PlasticPilot.net

Yes, this is your favorite aviation blog, even if this post title sounds much more like the typical anoucenement for a patch for a mysterious software. Apparently, the problems with the Eclipse 500 Very Light Jet FADECs is now solved.

The FADECs software did crash when it received an out of range value from the trhottles. According to AvWeb: “Eclipse says its solution will increase the range limit of the throttle quadrant assembly to prevent the fault condition from occurring.” Given the kind of problem - both FADECs failing at the same moment, when throttle is pushed full forward - this is not really a surprise to me.

Eclipse will deliver a software update that will remove the problem. It is not the first time in aviation history that a software patch will solve a problem, but given the mediatic buzz around the VLJs, and the Eclipse 500 in particular, this is gets more coverage than an Airbus patch.

The name of the patch I mentionned in this post is a personal inventon, trying to be fun, and to make you think. The serious problem that affected the Eclips will be solved by simply uploading a new firmware. I don’t know however if the Eclipse interface uses USB or Bluetooth.

Jokes put aside, I know many pilots that will feel uncomfortable with the concept of flying a software controlled plane. Most of them associate “software” with their own experience at home, with their PCs. Airplanes are not all the same, airlines are not all the same, and software are not all the same.

The development standards, and quality of software used aboard aircraft has nothing to to with what you have in your PC. The hardware is also different, and there are no third products that you can download yourself in the FADECs, making the environment much more controllable.

Another thing that make software sounds mysterious (and then dangerous) is that most pilots don’t understand exactly what it is, how it’s made, how it works, and what it does. A magneto, alternator or carburetor is much easier, and these things can be seen, touched, examined, dismantled, and inspected. You can’t do that with software.

Shall we get rid of software in our planes ? Hell NO ! There is no efficient engine management without electronics and software. There is no GPS, no RNAV tools without software. Without software, no cockpit integration is possible. Things like TCAS, GPWS, Mode-S transponders, FMS, and many others are all software based. Did I mention autopilots ?

As any airplane part, software can fail. It’s not because something is computer-based that there will be more or less failures. Just like a crankshaft, pump, belt, servo, landing gear assembly, fuel line, piston, windshield, voltage regulator, intercom, or any other mechanical or electrical component, software can fail.

This is exactly why there are so many different computers on board. For engines management, avionics, navigation, and so on, each system uses its own, separate hardware and software, to avoid crashing all of them at the same time. That would be bad. At least as bad as a failing wing-root, or a lost engine making the plane out of balance.

So please don’t be affraid of software simply because it can’t be seen or touched, and don’t compare aircraft embedded software with “quickly downloaded - quickly deleted” kind of stuff that fulfills most harddisks. Software is the next step in aviation, just like voice replaced morse code, and composite slowly replaces aluminium.

With the highly demanding validation and certification standards required in aviation, the risk levels remain minimal. Not zero, but well acceptable. Remember that safety is not defined as the absence of hazards, but the absence of unacceptable hazards.

As of 29th of June, US pilots flying IFR using RNAV segments (SIDs, airways, or STARs) will have to file IFR flight plan. Many websites already posted about that, including the excellent Ask A CFI, AOPA and the FAA itself.

Europe has been using such flight plans for years, even for VFR. Compared to the FAA template, the ICAO flight plan might seem complex, but don’t worry, you’ll get use to it. The post from Paul on Ask A CFI is really useful. Paul even created an 11 minutes video explaining how to fill the ICAO Flight Plan form (nice to discover your voice, Paul…).

Many has been said and published about it, and I don’t want to enter the argument. What I offer you today is a simple but useful resource: my own version of the ICAO Flight Plan, in the form of a Microsoft Excel workseet. The main advantage of it over the PDF form you can find on the web is that you can save it !

I used this form many times, and asked the services to whom I sent it if it was good. The answer was always positive, so I’m quite sure the US staff will appreciate it as well. Feel free to download it and use it to print empty copies, or filled ones.

Click here to download the ICAO Flight Plan for Microsoft Excel. For technical reasons, it’s stored in my briefing website, www.easymetar.com. This document contains some special characters, used for the arrows, which might look strange, depending which version of Excel you use. Depending of your printer, you could have to adjust the cells size a bit, to make it fit in a single page.

I offer it “as is”, without any kind of warranty or liability. If you have problems with it, or suggestions to improve it, let me know. I hope this will make your transition to ICAO flight plan easier, and your flight planning better, even if you fly outside US.

I’m a tall pilot - slightly over 1m90 - and it’s not always easy. Cockpit designers do their best, but some planes can’t simply be flown by pilots over 1m80. The Liberty XL2 is not a good memory in this respect, so I won’t even mention it.

My head did hit plane ceilings on a couple of occasions because of turbulence, and that’s no good. In most planes I have to set the seat in full backwards position, and sometimes this is not really enough. Bringing a Piper yoke to full deflection is not possible if I carry a too large kneeboard.

Here are a couple of photos taken in various planes, showing the distance left between my head and the ceiling. At first, the PA28 Archer II. The space is not that large, but the leg room is fine.

Its bigger sister PA32-Saratoga offers a bit more space for head, but this is at a price of a very low visibility over the dashboard. Not that much of an issue when flying IFR, except when it comes to flare. Because of the club seating - passengers in row 1 are flying backwards - the pilot’s seat can’t be taken backwards enough, and any kneeboard can possibly prevent to take the yoke to full deflection. On the plus side, the club seating makes possible to slip an A4 sized kneeboard between co-pilot and passenger seats.

One of the best aircraft I flew regarding overhead space it the Bonanza. There’s not plenty of horizontal space, but the cockipt it rather high, vertically speaking. Another good thing for cockpit organisation is the presence of a pocket below the pilot’s seat, very practical for checklits.

What about the plastic plane then ? The DA40 cockpit is slightly different, as the seat can’t be adjusted, and the stick is fixed into the seat. To fit (almost) all pilots, the rudder pedals can be adjusted to various depths. Once the canopy is closed, it gets quite close to my head, so I get deep in the seat when the ride gets turbulent.

I did not found a suitable picture from a C172, but regarding cockpit access and vertical space, it’s a pleasure to fly it. I don’t push the seat to the fully backwards position when flying the C172, because of the special position for boarding…

If you have personal feed-back on cockipt space, let me know in comment… particularly if you’re in the opposite situation, and fly with cushions

==============

Because of the horrible bug, no comments are allowed on this post. Here is one that Sylvia from www.fearoflanding.com sent me per e-mail:

I have the opposite problem - I’m just under 1m53. Funnily enough, I like the Saratoga too as it allows me to go further forward than most planes. It’s probably the only plane that I edge back a little bit to get the right fit. The C172 is a pain, I need a cushion behind my back to be able to comfortably reach the pedals. Really I’d like a pillow underneath as well to lift me up a bit but I end up too embarrassed.

I’ve not flown many other planes. I used a very small cushion in the Tobago - I think I have pretty much used cushions on every plane except the Saratoga.

We carry a step-ladder around with us too as I can’t check the oil without it!

* Sylvia *