Two days ago, in Austin, a pilot committed suicide by crashing his aircraft into a building. This is before all a tragedy and my thoughts go to the victims and their relatives. But this is also an isolated act from a desperate individual, who left a suicide manifesto behind him, so that there are no doubts this was not an accident. Each time an aircraft hits a building, ugly memories come back to the surface, and some of the this-should-never-again-let’s-regulate activists are on steroids for weeks.

Naturally, as a pilot, I’m against new, more constraining regulations. I had to live my passion for flying in a much harder environment after the 9/11 events, and I understand the role and reasons behind some of the new rules. However, in this case, we should really consider what could be changed to prevent such dramatic events. Sometimes, the forces driving someone to suicide act suddenly, and sometimes they are at work for long times. In this case, the pilot went through a careful preparation phase. The building he hit was not selected randomly. This was the well prepared action of the final act of a pilot.

If he had not be a pilot, the things would probably have been similar. He could have hit the building with a van, a truck, or try to put himself on fire at the reception desk, who knows ? It is not because a light aircraft was used by someone in despair to commit suicide that new restrictions should be put in place. There is simply no way to read the mind of someone, and until we can get suicidal people detectors, there will be no way to do anything sensible. Pilots undergo periodical medical examination but suicidal trends can develop very quickly, sometimes within hours if not minutes.

AOPA’s CEO Craig Fuller posted this note on his blog with some facts and perspective regarding the number of suicides per year in the USA. It makes very clear that the aviation community contributes very little to these numbers. So please, dear rule makers, try not to over-react this time, and take the time to understand what did go on. It is not always possible to identify what went wrong and make a rule against that. Suicidal people which run along such a plan are very determined and when you decided to bring your life to an end, there’s not a lot of things that can stop you…

This is a very sad story, and the whole aviation community will have to fight again to make sure our freedom to fly does not get even more restricted because of the acts of an isolated people…

After the failed terrorist attempt on Nowrthwest 253, on Christmas Eve 2009, full body scanners seems to be the ultimate solution to all airline security problems. Several airports, including Paris Charles-de-Gaulle and Amsterdam Schiphol now use them on flights bound to the US, and such scanners will be deployed in London Heathrow “as soon as practical”. This technology, which has before been perceived as unethical and too invasive, and violating some laws about privacy now seems to be Holly Grail of Airline security.

Even if full body scanners will make flying the airlines a bit safer, they are not the 100% safe solution. Some options are much safer than full body scan. Let’s imagine…

You reach the airport five hours before your flight, as required by the airline and security policy. You enter a security check lane corresponding to your gender and age. After one and a half hour in the very slow lane, you reach a tiny changing room. Once the automatic door is locked behind you, you get completely naked. You leave your clothes, all belongings, glasses, jewelery (wedding ring included), mobile phone, computer, in a special security suitcase.

When you’re ready, you move towards the next door, still naked. You leave the suitcase behind you, carry-on luggage are not allowed anymore. Two security inspectors wait for you in the next room. They proceed rapidly, in a very professional, anonymous, not humiliating way with a manual full body search. This is to make sure you don’t take any object with you on board. Once this is finished, you can proceed to the next room. Here you can choose from a variety of flight pajamas. Before getting “dresses-up”, don’t forget to put diapers on, particularly for long flights.

The next door opens on a corridor leading directly to your aircraft. As soon as you’re seated, a flight security assistant straps you in and lock your 5 points security belt. Tightly. From now on, and until you’re released after landing, all you have to do is to enjoy your flight…

Is this ethical ? Would you accept it ? Is such a solution the price for 100% airline security ? Could terrorists find way to bypass this kind of system ? My answers to these questions are “Not sure, Not sure, No, Yes”.

My personal belief is that no system will ever be 100% safe. We can tend towards that, but each step forward will cost more in terms of time, money, constraints, privacy and comfort. It belongs to each of us to define where is the limit. What we are ready to accept, in terms of risk, and how much comfort we’re ready to sacrifice for security.

