Land and Hold Short

Because of the accident record, the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) sent a letter to the FAA suggesting a temporary restriction on Cessna’s single-engine turboprop, the Cessna 208 Caravan, from flying into any known icing conditions worse than light icing. Now, the Canadian Transportation Safety Board (TSB) has issued a communiqué making the same suggestion (via aviation.ca). So far, the FAA, who has the final say for the American-certified plane, has not agreed.

The FAA is in a tight bind here. Many small freight and charter operations that used to fly twins (like the Piper Navajo) switched to the single-engine Caravan to save money because, like the piston twins, the Caravan is certified for flight into known icing conditions. Some of these operations might not be financially viable if they have to go back to the higher cost of twins, and all of them will be forced to sell Caravans at the same time into what will be a very depressed market.

The immediate impetus for this double pressure on the FAA is the fatal crash of a Caravan in Winnipeg in October 2005. John, a Caravan pilot himself, blogs about that crash here. For more information from the perspective of a freight dog flying a Caravan in icing conditions, read John’s other postings over at Freight Dog Tales.

Transport Canada has agreed to extend the U.S. Superbowl TFR into Canadian airspace. Here’s the NOTAM:

060014 CYQG WINDSOR PART 1 OF 2

CYQG DAH IS AMENDED AS FOLLOWS:

1) CYR540, WINDSOR ON, CLASS F RESTRICTED AIRSPACE IS ESTABLISHED WITHIN THE AREA BOUNDED BY A CIRCLE OF 10 NM RADIUS CENTRED ON 422025N 830243W (FORD FIELD, DETROIT MICHIGAN) OR THE YQG 305 RADIAL 11.1 NM, EXCLUDING US AIRSPACE. SFC TO BUT NOT INCLUDING FL180. NOTE THAT A SIMILAR TEMPO FLT RESTRICTION (TFR) AREA HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED IN ADJACENT US AIRSPACE. SEE US NOTAMS.

NO PERSON SHALL OPR AN ACFT WITHIN THE AREA DESCRIBED EXCEPT FOR STATE ACFT, MIL AND POLICE OPS, REGULAR SKED COMMERCIAL PASSENGER AND CARGO CARRIERS, HUMANITARIAN AND EMERGENCY FLTS SQUAWKING A DISCRETE TRANSPONDER CODE ASSIGNED AND AUTH BY CLEVELAND ACC (440) 774-0510.

WITHIN CYR540, THE RULES OF FLIGHT FOR THE EXISTING AIRSPACE STRUCTURE AND CLASSIFICATION APPLY, WITH THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTIONS.

ASSIGNED DISCRETE CODES SHALL BE SQUAWKED PRIOR TO ENTERING AND AT ALL TIMES WHILE IN CYR540.

ALL ACFT OPR IN CYR540 SHALL REMAIN IN TWO-WAY RADIO COMM AT ALL TIMES WITH ATS AND SHOULD ANTICIPATE POSSIBLE DELAYS.

2) CYR541, WINDSOR ON, CLASS F RESTRICTED AIRSPACE IS ESTABLISHED WITHIN THE AREA BOUNDED BY A CIRCLE OF 30 NM RADIUS CENTRED ON 422025N 830243W (FORD FIELD, DETROIT MICHIGAN) OR THE YQG 305 RADIAL 11.1 NM, EXCLUDING CYR540 AND US AIRSPACE. SFC TO BUT NOT INCLUDING FL180.

NO PERSON SHALL OPR AN ACFT WITHIN THE AREA DESCRIBED EXCEPT FOR STATE ACFT, MIL AND POLICE OPS, REGULARILY SKED COMMERCIAL PASSENGER AND CARGO CARRIERS, HUMANITARIAN AND EMERGENCY FLTS, OR IFR/VFR ACFT ARR OR DEP LOCAL AIRFIELDS WITHIN CYR541 AND TRANSITING CYR541.

