Hi Readers: Now that we are in the winter weather of the year, we must all face the fact that, for flying, icing conditions on the ground or in the air is upon us (although icing conditions can occur in flight at any time of the year depending on the weather systems). Icing conditions on the ground before flight without de-icing is dangerous (and foolhardy) and icing conditions at altitude without de-icing and anti-icing are dangerous and lethal. In flight, icing can cause rapid loss of altitude and/or loss of control in minutes. If your airplane is not equipped with de-icing and anti-icing gear, or not certified for flight in icing conditions, its your knowledge and good judgment of the weather against nature.
Although I won't dwell on the many aircraft accidents over the years caused by icing, some of the worst fatal accidents have been caused by icing - principally due to our lack of knowledge, our judgment, and lack of anti-icing equipment. General Aviation (GA) and Commuter type (Part 23) airplanes are the most vulnerable since they are flown at the lower altitudes where icing conditions occur, and most of the airplanes are not equipped with ice-prevention gear or the intention of flight was not to encounter weather conditions.
How, then, does inflight icing occur? Well, we have to be flying in, around, or through stratus and cumulonimbus clouds containing water droplets at or nearing freezing temperatures, and nature takes care of the rest. There can be induction icing - ice forming around the engine air intake (particularly bad for jet engines since ice will form in chunks which may be ingested) or structural icing, either as clear or rime ice, formed when supercooled water droplets impact the wing and control surfaces (top and bottom) freezing in a solid sheet of ice or in a irregular shape - usually between zero degrees and minus 10 degrees centigrade. Such icing has been encountered in a cumulonimbus cloud at temperatures down to minus 25 degrees centigrade. Mixed icing, clear and rime ice, which result in an irregular shape on airfoils, can occur while flying through snow, ice pellets, or small hail.
The effects of ice on the airplane are cumulative - thrust is reduced, drag increases, lift lessens, and weight increases. The combined results are an increase in stall speed and a deterioration of airplane performance. In extreme cases, 2" to 3" of ice can form on the leading edge of an airfoil in less than 5 minutes.
A recent Cessna 208 Caravan accident near Mt. Ranier, Washington, reminds us that icing problems are still with us, in spite of de-icing and anti-icing equipment, along with GPS and digital instruments. The NTSB and Cessna Aircraft are still investigating.
In Airline and Part 121 flying (all IFR flight plans), cancellations and delays due to icing conditions can cost millions of dollars in one day. The cost of de-icing fluid, at a cost of 3 to 4 dollars/gallon adds to their problems. Part 121 operations covers the transport aircraft icing conditions. Part 135 and 91 flying is covered under 135.227 and 91.527.
NASA, FAA, and NTSB have been conducting research on aircraft icing problems over the years (see applicable icing FAA Advisory Circulars) and as of 6-1-07 the FAA was still working on a proposed rulemaking (Docket #FAA-2007-27654), titled Activation of Ice Protection, applying, principally, to Part 25 Transport Category airplanes. (It is hoped that FAA will follow with Part 23 aircraft). Under the proposal, Aircraft Manufacturers would be required to add an ice-detection and activation system to the present de-ice and anti-ice systems, and mandate that the protection system operate automatically and continuously. I think there is going to be a lot of discussion on this proposal.
How to avoid flying in icing conditions? For GA and Commuter aircraft, use all available weather services and reports to pinpoint icing areas and then plan on avoiding them. If you encounter icing conditions at altitude, use your available de-icing and anti-icing equipment immediately, change altitude up or down, and/or make a change in course (not necessarily 180 degrees since the true direction of the weather system is not known). Leave the autopilot off. Replan your flight or land at the nearest available airport (that will accommodate your airplane) and wait it out.
Proper preflight action includes, on filing an IFR flight plan, determining the freezing level and the levels above and below for weather precipitation areas. If your flight route penetrates the freezing level, request a new altitude or route. Make use of appropriate SIGMETS, AIRMETS, and PIREPS, and any other source of inflight weather advisory in planning and executing en route flight. In general, make a habit of checking FAA Advisory Circulars - FAAs method of advising new developments or action on pertinent problems.
Thanks for listening and Happy Thanksgiving! R.S.
