Aero-TV Interviews A True Master Flight Instructor — …
October 12, 2008
Noted Flight Trainer Earns Exceptional Honor
In each of the past 45 years, the General Aviation Awards program and the FAA have partnered to recognize a small group of aviation professionals in the fields of flight instruction, aviation maintenance, avionics and safety for their contributions to aviation safety and education.
This awards program is a cooperative effort between the FAA and more a dozen industry sponsors. The selection process begins with local FAA Safety Team managers at Flight Standards District Offices (FSDO) and then moves on to the eight regional FAA offices. Panels of aviation professionals from within those four fields then select national winners from the pool of regional winners.
When all was said and done, the selection team chose Max Trescott, MCFI/MGI, of Mountain View, CA as the 2008 Nat’l Certificated Flight Instructor of the Year.
Max is an independent Palo Alto-area flight and ground instructor specializing in instrument and technically advanced aircraft training (www.sjflight.com). A Master CFI, Master Ground Instructor, and FAASTeam representative, Max is also a noted aviation author and speaker and founder of Glass pit Publishing. He represented the San Jose FSDO area (Jack Hocker, FPM) as well as the FAA’s Western Pacific Region.
Max was licensed to fly as a teenager. He earned degrees in Psychology and Electrical Engineering from Swarthmore College and an MBA from NYU. He worked for 25 years in sales, marketing and management positions for Hewlett-Packard and now devotes full time to teaching flying, speaking, and publishing aviation training materials.
He holds an Airline Transport Pilot certificate and is an FAA Gold Seal CFI. He is recognized by the National ociation of Flight Instructors as a Master CFI. He’s a past President of Los Medicos Voladores or “Flying Doctors”, and regularly flew volunteer medical teams to Mexico in his Cessna T210.
FMI: www.maxtrescott.com, www.aero-tv.net, www.youtube.com/aerotvnetwork
Copyright 2008, …
Duration : 0:7:31
Cessna’s New Turbo Diesel 172 Skyhawk
October 12, 2008
Cessna will offer the 172S Skyhawk with a Thielert turbo diesel engine with deliveries to start in mid-2008.
Duration : 0:6:3
Flying over Tucson, Arizona – Cessna 172
October 12, 2008
Flying over Tucson in a Cessna 172 – Flying over Tucson, Eloy, Pinal, Picacho Peak, Marana Regional Airport.
Duration : 0:7:48
9/11 Redux: 'Thousands of Aliens' in U.S. Flight Schools Illegally are we headed for another 9-11 ?
October 12, 2008
Thousands of foreign student pilots have been able to enroll and obtain pilot licenses from U.S. flight schools, despite tough laws passed in the wake of the 9/ll attacks, according to internal government documents obtained by ABC News.
"Some of the very same conditions that allowed the 9-11 tragedy to happen in the first place are still very much in existence today," wrote one regional security official to his boss at the TSA, the Transportation Security Administration.
"Thousands of aliens, some of whom may very well pose a threat to this country, are taking flight lessons, being granted FAA certifications and are flying planes," wrote the TSA official, Richard A. Horn, in 2005, complaining that the students did not have the proper visas.
Under the new laws, American flight schools are only supposed to provide pilot training to foreign students who have been given a background check by the TSA and have a specific type of visa.
But in thousands of cases that has not happened, according to the documents and current and former government officials involved in the program.
"TSA's enforcement is basically nonexistent," said former FAA inspector Bill McNease, in an interview for ABC News' "World News With Charles Gibson."
McNease, who retired last year, says in one year alone, 2005, he found some 8,000 foreign students in the FAA database who got their pilot licenses without ever being approved by the TSA.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4353991&page=1
this is no suprise we can not even secure our borders nor can we enforce laws on the books so this though you would think could not happen does not surprise me
FAA 1st class Medical – Do I need to self report after surgery from ER Trauma Incident?
October 12, 2008
I am an FAA Commercial Pilot and CFII, recently training Private and Instrument students. I was recently (1 month+ ago now) using a router (the power tool), and was injured. It cut into my right forearm. I went to the ER, and was in the hospital a few days.
The doctor performed a “radial forearm flap” which is essentially a skin graft from another part of my arm. He had also intended to fix my Ulnar nerve, but said he discovered it was still intact. I have “bruising” to this nerve which prevents full (but near full) extension of my ring and pinky fingers on my right hand. After the surgery I was on the medication Percocet, but have been off it for a month.
