Plastic Pilot

The number of technical equipments needed to keep the whole aviation system running is impressive. The typical break-down is known as CNS, standing for Communication - Navigation - Surveillance. Communication includes radio and telephone, but also IT networks. The Navigation part is made of approach equipments (ILS), and en-route navigation beacons (VORs). Surveillance includes radar and other ways to detect aircraft positions.

On top of that comes the data processing system for flight plan and surveillance data, which builds the synthetic view displayed to air-traffic controllers. Airport specific systems include power, conditioned air and fuel delivery to aircraft and runway and apron lighting. Handling companies also depend on these systems to know where and when the airplanes they have to care for will arrive.

Behind all these systems is also a common infrastructure, providing essential services: power, air-conditioning, heating, backbone communication systems, building security, access control, and so on. All the safety relevant systems are doubled, if not tripled, and procedures exist to safely handle traffic in case of equipment failure. The whole system is usually quite resistant, and failures usually leads to delays, diversions, and flight cancellations. These are certainly annoying, but not dangerous.

When discussing with airport staff what would be the worst failure, the answer is always the same. Passenger Information Systems. You know, the nice displays indicating at which counter check-in takes place for each flight, and from which gate each flight will depart.

A complete loss of electrical power is normally not possible, as different power sources are available, including own generators. Moreover, power distribution is segmented so that even if a part of the airport loose power, it will not affect all of it.

A complete loss of flight information display could quickly lead to a cahotic situation. Un-informed passengers would ask the ground personel. If no information is availalbe, it could be possible to send passengers to the right terminal - most airlines always operate from the same terminal, but that’s it.

Once there, the passengers would be left with no information. Assuming that sufficient ground staff is available (not exaclty obious…), and that pilots know where to park their planes, the number of not reaching the gate on due time would create massive delays.

I saw once in Frankfurt a day where the system used to print the boarding passes was inoperative. All the rest was working find. Staff at the check-in counters printed boarding passes without gate numbers, and were sending passengers to counters in the correct terminal. Displays were giving correct information, but boarding passes had to be re-printed locally before boarding.

This “simple” problem created an average delay of more than 30 minutes ! Frankfurt being the hub of Lufthansa, the impact of these delays could be felt throughout all Europe. The problem got solved within less than one hour, but the delays persisted all day long, as they were too long to be compensated for in flight.

A complete failure of the whole passenger information system would have the same results, but at a more larger scale ! Even the problems with the new Terminal 5 in Heathrow would look as minor glitches in comparison.

Do you feel like doing a small experiment ? Next time you go through an airport, try counting the number of flight information displays you see. You’ll quickly understand why they are so imporant.

In our troubled era, and even more since September 11th events, aviation is frequently linked to terrorism. Together with nuclear terror, light aviation has the potential to become a super Hollywood scenario.

I can imagine the scene from here… a long pan stopping on a nuclear power-plant, then a strong zoom, with a “Psycho”-like music, to make a tight frame on a plane rushing towards the reactor building ! Then a view from the plane, diving on the power-plant, while music get faster and louder… the suspense grows as far as the plane get closer.

Will a super-hero save the world ? Will an Air-Force ace shoot the small plane down ? Will a sniper seated one mile away kill the pilot ? As the plane get very close, the camera shows the how the kamikaze pilot smile as his plan gets closer to success.

At the very moment where the plane hits the reactor building… nothing happens. The light aircraft simply collapses against the super resistant reactor building. Pilot killed, power-plant undamaged, end of the story.

Not exactly the kind of super Hollywood ending… welcome to real life. Who could think that a light aircraft would damage buildings designed to resist earthquakes, tornadoes, and other large energy phenomenas ? Don’t you remember the Cessna 172 that crashed in a skyscraper in Tampa, in 2002 ?

The fuselage did not even actually entered the building, the wings fell to the ground, and there was not fire.

So imagine the same thing against an earthquake-resistant building. I won’t bet on the plane.

If that had to happen “for true”, the chances that the plane reaches the nuclear site are anyway rather low. The airspace surrounding sensitive stes is closely monitored, and interception aircraft (or helicopters if the target is so slow…) will be sent. Give how stressed military people are these days, any intruder would probably be shot down…

So please, dear Hollywood scenarists, find something else. Aviation don’t need such advertisements. Thank you.

Don’t say that to my aero-medical examiner (hello Dr. D), but I’m schyzophrenic, with a double personality. On one side, I’m a private pilot, and on the other side I’m an airport neighboor - hey, who said the dark side ?

When we were leaving in Geneva, our address was something like “ILS Runway 23, 2 miles final, slightly north of the localizer, ground level”. Now, depending on how Frankfurt airport is operating, we are under downind, or base. I’m probably one of the seldom airport neighboors enjoying being one…

Saying that tensions do exist between airport user and airport neighboors is slightly below the truth. Some neigboors associations achieved to turn themselves in powerful lobbies and play serious roles when it comes to defining airport operating procedures and rules.

These groups try to restrict traffic for various reasons, mostly noise, which I can understand. Most airports have neighboors really close-by, and this is the true source of the problem (click here to read more about it), but this won’t be solved easily nor rapidly.

Needless to say, general and light aviation is the easier target for these group, as they see our activity as “leisure” and don’t perceive the economical benefits, non-talking about the educational aspect. I already posted about how to explain what flying brings to the community here, and there. However there is more than talking - as pilots we can take some actions to make the live of our friends (you know, the airport neighboors) better.

1. Fly high - The higher we fly, the lower the noise. As far as airport restrictions and safe descent management permits, we should not fly low over crowded areas.
2. Fly continuous descents - Flying approaches as continuous descents allows for lower power setting, thus reducing noise. Combined with tip number one, it also lowers our fuel consumption.
3. Respect published flying procedures - This can seem obvious, but when it comes to noise management, procedure design is one of the best tools. The location of circuit patterns and VRPs are not dicted (solely) by luck. If there are no safety concerns, fly as published.
4. Respect published airport procedures - What is good in the air is also good on ground. For very close neighboors, the worst phases of our activity are take-off (very noisy) and run-up checks (noisy). We should always make sure that we do the run-up at the proper place on the airport, and position the plane to minimise noise in direction of neighboors. Here again, as long as there are no safety concerns, keep run-ups as short as possible.

Last but not least, use common sense. In Switzerland, there are many restrictions regarding flying on Saturdays afternoons and Sundays. This can range from no circuits, to no flying at all, depending the places. If you’re in a country where you can fly more freely, the swiss-case can teach you something.

Do you REALLY need to fly circuits, on a Sunday morning, at 7 am ? Can’t you fly something different, possibly not over a populated or touristic area ? And please, don’t tell me you fly that… just because you can.

My point is not to ban Sunday morning flying (nor any other kind of flying), but to remind you, fellow pilots, that it’s up to us to make our cohabitation with airport neighboors as good as possible. If we fail at doing that, the we’ll see more and more restrictive regulations… including swiss-like Sunday morning bans.

PS: Did I mention that TDI engines are less noisy ?