Pilots form a great community and share a lot, whatever their level of qualification or ratings. Even an humble private pilot like me can discuss about aviation with a senior airline captain and understand him. Have a look at my last poll here – Who are you ? – or at the comment Pat left on the “I fly to land – A bit of introspection” post and you’ll understand what I mean. However, like in all human communities, some are… well… how to say… not playing according to the same rules.

I was recently part of a discussion in a forum where a participant started to attack someone else at personal level. No flying or vaguely aeronautical arguments, but things about ratings, qualifications, fight experience, previous occupations, and the like. I tried to moderate a bit, and got a “do you even have a license?”-like answer. Interestingly, this person took the time to list all of his ratings – and he has quite a lot of them – and flight experience.

To me, this did sound a lot like the very old “Mine is bigger than yours!” argumentation. Nothing really mature. Please discuss facts, no need to attack discussion partners at a personal level, particularly with this kind of arguments. So let me formulate a small reminder to this very seldom kind of persons:

• Except for one person in this world, there’s always someone with a bigger one. More ratings, more flight experience, more everything. If you’re the exception, please let me know what for ratings and experience you have, I’m curious.
• Unfortunately, great pilots with exemplary records, lots of ratings and immense experience get killed each and every year. Ratings and experience never made anybody invincible or knowing everything. I used to know some of them personally. Sad.

So let’s have a great aviation discussion. We certainly can talk about everything, but may be not with everybody.

US Senator Charles E. Schumer unveiled what he calls “a comprehensive plan to clear up the airspace over the Hudson River”. It is not expressed in aeronautical terms, but what he wants is basically turn the Hudson River Corridor into and IFR airspace.

Quoting this plan: “FAA does not regulate helicopter routes like those in New York City’s airspace, and instead relies on a “see and avoid” strategy for helicopters.” Yes, Mr. Senator, this is called Visual Flight Rules. Like in visually avoid obstacles and other aircraft.

Second point of the plan: “Schumer is calling on the FAA to monitor all flights, both helicopters and airplanes, below 1,000 feet and require aircraft to file flight plans. Currently, there is no comprehensive system in place regulating flights below 1,000 fee , leading many to believe that the Hudson crash was the just the beginning.” So what Mr. Senator ? You want flight plans, and positive control of all aircraft ? Do you mean… IFR ? By the way, who are these “many” who believe that this tragic accident was just the beginning ?

Another point of the plan: “Schumer is calling for new technologies to differentiate the type of alarm that goes off in the control towers when flights get too close together. There are so many flights at all times that alarms are often indistinguishable. The closer the planes are, the louder the alarm should be.” Reading such a thing, I wonder if Senator Schumer already visited any ATC facility. An alarm that is louder when the planes get closer ? What’s the purpose of a quite alarm ? Just tell the controller “there’s an alarm, but you must not care right now, it’s not LOUD enough ?” A system must either issue an alarm, or not. It must be smart enough to have a low rate of false alarms. Welcome in the world of Short Term Conflict Alerts (STCA). Nothing new here, but hardly applicable to VFR flights, which are not forcefully in contact with ATC.

Final point of the plan: “Schumer is calling on Congress to act quickly on FAA reauthorizing legislation, and in it they must adequately fund the deployment of NexGen technology to make air traffic controller operations safer and more efficient. This accident has demonstrated that handoffs between control towers and airports need to be smoother, and investment in technology will help this effort.” This is good, but has nothing to do with VFR and the Hudson River corridor. NexGen is based on ADS-B, and I doubt that all the VFR traffic there is equipped now, or will be in the near future.

There are only two ways to manage air traffic control. Give the responsibility for avoiding collisions to the Air Traffic Controller, and then have enough of them, together with appropriate flight data (flight plans, surveillance equipment, …). This is called IFR. Or you can leave the responsibility to the pilot. In this case, the basic principle is “see-and-avoid”, complemented by information from Air Traffic Controllers, where available and practical.