Since when are commercial sports games a vital national security interest for either country? This pretty-much shuts down Windsor Airport to general aviation, and places restrictions on several other airports in the area. We faced similar restrictions here in Ottawa when President Bush visited a bit over a year ago, but the president is not even planning to attend the Superbowl.

Niss, who flies out of Barrie Airpark (CNA3), left this comment on my posting Should I buy or rent? (divide all prices by about 1.2 to get US dollars):

I am looking to buy a share in an aircraft. Right now at my local airport (CNA3) there is a 1966 Piper Cherokee 140 on the ramp. The owner is looking for $32500 and I am told that he might be interested in selling off 25% Shares. TTSN: 5693 HRs SMOH: 1917 HRs, cylinders were redone 400 hours ago. The broker that is selling it is my old boss and mentor at the airport, so I know the salesman and the owner are reputable. Also I am a student, am looking to go on to bigger and better things including my CPL and other rateings. What do you guys think this animal would cost in maintenace fees, etc? Would you say this is a wise decision for a student?

Niss - that sounds like a reasonable starter aircraft for VFR. If you want to go on and get your instrument rating, you should know that the panel is probably not in the standard T arrangement, unless someone has had it redone; you might also need to make some changes to the panel and add an alternate static air source if the plane is not currently IFR-ready. Neither of these should be a deal killer, but it’s good to be aware. Go for a test flight in the plane (you should pay for the gas, and the owner or broker should be with you) and see how you like it.

Before you plunk down about CAD 10K (including tax) for a 25% share, you need to have a thorough prepurchase inspection done by a mechanic who has never worked on the plane — that might mean bringing someone in for the day from Brampton, Markham, Peterborough, or another city nearby. Expect to spend at least CAD 1K on the inspection, maybe more if there are any areas of concern. Obviously, it would be nice to get all the 25% partners together first so that you have to do the inspection only once and can split the cost — otherwise, each will have to do his or her own inspection. A proper prepurchase will take a full day and involve a detailed review of the logbooks (including airworthiness directives and service bulletins), removing the cowling and all inspection plates, checking compressions, looking for corrosion inside the wings, etc. The plane will probably be put up on jacks, and if there are any concerns, the seats might come out as well to allow better access to the interior. You should also review the logbooks yourself to see how often the plane has flown (if it flies less than 100 hours a year, look at it carefully; if it flies less than 50, be concerned; if it flies less than 25, be *very* concerned), whether there is any damage history, and how often parts are replaced. When’s the last time the vacuum pump was replaced, for example? How old is the battery? How old are the tires? Are the gyros getting elderly? This might be too much to worry about for your first plane, but you can bet I’ll be checking if or when I buy my second — even if the individual parts are relatively inexpensive, it gives you a good idea of how well the plane has been maintained.

Remember that the time on the engine has a lot to do with the value of the plane. Including removal, shipping, and reinstallation, an engine overhaul for a Lycoming O-320 costs at least CAD 25K, maybe more like CAD 30K. Is the engine on this plane just about run out (2000 hours)? Has the engine been giving trouble and getting a lot of top work (new cylinders)? Are the compressions OK? The mechanic can help with that. Many people believe that a half-time engine (~1,000 hours) is the best deal — a brand-new overhaul done just to sell the plane might be shoddy, while a run-out engine will require you to take the time to do the overhaul and break in a new engine. Likewise, beware of any plane sold with a fresh annual — that has no value to you, since the seller will probably defer any marginal items.

Expect all the partners combined to spend about CAD 5K/year on maintenance, excluding engine reserve, if the plane is in good condition — that includes replacing radios, pumps, tires, batteries, starters, etc. as they fail. The plane will also need to be painted every decade or two, at a cost of over CAD 10K Some AMEs will let you help with the maintenance, reducing the cost a bit, but whether that’s a reasonable trade will depend on how much your time is worth. The problem is that there’s a lot of variability — you might pay $2,000 one year, and $8,000 the next. You’ll spend about $2,000/year on insurance, given the low airframe value, and gas and oil will depend on your flying (estimate about CAD 35/hour for gas, depending on where you buy it). Parking will depend on where you decide to keep the plane — you’ll want at least an electrical plugin if you plan to fly in the winter. A hangar can be expensive, but also much more convenient (and you can split it four ways).