Showing posts with label GA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GA. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Friday, September 28, 2007
Wind Shear - Part I
Hi Readers: Did you know that you can tell how far away a thunderstorm is from your position? Follow the lightning you see, count the seconds until you hear thunder. Then multiply your seconds times 1,128 - the speed of sound in ft/sec.
Moving on to Wind Shear. The subject, not all that well known to pilots and operators; and probably one of the most studied weather-related occurrences over the years, yet remaining highly misunderstood. In fact, the awareness factor is alarming. We have only to follow the thunderstorm and tornado reports, those originating from tropical air in the Southwest moving across the South and Midwest of the U.S., and the increased frequency of these storms in the past several years to find the source of our wind shear. Not that it doesn't occur in other areas of the world.
Wind shear is one of the more important weather-related occurrences, convective-type initiations; separate and distinct from known air turbulence, wake turbulence, mountain wave, jetwash, etc., that we should be aware of and include in our flight planning. Wind shear is directly related to downdrafts, microbursts, and convective vortex movements of air. The simple definition of wind shear is a sudden, drastic shift in winds speed, direction, or both in a horizontal and vertical plane. It's dangerous at any altitude, and particularly during surface operations such as approach, landing and takeoff. It can happen in airline or GA operations, VFR or IFR conditions, notably in connection with a cumulo-nimbus cloud or a thunderstorm.
Our cognizance of the hazards of wind shear must become full blown - the suddenness, the safety, and the fatal aspects are alarming; and the size and extent of the hazards are strictly after the fact.
Let's start with the accepted fact that wind shear per se is hazardous and dangerous to flight by fact and experience. And, by nature, it is associated with convective air movements such as a thunderstorm, a cumulo-nimbus cloud, rain, a snowstorm, and downdrafts producing a microburst of air which sets up the wind shear and ends in a general flattening to the surface with vortex movements at each end. The total effects to airplane control are not instantaneous and can continue and progress from one stage to another; such as an increase or decrease of windspeed, which affects the airplane airspeed, and causes pitch control problems. The wind shear, as analyzed, is actually the result of the strong downdraft of air out of the center of the storm, called the rainshaft (rain or virga). This downdraft, or microburst of air, contacting the surface, then spreads out as much as 5 miles or more, horizontally and vertically, terminated by inward and upward moving vortices ( as explained before). It is estimated that 5% of all thunderstorms produce a microburst.
Indications in the cockpit to detect the microburst and wind shear seem to be the sudden airspeed variation, and the amount, a sudden pitch change, heavy turbulence, and a tendency to yaw or roll. The extent of the occurrence is, of course, unpredictable.
Airline encounters of wind shear have been on approach to land, landing, and takeoff. The typical approach occurrence is best illustrated by a 1985 encounter by Delta Air Lines, Flt 191, an L-1011 airplane, approaching the Dallas-Ft.Worth Intl airport, flying through a thunderstorm rainshaft, in which the developing microburst forced a landing short of the runway, resulting in fire and fatalities.
In another occurrence in 1999, American Air Lines Flt 1420, in attempting a landing at night at Little Rock, Arkansas, flew into a severe thunderstorm and crosswind, losing complete control. Similar circumstances to the Delta encounter occurred.
The typical takeoff and climb situations, encountering a microburst, resulting in wind shear, have similar cockpit indications, pitch control problems, and prevention of adequate climb past the runway.
Wind Shear - PartII will follow with Analysis.
Moving on to Wind Shear. The subject, not all that well known to pilots and operators; and probably one of the most studied weather-related occurrences over the years, yet remaining highly misunderstood. In fact, the awareness factor is alarming. We have only to follow the thunderstorm and tornado reports, those originating from tropical air in the Southwest moving across the South and Midwest of the U.S., and the increased frequency of these storms in the past several years to find the source of our wind shear. Not that it doesn't occur in other areas of the world.
Wind shear is one of the more important weather-related occurrences, convective-type initiations; separate and distinct from known air turbulence, wake turbulence, mountain wave, jetwash, etc., that we should be aware of and include in our flight planning. Wind shear is directly related to downdrafts, microbursts, and convective vortex movements of air. The simple definition of wind shear is a sudden, drastic shift in winds speed, direction, or both in a horizontal and vertical plane. It's dangerous at any altitude, and particularly during surface operations such as approach, landing and takeoff. It can happen in airline or GA operations, VFR or IFR conditions, notably in connection with a cumulo-nimbus cloud or a thunderstorm.