Senator Schumer also added: “While the cause of this terrible crash is still being investigated, virtually unregulated general aviation flight traffic over the Hudson River poses a serious safety and security risk to New Yorkers and the time for action is now.” I’m not sure which safety and security risk Senator Schumer is referring to. There were no victims on ground, and as tragic as this accident is, it does not call for fundamental changes.

There are certainly lessons to be learned from this accident, but this is a job for specialists like NTSB and FAA staff. Nothing political here.

Click here to read the exact details of the “plan”.

Every now and then my personal opinion does not match with the majority. This is the case for the recent fatal aircraft and helicopter accident over the Hudson River. Two bloggers I appreciate and respect, Max Trescott and Rob Mark, both conclude that collision avoidance systems shall be mandated for light aircraft. They nuance about not having a full TCAS-II implementation, which is simply not possible for light aviation.

I’m sorry, but I don’t agree with this option, or we have to change a lot the VFR rules. Some are old and could require an update but one must be careful because of the possible impact. It is still possible and legal to fly VFR without a transponder and without a radio. Only flights for which pilot enter controlled airspace and must receive precise instructions from an air traffic controller require them. But in any case, VFR remains based on the “see-and-avoid” rule.

Flying in busy airspace requires a lot of attention. I used to fly around London and Frankfurt, which are not exactly deserts. Egelsbach (EDFE) manages to pack up to 80 movements per hour on a single. I was lucky enough to fly there with a G1000 equipped aircraft, with traffic information. Definitely helpful, but shall it be mandated ?

These systems rely on the transopnders in the other aircfraft. The accuracy is not always good and could be improved if the other aircraft were transmitting their GPS position via ADS-B. So the possibility is here. The main problem is that all aircraft shall be equipped. If pilots start to heavily rely on this for traffic avoidance, what about the non equipped aircraft ? And what to do in case of failure ? Does it make sense to require that from all aircraft owners ?

The IFR rules mandate such equipment under certain circumstances (airline operations, above certain altitudes, …). But under IFR the “see-and-avoid” principle is replaced by a shift of authority to the controller. The TCAS system is in this context an ultimate safety net, not the tool used for maintaining separation.

So sorry Max and Rob, but in my humble opinion, traffic avoidance systems for VFR shall remain an optional help to cautious airspace watch by the pilot. As usual, comments are welcome.

Europe is an intersting patchwork of different cultures and way of seeing and doing things. The European Union and other bodies tend towards harmonization and this is working well. Regarding aviation regulation, the Joint Aviation Authorities made an amazing job. They even achieved to have the very neutral, non-EU member Switzerland to join.

National authorities have not been replaced by the JAA – this could be the case with the upcoming EASA – but they all apply the same rules. For example, my license has been issued by Switzerland, according to JAA rules. I renewed my instrument rating in France, few years ago. I got in contact with the Swiss Federal Office for Civil Aviation (FOCA) and the licensing division of the French DSNA to know how to proceed. I simply had to send the French form to the Swiss authority. It went like a breeze – my license was reprinted within a week.

When I started my MEP training, the question of using the checkride to renew my IFR as well popped up naturally. Getting a combined MEP / IR test flight results in an MEP class rating and corresponding Instrument Rating. If the pilot has a single engine instrument rating, passing an MEP / IR flight test revalidates it as well.

Because of a bad combination of weather and planning, my MEP / IR checkride took place one week after expiry of my SEP / IR rating. My SEP CR is still valid but the IFR was no longer. My German instructor told me that in Germany, passing the MEP / IR test would renew the SEP / IR as well. But this is now how the Swiss authority interprets the JAA regulations.

I received my reprinted license last week, with a new MEP rating and an IFR on top of that, but the IFR on top of my IFR has NOT been renewed. I checked with them, but I’ll have to re-take an SEP / IFR checkride to regain it. If I had converted my license to a German JAA one, this would not be an issue.

On the other hand, getting a German JAA license with instrument rating is not that easy. PPLs are managed by local, state managed offices. All higher ratings are managed by a nationwide agency. I would also need to get a German medical certificate, as it’s not possible to use a German JAA license with a Swiss JAA medical. Not sure the whole operation would have been cheaper than the required extra flight.