Thanks to Paul Tomblin for pointing out that I managed to break comments with a clumsy attempt at customizing Spam Karma. They should be working again now, if you wanted to say anything about recent postings.

As most of you know, another Canadian Cessna Caravan has crashed, this time with passenger fatalities (including a small child). Here’s what the CBC article has to say about the Caravan’s safety record:

American authorities want the model of airplane to be grounded in colder weather.

The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board sent out three urgent safety recommendations to the Federal Aviation Administration last week about the plane’s handling in icy conditions.

One recommended the plane be grounded if conditions are determined to be “more than light icing.”

The ground where the latest crash happened was covered in snow but there is nothing linking the crash and the winter weather at this time, said Foster.

The CBC usually doesn’t do this badly. Let’s take it apart point by point:

• False: American authorities want to ground the Caravan in cold weather.
• False: the NTSB sent warnings about the plane’s handling in “icy” conditions.
• True: the NTSB recommended that the Caravan not be flown in worse than light icing.
• Irrelevant: the ground at the crash site was covered with snow.

The author got confused by the difference between “icing conditions” — a situation where airborne supercooled water droplets can adhere to an airframe — and “icy conditions”, such as when there happens to be snow and ice on the ground. “Foster”, the RCMP Corporal quoted at the end, does not (fortunately) make the same mistake.

As far as I know, there is no push to keep the Caravan from flying in cold weather. In fact, the NTSB would probably be much happier seeing it fly when the ground temperature is -20 degC under a clear sky than when it’s, say, 5 degC under a lot of low cumulus cloud. Anyone who flies IFR will know exactly what I mean.

Hamish has a posting that mentions how much easier DME arcs are with an RMI display.

Sometimes I feel lucky that I was never taught the official way to a DME arc during my instrument training. We have one nearby, but it just never came up. I flew my first DME arc alone in the plane in actual IMC, and because I was never taught to be stressed about it, it seemed like a simple maneuver. Here’s all I do in the arc itself (assuming that the DME and VOR are already tuned and identified):

1. turn perpendicular to the DME source (so that it is off one of my wingtips)
2. fly my heading until the DME hits about .2 to .3 miles more than the DME arc distance;
3. turn 5 or 10 degrees towards the DME source, and repeat (to allow for winds, turn more if the DME doesn’t start decreasing; less if it decreases too much; don’t let it get less that .2 to .3 miles less than the DME arc distance).

I have one VOR set up as a fence to tell me when to turn inbound, of course. Sometimes I twist the other one to see what radial I’m on, just to relieve boredom, but it’s really not a necessary part of the procedure. I guess that I use the DME as a kind of a digital CDI, and I’ve been happy with the results so far. With my technique, an RMI wouldn’t make much difference, but I can see how it would help if you wanted to track your radial all the way through.

I flew back from Washington/Dulles to Ottawa this morning as a passenger on an Air Canada CRJ. Things didn’t look promising — when I arrived at the airport after an early-morning drive in pouring rain, the ticket agent told me that the Montreal flight had been cancelled. Montreal and Ottawa are close, and usually share the same weather — soon I overheard other passengers saying that the problem was freezing rain, which suggests a (widespread) warm front, confirming my fears. Next, the gate agent announced that the flight was overbooked.