Presently I am going to a physical therapist, while waiting for my nerves to heal. She has made me a splint to wear at night while my nerves are healing, which extends my fingers fully to prevent the tendons from shortening. This way I can extend (make them straight) fully once my nerve has healed.
I am driving a car on the interstate, have used a router again, and have functional control of my hand. It could be months before my nerve heals itself fully, but I am confident I would be able competently pilot / instruct in the plane.
Since the incident I have self grounded myself. Do I need to report this to an AME or the FAA, or can I resume flight duties once I believe I am ready. Are there any implications in going back to flight duty, prior to completing physical therapy?
Thanks so much! I never thought anything like this would happen to me, and guess I am not well versed in aviation medical topics: need to study up. They don’t seem to provide a lot of detail on reporting medical stuff in the FAR / AIM.
Just wanted to add some clarification; some people didn't quite understand my exact question. I know I need to report it on my next medical application. I would like to know if I have an obligation to go see my AME before my medical runs out, if I believe I am still fit for flight duty.
resume flight duties once your doc says it is okay (A visit to your AME would be prudent). To report the hospital stay, at your next medical renewal,.on the application for an Airman's medical certificate.(Form 8500-8) under History.list your injury and treatment with results Subsequent visits, simply put in "previously reported, no changes" (unless there are any)
Edit: (a) 1&2 cover this
Sec. 61.53 Prohibition on operations during medical deficiency.
(a) Operations that require a medical certificate. Except as
provided for in paragraph (b) of this section, a person who holds a
current medical certificate issued under part 67 of this chapter shall
not act as pilot in command, or in any other capacity as a required
pilot flight crewmember, while that person:
(1) Knows or has reason to know of any medical condition that would
make the person unable to meet the requirements for the medical
certificate necessary for the pilot operation; or
(2) Is taking medication or receiving other treatment for a medical
condition that results in the person being unable to meet the
requirements for the medical certificate necessary for the pilot
operation.
(b) Operations that do not require a medical certificate. For
operations provided for in Sec. 61.23(b) of this part, a person shall
not act as pilot in command, or in any other capacity as a required
pilot flight crewmember, while that person knows or has reason to know
of any medical condition that would make the person unable to operate
the aircraft in a safe manner.
(c) Operations requiring a medical certificate or a U.S. driver's
license. For operations provided for in Sec. 61.23(c), a person must
meet the provisions of–
(1) Paragraph (a) of this section if that person holds a valid
medical certificate issued under part 67 of this chapter and does not
hold a current and valid U.S. driver's license.
(2) Paragraph (b) of this section if that person holds a current and
valid U.S. driver's license.
Aircraft emergency evacuation. Problems with overwing exits. Is it time for FAA/airlines to fix the problem?
October 12, 2008
NTSB;
CONCLUSIONS
1. On average, an evacuation for the study cases occurred every 11 days. An average of 336,328 departures occurred every 11 days in 1998 by scheduled aircraft operating under 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 121.
2. In the 46 study cases, 92 percent (2,614) of the 2,846 occupants on board were uninjured, and 8 percent (232) were injured.
3. The Federal Aviation Administration does not evaluate the emergency evacuation capabilities of transport-category airplanes with fewer than 44 passenger seats or the emergency evacuation capabilities of air carriers operating commuter-category and transport-category airplanes with fewer than 44 passenger seats. In the interest of providing one level of safety, all passenger-carrying commercial airplanes and air carriers should be required to demonstrate emergency evacuation capabilities.
4. Adequate research has not been conducted to determine the appropriate exit row width on commercial airplanes.
5. In general, passengers in the Safety Board's study cases were able to access airplane exits without difficulty, except for the Little Rock, Arkansas, accident that occurred on June 1, 1999, in which interior cabin furnishings became dislodged and were obstacles to some passengers' access to exits.
6. Emergency lighting systems functioned as intended in the 30 evacuation cases investigated in detail.
7. In 43 of the 46 evacuation cases in the Safety Board's study, floor level exit doors were opened without difficulty.
8. Passengers continue to have problems opening overwing exits and stowing the hatch. The manner in which the exit is opened and the hatch is stowed is not intuitively obvious to passengers nor is it easily depicted graphically.
9. Most passengers seated in exit rows do not read the safety information provided to assist them in understanding the tasks they may need to perform in the event of an emergency evacuation, and they do not receive personal briefings from flight attendants even though personal briefings can aid passengers in their understanding of the tasks that they may be called upon to perform.