Shall we rename JAA to AJAA ? You know, the Alomst Joined Aviation Authorities ?

Someone decided to make a new official picture of AirForce One to replace the one over the Grand Canyon. Why not. Someone decided to make the new picture over New-York City. I can understand the idea and the stength of the symbol. This “classified” mission was organised and the spare Boeing 747 with the presidential painting flew at low altitude over New-York city, accompanied by a couple of F-16s.

This sounds like a simple story and even a great opportunity. Many spotters and aviation enthusiats dream of such an opportunity. A mini air-show from what is probably the world’s most famous aircraft over Manhattan’s skyline is certainly the dream of many. There was however a small hiccup in this operation: it was classified !

The Air Force warned the New-York Police Department about a operation over the city but said nothing about its nature. When the New-Yorkers saw a 747 flying low at an unusual place some of their worst memories came back. I don’t know if some of them recognized the presidential paint scheme. To be fair I don’t know if recognizing it would have been better or worse. The reaction was so strong that some people headed to nearest shelter, re-living the 9/11 events.

This event shows how the world is split between people working in aviation business daily and knowing it and others for which aviation is a threat. Before 9/11, such an operation would have been a non-event, and I understand that for the US AirForce people it was something almost usual. But they should have known that for some persons, the sight of an un-expected jet over the World Trade Center site was shocking.

I don’t even understand why this mission was classified. The president was not on board and I can hardly imagine what for a risk justified this classification. The AirForce missed a great occasion to improve its image and organise a “marketing” event. Instead of benefitin from this unique opportunity, they changed it intro a sad and scandalous event which is now relayed in all media. That’s what all footbal (read soccer) fans call an autogoal.

Read more:
Release from aero-new.net about this flight
Older post about 9/11: The day we all became suspects

Update on 9th of May 2009: An aide of the White House resigned for not having informed proper persons there.

If you’re not a geek like me, the link between Facebook, Twitter, Likaholix and other “social media” is probably a bit of a mystery for you. I hesitated a lot before writing this post because it could sound strange, out of scope and even disgusting to some of you and I don’t want to bore you. I decided to take the risk after getting in touch with Niklas Rahkonen via the “Friends of Aviation” group on Facebook. Nick is really motivated about encouraging aviation and meeting him was a real pleasure. I’ll post more about him and his activities later, but the way we got in touch was a perfect example of how social networks can help aviation.

Having “friends” on Facebook or following other twitters might seem futile and useless… One of the most frequent complain heard in flying clubs is that it’s no longer “as before”, that there is no more “club spirit”, that they become more “renting agencies” than “aviatior clubs”. At a time where the number of pilots is decreasing, communicating and acting as a community is more important than ever, but this requires time – exactly what most of us don’t have. Finding time to go flying is not always easy, and socializing is not easier. Is this really true ? If you think of socialization in the sense of what clubs used to be, yes. But if you think of it differently, it is exactly what Facebook, Twitter and other services offer.

Many of you got in touch with me via this blog and this is the thing I like the most in editing it. Discussing per e-mail, gmail chat, Facebook or twitter does not make the conversation meaningless. The new communication tools are worth what users do with them. Many persons I’m now in touch with are well beyond the area I could reach if I had to meet them “in person” and the exchanges we have are of equivalent (if not better…) quality as what I had with some club-members where I used to fly.

If you’re not convinced yet, here are some links for you. At first you can read what other aviation bloggers are publishing. If you’re a Twitter fan you can follow me or see who I’m following from my Twitter feed. Never heard of Twitter ? This is a micro-blogging service, where authors are limited to 140 characters pre “post”. Perfect for short news and readers who don’t have a lot of time. Facebook requires more time and personal involvement. After getting an account you can get in touch with persons you know, join groups, discuss about almost any topic and learn to know new friends. This is how I got in touch with Nick and many others, and I can’t imagine any other way this could have been possible. If you’re already on Facebook or want to join, have a look at the “PlasticPilot and friends” group or become a fan via the PlasticPilot page.