Our cognizance of the hazards of wind shear must become full blown - the suddenness, the safety, and the fatal aspects are alarming; and the size and extent of the hazards are strictly after the fact.
Let's start with the accepted fact that wind shear per se is hazardous and dangerous to flight by fact and experience. And, by nature, it is associated with convective air movements such as a thunderstorm, a cumulo-nimbus cloud, rain, a snowstorm, and downdrafts producing a microburst of air which sets up the wind shear and ends in a general flattening to the surface with vortex movements at each end. The total effects to airplane control are not instantaneous and can continue and progress from one stage to another; such as an increase or decrease of windspeed, which affects the airplane airspeed, and causes pitch control problems. The wind shear, as analyzed, is actually the result of the strong downdraft of air out of the center of the storm, called the rainshaft (rain or virga). This downdraft, or microburst of air, contacting the surface, then spreads out as much as 5 miles or more, horizontally and vertically, terminated by inward and upward moving vortices ( as explained before). It is estimated that 5% of all thunderstorms produce a microburst.
Indications in the cockpit to detect the microburst and wind shear seem to be the sudden airspeed variation, and the amount, a sudden pitch change, heavy turbulence, and a tendency to yaw or roll. The extent of the occurrence is, of course, unpredictable.
Airline encounters of wind shear have been on approach to land, landing, and takeoff. The typical approach occurrence is best illustrated by a 1985 encounter by Delta Air Lines, Flt 191, an L-1011 airplane, approaching the Dallas-Ft.Worth Intl airport, flying through a thunderstorm rainshaft, in which the developing microburst forced a landing short of the runway, resulting in fire and fatalities.
In another occurrence in 1999, American Air Lines Flt 1420, in attempting a landing at night at Little Rock, Arkansas, flew into a severe thunderstorm and crosswind, losing complete control. Similar circumstances to the Delta encounter occurred.
The typical takeoff and climb situations, encountering a microburst, resulting in wind shear, have similar cockpit indications, pitch control problems, and prevention of adequate climb past the runway.
Wind Shear - PartII will follow with Analysis.
Monday, August 27, 2007
Aviation News, Interest, and Careers
Today we have a 3-way message of people making news, promoting interest in aviation, and spreading the word of careers and jobs in the aviation field.
First of all we'll say goodbye to FAA Administrator Marion Blakely - she is to vacate the Administrator post 9-13-07. Enough said. Now, Mr. Bush, let's fill the position with loads of aviation experience and dedication towards solving the current problems in FAA, in all types of flying, and plan for a healthy expansion of aviation demands.
Secondly, I'd like to congratulate young Barrington Irving (23) who flew around the world - solo yet - in a donated Columbia 400 airplane, becoming the youngest person to accomplish such a feat (I learned this from AVWEB's Podcast of 8-24-07). I'm sure it took guts and determination. As reported, Irving is now focusing his efforts on Experience Aviation - an aviation group he founded in 2005 to get people interested in aviation. This is the spark aviation needs and I'm sure we'd like to hear more about him and his group.
I would also like to point out and give credit to AOPA (Aircraft Owner Pilot Association) and it's energetic President Phil Boyer - champion of the rights of GA pilots for the past 15 years - for the dedication to and continued aviation oversite. There are other associations (NBAA, ATA, etc.) that are monitoring our aviation interests, also.
Although AOPA doesn't need me to trumpet their programs (I've been a member for years), I'd like to point out their support of the young people and their desire for careers and jobs in the aviation field. AOPA cites 60+ careers and jobs needed in aviation - not just pilots, all a part of an industry of 1.3 million jobs and $158 billion in annual economic activity.
Some of the career openings cited are Airline and Other Career Pilots, Airline and Airport Operations, Aircraft Manufacturing and Maintenance, Scientific and Technical Services (engineers, architects, cartographers, meteorologists, etc.), Food Service, Law Enforcement, Avionics, and others. I will add Government Service careers such as Air Traffic Controllers in the FAA and Air Safety Investigators in the NTSB.