10. On some Fokker airplanes, flight attendants are seated too far from their assigned primary exit to provide immediate assistance to passengers who attempt to evacuate through the exit.
11. Overall, in 37 percent (7 of 19) of the evacuations with slide deployments in the Safety Board's study cases, there were problems with at least one slide. A slide problem in 37 percent of the evacuations in which slides were deployed is unacceptable for a safety system.
12. The majority of serious evacuation-related injuries in the Safety Board's study cases, excluding the Little Rock, Arkansas, accident, occurred at airplane door and overwing exits without slides.
13. Pilots are not receiving consistent guidance, particularly in flight operations and safety manuals, on when to evacuate an airplane.
14. Passengers benefit from precautionary safety briefings just prior to emergency occurrences.
15. Limiting exit use during evacuations in the Safety Board's study was not in accordance with the respective air carrier's existing evacuation procedures. At a minimum, all available floor level exits that are not blocked by a hazard should be used during an evacuation.
16. Evacuations involving slide use could be delayed if passengers sit at exits before boarding a slide or if crew commands do not direct passengers how to get onto a slide.
17. Without hands-on training specific to the airplane types that frequent their airports, aircraft rescue and firefighting personnel may be hindered in their ability to quickly and efficiently assist during evacuations.
18. Communication and coordination problems continue to exist between flight crews and flight attendants during airplane evacuations. Joint exercises for flight crews and flight attendants on evacuation have proven effective in resolving these problems.
19. Despite efforts and various techniques over the years to improve passenger attention to safety briefings, a large percentage of passengers continue to ignore preflight safety briefings. Also, despite guidance in the form of Federal Aviation Administration advisory circulars, many air carrier safety briefing cards do not clearly communicate safety information to passengers.
20. Passengers' efforts to evacuate an airplane with their carry-on baggage continue to pose a problem for flight attendants and are a serious risk to a successful evacuation of an airplane. Techniques on how to handle passengers who do not listen to flight attendants' instructions need to be addressed.
21. Unwarranted evacuations following Boeing 727 auxiliary power unit (APU) torching continue to exist despite past efforts by the Federal Aviation Administration to address this issue.
22. Evacuations continue to occur that are hampered by inefficient communication. Current evacuation communication would be significantly enhanced by the installation of independently powered evacuation alarms on all newly manufactured transport-category airplanes.
23. The frequency of false indications on the two regional airplanes in the Safety Board's study cases-the Saab 340 and the Canadair Regional Jet-is too high. There are insufficient data, however, to determine if the frequency of false smoke indications is peculiar to the two regional airplanes in the Safety Board's study or if the problem is more widespread.
24. Air carriers do not always make reports to the FAA SDR system, or reports are inadequate, to identify the extent of component problems or failures.
SAFETY RECOMMENDATIONS
As a result of this safety study, the National Transportation Safety Board made the following safety recommendations to the Federal Aviation Administration:
1.a Require all newly certificated commercial airplanes to meet the evacuation demonstration requirements prescribed in Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 25, regardless of the number of passenger seats on the airplane.
1.b Require all commercial operators to meet the partial evacuation demonstration requirements prescribed in Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 121, regardless of the number of passenger seats on the airplane.
2. Conduct additional research that examines the effects of different exit row widths, including 13 inches and 20 inches, on exit hatch removal and egress at Type III exits. The research should use an experimental design that reliably reflects actual evacuations through Type III (self help) exits on commercial airplanes.
3. Issue a final rule on exit row width at Type III (self help) exits based on the research described in Safety Recommendation (forthcoming).
4. Require Type III overwing (self help) exits on newly manufactured aircraft to be easy and intuitive to open and have automatic hatch stowage out of the egress path.
5. Require air carriers to provide all passengers seated in exit rows in which a qualified crewmember is not seated a preflight personal briefing on what to do in the event the exit may be needed.
6. Require flight attendants on Fokker 28 and Fokker 100 airplanes to be seated adjacent to their assigned primary exit. (This recommendation may be revised)
7. Review the 6-foot height requirement for exit assist means to determine if 6 feet continues to be the appropriate height below which an assist means is not needed. This review should include, at a minimum, an examination of injuries sustained during evacuations.
