permit the military to operate unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) in the national airspace without the need for an escort by a manned aircraft. Currently large drones, such as the RQ-9 Reaper and MQ-1 Predator, are escorted in controlled airspace by the Air Force auxiliary shadowing them as a surrogate.

Section 928: Recreational operations of drone systems

For recreational use of drones in national airspace, the FAA will establish a process to approve locations dedicated to UAS operations above the 400-foot ceiling within Class G airspace.

Section 952: Sense of Congress on FAA leadership in AAM

Congress is interested in establishing the U.S. as a global leader in advanced air mobility (AAM). To that end, the FAA is directed to begin working with manufacturers, operators, and other stakeholders to enable the safe entry of these aircraft into the national airspace system. 

Section 1012: Electric propulsion aircraft operations study

The GAO has hereby been tasked to launch a study that explores the safe integration and scalable operation of electric aircraft into the national airspace system. A report to Congress is due by May 2026.  

Aircraft

Section 361: Continuous aircraft tracking and transmission for high-altitude balloons

Most high-altitude balloon launches for STEM education, weather, and more do not emit signals for identification, which poses a potential hazard to other aircraft in flight. This section requires the FAA to establish an Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) to make recommendations for high-altitude balloons to be equipped for continuous tracking by transmitting basic information about altitude, location, and identity that is accessible to air traffic controllers.

Section 812: Aircraft registration validity during renewal

Delays in the now required periodic renewal of aircraft registration has left some aircraft owners grounded or forced some to fly with an expired registration. Because of the backlog, the FAA would permit an aircraft to continue to be legally operated beyond the expiration date, assuming the operator can establish the fact that renewal was already in progress before expiration. Additionally, Section 817 requires the FAA to take steps to reduce the backlog and process applications within 10 business days after receipt.

Section 824: MOSAIC rulemaking deadline

The much-discussed MOSAIC decision is due within 24 calendar months. Many expect a decision prior to the deadline, but at the very least, a final ruling on the Modernization of Special Airworthiness Certification will occur in 2026.

Section 827: EAGLE Initiative (Eliminate Aviation Gasoline Lead Emissions)

Marching toward the 2030 deadline to eliminate leaded aviation fuel, this section specifies that the FAA will facilitate the safe elimination of leaded avgas, the approval of the use of unleaded alternatives for use in all aircraft piston-engine types, establish the requirements relating to the continued availability of avgas; effort to make unleaded avgas widely available and have  developed of a transition plan by 2030. 

In developing the transition plan, the FAA must consider: the EAGLE Initiative; airport infrastructure for unleaded avgas; best practices for protecting against exposure to lead contamination; efforts to address supply chain issues inhibiting distribution of unleaded avgas; and efforts to educate pilots and aircraft owners on how to safely transition to unleaded avgas.

Section 906: Electronic conspicuity study

This section directs GAO to study technologies needed on board UAS to detect and avoid manned aircraft that may lawfully operate below 500 feet agl. The study requires GAO to consult with aviation stakeholder representatives and report to Congress on the findings of such study. Additionally, Section 907: Remote identification alternative means of compliance requires the administrator to review and evaluate the FAA final rule to determine if unmanned aircraft manufacturers and operators can comply through alternative means.

Section 930: BVLOS operations for unmanned aircraft systems

This may be a good news-bad news scenario, depending on your perspective. The FAA is creating a pathway for UAS to operate beyond visual line of sight. The proposed rule developed under this section will establish “acceptable levels of risk” for remote pilots to fly BVLOS. Walmart and Amazon Prime Air have already been approved by the FAA to implement this action. Amazon plans to deliver 500,000,000 packages per year by drone by 2030 (the current MK-27 drone is 5½ feet in diameter).

Section 1109: FAA leadership in hydrogen aviation 

Not wanting to end up behind the power curve on hydrogen-powered aircraft as a sustainable fuel alternative, this section states that the FAA shall exercise leadership in the development of regulations, standards, and best practices relating to the safe and efficient certification of these aircraft. 

Section 1110: Advancing global leadership on civil supersonic aircraft

Also driven to position the U.S. as a global innovation leader in the area of supersonic flight, this section amends Section 181 from the 2018 FAA Reauthorization Act by adding additional reporting requirements. Within one year, the FAA shall submit a report to Congress describing the agency’s efforts related to supersonic aircraft certification.

Aviators

Section 403: Women in Aviation Advisory Committee 

It’s no secret that aviation does not reflect the gender diversity in the nation, and efforts to create greater access are ongoing. To that end, the Bessie Coleman Women in Aviation Advisory Committee has been formed to advise the FAA and DOT on matters related to the recruitment, retention, employment, education, training, and career opportunities for women in the aviation industry. 

Section 404: FAA engagement and collaboration with HBCUs and MSIs 

In a similar fashion, this section directs the FAA to continue to partner with Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs) to promote awareness of educational and career opportunities related to aerospace, aviation, and air traffic control.

Section 801: Reexamination of pilots or certificate holders

This section amends the Pilot’s Bill of Rights and requires the FAA to provide timely notification to anyone subject to a reexamination of an airman certificate. The notification must inform the individual: of the nature of the reexamination and the specific activity on which the reexamination is necessitated; that the reexamination shall occur within one year from the date of the notice provided by the FAA; and when an oral or written response to the notification from the FAA is not required. If the reexamination is not conducted after one year from the date of notice, an airman’s certificate may be suspended or revoked. 

Section 828: Expansion of BasicMed

Limitations for pilots flying aircraft under BasicMed have been expanded by increasing the number of allowable passengers that can be carried up to six, the number of seats in an aircraft to seven, and the maximum certificated takeoff weight up to 12,500 pounds from 6,000. This section does not apply to transport category rotorcraft. 

The legislation is robust and wide-ranging no doubt, and we applaud the bipartisan work that it represents and appreciate the considerable effort placed on addressing GA-specific issues for the first time under its own title. Clearly the value of aviation, the willingness to support the integration of new technology, the requirements to fund infrastructure improvements, and the desire to retain America’s position as the world leader in aviation innovation is common ground—even in Washington, D.C.

This feature first appeared in the July/August Issue 949 of the FLYING print edition.

The post FAA Reauthorization Act Revisited appeared first on FLYING Magazine.