AOPA has a world of information for the asking - however, you need to become a member ($39/yr.). Your key to membership and a start is a strong interest in aviation and the willingness to learn and work. A good contact is the Pilot Information Center - 1-800-872-2672 or www.aopa.org on your computer. If I can help you get what you need, let me know. Thanks for listening. R.S.
First of all we'll say goodbye to FAA Administrator Marion Blakely - she is to vacate the Administrator post 9-13-07. Enough said. Now, Mr. Bush, let's fill the position with loads of aviation experience and dedication towards solving the current problems in FAA, in all types of flying, and plan for a healthy expansion of aviation demands.
Secondly, I'd like to congratulate young Barrington Irving (23) who flew around the world - solo yet - in a donated Columbia 400 airplane, becoming the youngest person to accomplish such a feat (I learned this from AVWEB's Podcast of 8-24-07). I'm sure it took guts and determination. As reported, Irving is now focusing his efforts on Experience Aviation - an aviation group he founded in 2005 to get people interested in aviation. This is the spark aviation needs and I'm sure we'd like to hear more about him and his group.
I would also like to point out and give credit to AOPA (Aircraft Owner Pilot Association) and it's energetic President Phil Boyer - champion of the rights of GA pilots for the past 15 years - for the dedication to and continued aviation oversite. There are other associations (NBAA, ATA, etc.) that are monitoring our aviation interests, also.
Although AOPA doesn't need me to trumpet their programs (I've been a member for years), I'd like to point out their support of the young people and their desire for careers and jobs in the aviation field. AOPA cites 60+ careers and jobs needed in aviation - not just pilots, all a part of an industry of 1.3 million jobs and $158 billion in annual economic activity.
Some of the career openings cited are Airline and Other Career Pilots, Airline and Airport Operations, Aircraft Manufacturing and Maintenance, Scientific and Technical Services (engineers, architects, cartographers, meteorologists, etc.), Food Service, Law Enforcement, Avionics, and others. I will add Government Service careers such as Air Traffic Controllers in the FAA and Air Safety Investigators in the NTSB.
AOPA has a world of information for the asking - however, you need to become a member ($39/yr.). Your key to membership and a start is a strong interest in aviation and the willingness to learn and work. A good contact is the Pilot Information Center - 1-800-872-2672 or www.aopa.org on your computer. If I can help you get what you need, let me know. Thanks for listening. R.S.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Todays Aviation & Travel Problems - A Repeat of 1967
In my rummaging around trying to find something to ease the pain of airline passenger delays across the U.S., I came across a very interesting article in the September 24, 1967 Los Angeles Times, titled: The Sky No Longer A Limit In Our Crowded Airways - written by Rudy Abramson and Ronald J. Ostrow (both members of the Times Washington Bureau). Well, "bust my buttons", that article could have been published today, and no one would know the difference in time.
The article (good reading) set up the late afternoon jet departures from John Kennedy airport (NY) followed by similar departures in Newark, Philadelphia, and Chicago, waiting in line for takeoff, followed by descriptions of layer upon layer of flights in holding patterns at various altitudes, working their way down to the bottom of the stack to get in to their airports, at the same time. (Frustrating, Yes!) If that were not enough, incoming flights further out were instructed by FAA Controllers to reduce their airspeed (to delay their arrival at these airports) until the traffic jams were cleared. The article indicated that the mixture of jet passenger carriers with GA airplanes together in the same airspace compromized air safety and that mid-air collisions were more numerous than those reported. The article also cited the average number of takeoffs and landings at Chicago O'Hare airport numbered 44 every second around the clock, which added up to more than 60,000 per month, and that most of these instances were packed into a few hours. (And don't we have the same situation today?).
The article continues with air travel estimates of 7-8% given for 1967, which turned out to be 17% and cites a 16% increase for the previous year. The estimated increase of airplanes in the sky from 1966 to 1976 was 104,000 to 180,000 (that's 4,000 per year). The increase in air travel today for similar periods were passenger traffic increasing 2.7%/month and 32.4%/year.
This would indicate, at such rates, that over the next 10-20 years air travel will more than double.