8. Require flight operations manuals and safety manuals to include on abnormal and emergency procedures checklists a checklist item that directs flight crews to initiate or consider emergency evacuation in all emergencies that could reasonably require an airplane evacuation (for example, cabin fire or engine fire).
9. Review air carriers' procedures to ensure that for those situations in which crews anticipate an eventual evacuation, adequate guidance is given both to pilots and flight attendants on providing passengers with precautionary safety briefings.
10. Review air carrier training programs to ensure that evacuation procedures call, at a minimum, for evacuation through all available floor level exits that are not blocked by a hazard.
11. Review air carrier procedures and training programs to ensure that the commands used for slide evacuations are consistent with the commands used for slide evacuations during certification.
12. Establish a task force to address the issue of providing periodic hands-on familiarization training, or the equivalent, for aircraft rescue and firefighting personnel at all 14 CFR Part 139 certified airports on each airplane type that serves the airport on a scheduled basis.
13. Require air carriers to conduct periodic joint evacuation exercises involving flight crews and flight attendants.
14. Conduct research and explore creative and effective methods that use state-of-the-art technology to convey safety information to passengers. The presented information should include a demonstration of all emergency evacuation procedures, such as how to open the emergency exits and exit the aircraft, including how to use the slides.
15. Require minimum comprehension testing for safety briefing cards.
16. Develop advisory material to address ways to minimize the problems associated with carry-on luggage during evacuations.
17. Require air carriers that operate Boeing 727s to include in the auxiliary power unit (APU) procedures instructions, when passengers are on board, that the flight crew will make a public address announcement about APU starts immediately prior to starting the APU. (This recommendation may be revised)
18. Require all newly manufactured transport-category airplanes operating under 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 121 to be equipped with independently powered evacuation alarm systems operable from each crewmember station, and establish procedures and provide training to flight crews and flight attendants regarding the use of such systems.
19. Document the extent of false indications for cargo smoke detectors on all airplanes and improve the reliability of the detectors.
Communication and coordination issues are IMO, a real safety issue. I agree that improved Evacuation coordination between the Flight Crew and the Cabin Crew is essential. Improved communication will improve safety. How could it not?
Pilots should be required to attend Cabin Crew Annual training at least once in their career. We would learn a lot from each other. While the Captain may have ultimate authority over the Aircraft, they are not our Boss. Some forget that. Most of us get along most of the time. We are a team and must work together as such in the name of safety. A Flight Attendant also has the right to voice safety concerns and refuse unsafe work.
I think the Front End need to be more involved in the Cabin Crew's Pre-Flight briefings. For those of you who aren't familiar, Cabin Crew have a meeting pre-flight (before Passengers board) where we discuss any safety or security related concerns.
The Incharge asks each F/A a safety related question and then we discuss it. I'd like to see the Front End take more of an active role. After all, ensuring a safe Flight is a shared responsibility.
How does the operating Cessna P210, cost per hour versus a stright 210 and T210?
October 12, 2008
Comparing line costs for aircraft for potential new operations.
I would consider thr Cessna 337, P337, and of course, the wonderful Riley Rocket. Data is really what I need
I am going to be conservative and not post my web address. Atleased nof for the moment, I'm not quite sure that I can do it but, inevitably, some one will give us the 411. Bear with me until we have the permission to pit my self out on a line.
The P will be higher in maintenance costs period all pressureized aircraft are higher.
The hour to hour flight costs between it and the T210 are probably fairly close with the P burning a little more fuel (more weight more systems etc) Your insurance costs (depends on how many hours etc so cant answer that expect to pay more for the P as the value is generally higher)
Both the T and P will exceed the Straight 210 by serveral $$ per hour due to the turbo etc. But you do get the speed out of the other two.
Check the information http://www.planequest.com/operationcosts/default.asp
You'll get a good readout of the actual numbers.
T210 134.71
P210 181.29
210M-R 114.13
P337 258.32
Best Glide Speed versus Minimum Sink Speed – Cessna 172 – Establishing Each?
October 12, 2008
For those pilots who are familiar with the Cessna 172, here's the questions:
How does one best establish these two speeds? What I am wanting to hear, is there a tip to establish them, independent of Gross Weight? And in what situations would you use each?
Are these always the same as the ones in the POH? What about headwinds? Tailwinds?
And what about if a Check Ride Examiner pulls the throttle to idle – what speed do you choose?
Hi I hope to clarify this for you. The best glide speed will give you the most range, NOT the most time in the air. The minimum sink speed will give you the most time in the air, but not the best range.