The last service I joined is the newly created likaholix.com where users can share things they like. It is still in alpha mode and on invitation only, but I received a handful of invites. Contact me if you want one – no need to have a website or a blog. I joined last week and hope that being an early adopter will facilitate the creation of a strong general aviation community there.

I can understand that you still regret the spirit of the good old times, just like some pilots regret the non-radio flying or the steam gauges panels. There is nothing wrong with that – Piper L4s, SuperCubs still fly superbly and will continue to offer hours of fun, just like aero-club bars. The social networking tools offer new possibilities to a new kind of pilots. Not better or worse, just different, and they answer the need for being a community. Join today.

PS: if you’re an aviation twitter or have an aviation-related facebook group or blog, don’t hesitate to leave a link in comment.

Even if some still doubt, it’s quite easy to explain the benefits of general aviation to any community. Freight transport, ambulance flights and TV relays are only a few examples out of many.

My question for this month’s poll is about the justification for light aviation. As pilots we often have to defend the aviation cause against airport neighboors, green integrists or others. The benefits of airlines and “heavy” general aviation (business jets, turboprops, …) are easy to explain, but how do YOU justify light aviation ? Which argument do you use to convince someone that light aircrafts and their pilots are good for a community ? There is obviously the training argument: even airline pilots start on light aircraft… but does this justifies the 100$ hamburger ? I’m really looking forward to your arguments and ideas in comments. I’m sure that we’ll all learn new ones and become more able to defend our passion.

Cockpit automation is good and I’m a big fan of it, as long as it comes with appropriate training. The first rumors about the Turkish accident in Amsterdam are quite scary, but they’re only rumors, so I don’t comment or relay them. But as almost all aviation accidents in recent history have “human errors” as contributing factors the question of planes is not out of context…

Military operations are often supported by remotely-operated Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) which can fly back and land autonomously if required. ILS category III approaches are nothing else than fully automated landings, and in comparison to approach and landing, take-off climb and cruise are not really an issue. Economical considerations aside, an airliner without pilot has one security advantage: computers can not be threatened by terrorists trying to take over airplane’s control. Other transport related industries already took this step: many tramway or underground trains are operated without drivers, not to mention terminal transfer trains at several airports. Automobiles are not yet fully automatic but some are already able to reverse-park by themselves.

So why not aviation ? Because of the major difference with terrestrial transport: planes can’t stop. The ultimate safety measure in automated ground transportation systems is always to stop the vehicle. If the computers or any other system fails, some separate safety mechanism brings the vehicle to a stop. The traffic regulation system then stops all following vehicles if it is not possible to overtake the stopped one. Stopping is never appreciated by the passengers and can be uncomfortable, but it’s much better than an high-speed accident. But planes can’t stop – they need speed to remain airborne. No speed, no lift. Continuing straight-ahead is not a solution, and flying a holding pattern requires some automation. Holding patterns are also not a long-term solution, and transferring a maintenance team on board while airborne is not exactly feasible. Some UAVs have parachute systems as ultimate emergency recovery system, but this is also not a sufficient warranty for an airliner…

System failure are only one part of the reason why I would not like a pilot-less plane, the second being the incredible creativity and adaptability of the human mind. Those who write aviation laws and regulations are not exactly light-minded or relaxed when it comes to interpreting the rules they create. But they’re clever enough to give final authority to the Pilot In Command (PIC). Being ultimately responsible for the safety of the plane, passengers and lives on ground, the PIC has the right to deviate from any published law, rule or procedures if deemed necessary.

This means that when major problems occur, which were not planned or imagined by anyone, the Captain is on his own… but with full freedom of act. Shall something like the Hudson River ditching occur over Washington, the pilot would be perfectly legal to land in the White-House’s garden if it is the only viable solution. Giving this freedom to the Captain is not always sufficient – accidents still occur – but it is the best that can be done. No automated system will ever be “creative” or “flexible”. Plane without a pilot ? No, thank you.