This phenominal growth, the writers said, was attributed to people with money to spend, the untimely demise of railroad travel, and the inadeqacy of auto travel for long distances; whereas the problems involved were absurd levels of competition resulting in jamming more and more flights into peak hours of traffic, and the timidity of Government to tackle the problems. A White House study of airport problems was mentioned, however this study was never made public. The writers believed that this study recommended a federal corporation which would guarantee loans for airport construction and improvement. (Sound familiar? We did have the Civil Aeronautics Board at that time - 1940 to 1984 - but money for airports? And we have to remember that Congress deregulated the airlines in 1978).
The article concludes by saying that American living has been tuned to the spread of the jet (I'd say more fine-tuned to the efficiencies of the jet). The article also stated that the Aviation Industry and the FAA recognized that the biggest growth in air travel was still ahead.
And they were so ri ght - but very little has been accomplished to accommodate that growth since 1967. We need to get "going" - we need a starter. The sky is no longer a limit in our crowded airways. That's true, and we have most of the same problems today as we did in 1967 - and maybe some additional ones, too.
May I say again, let's get started with a National, not bureaucratic, study and oversite of our aviation and air travel problems - and a plan for the near and distant future. Thanks for listening. RS.
The article (good reading) set up the late afternoon jet departures from John Kennedy airport (NY) followed by similar departures in Newark, Philadelphia, and Chicago, waiting in line for takeoff, followed by descriptions of layer upon layer of flights in holding patterns at various altitudes, working their way down to the bottom of the stack to get in to their airports, at the same time. (Frustrating, Yes!) If that were not enough, incoming flights further out were instructed by FAA Controllers to reduce their airspeed (to delay their arrival at these airports) until the traffic jams were cleared. The article indicated that the mixture of jet passenger carriers with GA airplanes together in the same airspace compromized air safety and that mid-air collisions were more numerous than those reported. The article also cited the average number of takeoffs and landings at Chicago O'Hare airport numbered 44 every second around the clock, which added up to more than 60,000 per month, and that most of these instances were packed into a few hours. (And don't we have the same situation today?).
The article continues with air travel estimates of 7-8% given for 1967, which turned out to be 17% and cites a 16% increase for the previous year. The estimated increase of airplanes in the sky from 1966 to 1976 was 104,000 to 180,000 (that's 4,000 per year). The increase in air travel today for similar periods were passenger traffic increasing 2.7%/month and 32.4%/year.
This would indicate, at such rates, that over the next 10-20 years air travel will more than double.
This phenominal growth, the writers said, was attributed to people with money to spend, the untimely demise of railroad travel, and the inadeqacy of auto travel for long distances; whereas the problems involved were absurd levels of competition resulting in jamming more and more flights into peak hours of traffic, and the timidity of Government to tackle the problems. A White House study of airport problems was mentioned, however this study was never made public. The writers believed that this study recommended a federal corporation which would guarantee loans for airport construction and improvement. (Sound familiar? We did have the Civil Aeronautics Board at that time - 1940 to 1984 - but money for airports? And we have to remember that Congress deregulated the airlines in 1978).
The article concludes by saying that American living has been tuned to the spread of the jet (I'd say more fine-tuned to the efficiencies of the jet). The article also stated that the Aviation Industry and the FAA recognized that the biggest growth in air travel was still ahead.
And they were so ri ght - but very little has been accomplished to accommodate that growth since 1967. We need to get "going" - we need a starter. The sky is no longer a limit in our crowded airways. That's true, and we have most of the same problems today as we did in 1967 - and maybe some additional ones, too.
May I say again, let's get started with a National, not bureaucratic, study and oversite of our aviation and air travel problems - and a plan for the near and distant future. Thanks for listening. RS.
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Aviation's Big Picture - The Air Travelers Future
Hi Readers:
Let's take a good look at the total aviation picture of General Aviation (GA) and Air Carrier (the Airlines) to see how we have performed in the past and what is indicated for t he future, particularly for the air traveler. I have taken figures comparing 1986 and 2006, two representative years following the deregulation of the Airlines by the Civil Aeronautics Board (which was abolished in its entirety in 1984). The figures are as stated, researched from the FAA, Department of Transportation, NTSB, NBAA, and the ATA. I must say that the effort to get factual figures was not easy. 1990 was the first year of Recreational Flying, and 2005 was the first year of Sport Flying - therefore, they are not covered here.