Best glide speed will be higher than Minimum sink speed.
During an engine failiure you should usually maintain the best glide speed especially if you are over water or rough terrain and are trying to make it to a safe and level spot, some distance away. Best glide speed will be your most important value there. You should only really use minimum sink speed if distance is not an issue, but you are trying to buy some time in the air, perhaps to have a few more goes at starting the engine. But really that speed is nnot of much use.
No the speeds are not always the same as in the POH. Usually the POH of a light aircraft such as the C172 will give you all the speeds at Maximum Gross Weight. Both speeds should decrease very slightly, but it really is a negligable difference, especially considering that there is no "perfect pilot" who can maintain speed right on the spot all the way. There will always be slight fluctuations and so a few knots really won't make much of a difference, you are just much better off maintaining the published speed. Also an actual engine failiure is something you have to see and experience to believe!!! You wouldnt want to get into any calculations about speed and weight in this critical time, especially if it will only result in a 1 or 2 knot difference. For this reason the POH is published as it is.
Ur next question is about winds. Always remember that a published speed is what you should always fly with. Don't confuse the air speed and the ground speed! Planes fly in the air and it's their relative speed to the air that matters. Lets say for example your best glide speed is 75 kts and you have a 25kt headwind. You should still ignore the wind and maintain 75kt as that is your relative speed to the airflow. Your ground speed will be 50kts and therefore your range will also be decreased. Best thing to do could be to turn around and use the wind as a tail wind which will give you a ground speed of 100kts and thus double your glidig range!!
And ur last question about the checkride. If the examiner pulls the power, he will expect that you maintain the best glide speed as published in the POH. Don't confuse yourself by trying to calculate a new speed according to the aircrafts current weight.
The minimum sink speed really isn't that important and practical.
So to summarise: Best glide speed and minimum sink speeds do change with weight but the difference is so small that its just beter left for the Physics class. Also remember that the engineers and test pilots have thought of everything, so if you don't see something in the POH, it's probably not important and you shouldn't try and resolve it as it will just make you life more complicated
I hope this helps and sorry I can't provide you with any numbers. I trained for my ATPL on Pipers. Good luck!!!
is it principally that difficult to land a 767 if you can land a cessna?
October 12, 2008
I mean, let's be straight!!: The only difference between a 767 and a cessna is the weight….. So ,if you're qualified to land a cessna, you have the basics to land every aircraft……..
well, you sound a little as if u meant that weight is the only issue, and not a big one at that.
weight is is a HUGE issue
heavier aircraft accelerate more slowly and slow down less quickly, this lag in speed response can already kill you easily.
having set that, here's a list of things that are different enough that you would not be able to land a 767 without damage.
-point of view. You will be significantly higher, therefore you can very easily misjudge your flare and fly your 767 into the ground, or float over the runway, therefore landing long, and therefore, increasing your already great risk of overrunning the runway.
-the engines are turbofans. which means they take time to spool up and spool down. you need to have had experience in large acft to anticipate power needs. (stall into the ground, or too high landing speed, again, not good for you)
-flaps/ slats/ spoilers/ brakes and reverse thrust. they are all different. in a cessna, at x speed u can lower x degrees of flaps, but in large acft, all that is calculated before each landing depending on various factors. In a cessna, braking is pretty near braking in a car. In a large aircraft, put on the brakes to hard and you will blow tires. there is technique for that too. reverse thrust is not just pull the levers until they engage, theres procedures, science and art behind that too. Without proper training, you will most likely either overrun the runway or blow some tires.
those are the three great factors which will deter you from making a successful landing. There may be more I might of forgotten to mention or the other factors are just not big enough to affect the outcome of the landing.
if you know how to land a cessna, one can say you have your principles, like flaring, glideslope etc, but that does not mean you can successfully land a larger aircraft.
just means you sort of know what is involved, in a genera kind of way, but have nearly no idea how to accomplish it properly.
with a little luck, you might succeed.
IS Anyone Interested in Military Based Programs for High Schoolers in Arizona?
October 12, 2008
At Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport we have this Program called US AIRFORCE EXlorers. This program is very fun and challenging. This is not like any JROTC Bs they are strict. They will treat you like a professional. This Program isn't just for people interested in the Airforce its for all branches of the military. You must be 14 to 18 years of age. If your interested please email me.
i heard theres a place in Arizona that has a Kick @ss Criminal Justice Program too