___Certificated Pilots___
...........................1986...............2006
Students................150,273.............91,200
Private.................305,736............243,300 Commercial..............147,791............126,900
Air Transport Pilot-ATP..87,186............146,000
Students................150,273.............91,200
Private.................305,736............243,300 Commercial..............147,791............126,900
Air Transport Pilot-ATP..87,186............146,000
Helicopter................8,581..............8,830
Flight Instructor-CFI....57,355.............91,343
Flight Instructor-CFI....57,355.............91,343
Other *..................18,125.............21,210
Total...................709,118............637,440
* The Other category represents Glider, Balloon, and Lighter-than-Air
Analysis -
- Student pilot numbers are low, the progression from Private to ATP begs further study.
- Private pilot numbers decreased about 20% while Commercial and ATP combined decreased 25%.
- ATP pilot certification have increased steadily since 1932.
- Other category has increased steadily since 1960 - probably due to a greater Glider/Ultralight population.
- FAA estimated 324,000 instrument rated pilots in 2006. These would include Private, Commercial, ATP and Helicopter pilots.
- Certificated Flight Instructors - CFIs - have increased steadily since 1960, the first year counted.
- AOPA says that 20% of all pilots are actively employed.
__GA Aircraft__
...........................1986...............2006
Piston..................195,647............162,110
Turboprop.................5,964..............7,500
Turbojet..................4,480..............9,200
Rotorcraft................6,943..............7,080
Other.....................7,010.............16,120
Total...................220,044............223,100
__Air Carrier Aircraft__
...........................1986...............2006
Piston......................420..................0
Turboprop.................1,204..............1,057
Turbojet..................3,283..............4,883
Rotorcraft....................2..................0
Total.....................4,909..............5,940
The actual Air Carrier numbers for 2006 were hard to come by, considering the estimates used by the sources. Estimates of the Commercial fleet involved Regional Carriers and includes 3,886 air carrier passenger aircraft, 997 mainline air cargo, and 2,743 regional aircraft - jets, turboprop, and piston aircraft.
The 2006 mainline Carriers passenger jet fleet dropped by 39 since the year 2000, but the mainline cargo fleet increased to 997 in 2006. Regional carrier jet numbers have increased, while turboprop and pistons have declined in numbers. It is estimated that the total jet numbers will increase by 3,886 to 6,041 in 2020.
__Aircraft Production__
U.S. GA aircraft production, reported by the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA), for 2006 were shipments of 3,146 aircraft - a 10.1% increase over 2005. All aircraft shared in this increase; jet aircraft was up 15.5%; piston aircraft was up 9.2%, and turboprop aircraft was up 6.7%.
Aircraft Billings for 1986 were: SE Piston - $81,218, ME Piston $311,594, Turboprop $1,720,000, and Turbojet $5,811,475. Billings for 2005 (2006 not available) were Piston $805
million, Turboprop$1,174 million, and Turbojet $13,161 million.
__ Total Flying Hours__
...........................1987...............2006
General Aviation.....26,972,000.........28,330,000
Air Carrier..........10,315,000.........18,900,000
Low-cost carrier passengers yield increased 10.3% in 2006, while whole network carriers passenger yield increased only 8.7%.
The future of Regional Carriers is closely tied to the fortunes of the larger network carriers for whom they provide feed at major air carrier airports.
__ Total Passengers__
(in millions)
...........................1986.........(est)2006
General Aviation..........118.9.............120.0
Air Carrier...............418.5.............659.0
Total.....................537.4.............779.0
Passengers for Air Carriers in 2007 is estimated to be 661 million.
Revenue passenger enplanements for 2006 was $ 744,586,000.
.
.
__ Fuel Consumption __
(in millions of gallons)
(in millions of gallons)
.
...........................1986...............2006
.
General Aviation..........113.5............1,331.2
Air Carrier............13,682.3...........19,285.6
Total cost.............$7,631.3..........$37,862.9
Cost per gallon...........$0.56..............$1.96
.
.
__ Forecast - Air Travel Passengers __
.
The FAA 2007 - 2020 Forecast predicts 768 million passengers in 2007, more than one billion by 2015, and 1.2 billion by 2020.
General Aviation flying hours are expected to increase 59% by 2020.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