I’ve often heard overbooking announcements for other airlines, but in the 240,000 or so air miles I’ve accumulated on Air Canada, I’ve never heard it from them. Nobody volunteered to give up a seat, and in the end, no one was bumped, so it seems that the problem wasn’t a lack of seats. The captain was talking with the gate agent soon afterwards, and I overheard the phrase “because we have to go so far to the alternate.” So here we hit quandry #1: the captain (or dispatch) wants to pick an alternate well clear of the weather system, requiring extra fuel; however, the captain also wants to fly as light as possible, to reduce approach speed and landing distance on an icy runway. Loosing 400 lb of passengers + coats + luggage must have seemed like as good an option as any, even if, in the end, it didn’t fly (so to speak).

A short while later, the gate agent came on the PA and said that anyone who was on the Ottawa flight last night will have their bags checked on this one automatically. It turns out that last evening’s flight to Ottawa was unable to land because of the freezing rain, and flew all the way back to Dulles. So now, we have an icy runway at destination combined with the weight of extra fuel, a full plane, and lots of checked baggage. Once we were on the plane, the captain came on the PA and said that he recognized some of the passengers — it was the same flight crew that had to return the night before, flying many of the same passengers, so the pressure on the captain must have been far above normal.

Dulles was surrounded by thunderstorms and towering cumulus, but there was nothing too close to the airport, so planes were departing (though we did have a runway change and a 30 minute taxi). During climb (which was slower than optimal, due to the weight), we were in nearly continuous moderate turbulence, with uncommanded rolls left and right. We finally topped out the weather (mostly — we still hit the tops of some high clouds), and the irresponsible couple who had been too cheap to pay for a seat for their toddler had somehow managed to hang on to the poor, crying child all the way up.

All the while, the captain was coming on the PA giving us regular weather and turbulence updates, as well as warning us that we might not be able to land at Ottawa. I appreciated being informed, but I imagine that the main purpose was to relieve pressure on himself to complete the flight by involving us more in his decision making — I do the same thing with my (1-3) passengers in my Warrior. We weren’t long at cruise before the descent started. There was light with occasional moderate turbulence on the way down, but now, the real problem was the risk of severe icing. As long as the plane was moving fast, it was unlikely that ice would be much of a problem, due to heat generated by the air’s friction. However, now we hit what I imagine was captain’s quandry #2: a fast approach will reduce the risk of ice but increase the landing distance on an icy runway, while a slow approach will increase the risk of ice but decrease the landing distance. Neither one is a happy prospect.

On top of everything else, it turned out that we had a low ceiling. I didn’t see the ground (looking straight down) until about 400 feet AGL, and even then, it was intermittent — I started to wonder whether the flight crew would see the approach lights in time. They did, however, and we landed, using most of the 8,000 foot runway (lots of reverse thrust but little braking, as far as I could tell). There was still one problem, though — while the runway was OK, the apron was so badly iced up that it wasn’t safe to pull up to our gate (unless we wanted to crash the nose into the terminal building, like in the Airport movie). We waited for 10 minutes or more while ground crews worked on that, then gingerly taxied up and deplaned.

On my way out of the plane, there was a whole lot that I wanted to say to the flight crew. I wanted to tell them that I was grateful that they were making the hard decisions and checking and rechecking METARs, TAFs, PIREPs, etc., while I could just sit back and read. I wanted to tell them that I know what kind of pressure they were under to complete the flight, and that I thought they’d handled it gracefully. I wanted to tell them that they didn’t have to apologize so much for turbulence, because passengers don’t mind as much as pilots imagine they do (I’ll have to remember that one myself). I wanted to tell them that I knew that their margins were far thinner than usual, but that I still felt safe back in the cabin (though I couldn’t prevent myself from checking the wings for ice buildup, just out of habit).

There were other passengers lined up behind me, though, desperate to deplane, so I just stuck my head around the corner and said “Thanks — that was a rough one.” They both turned around, smiled, and then laughed. “Yeah,” said the captain.

Thanks to a posting by Paul Tomblin, I just discovered a new aviation Google-maps mashup. Normally, Google maps lets you switch among a map view, a satellite photo, and a satellite photo with map info superimposed (called a hybrid view). In this mashup, Runway Finder, an anonymous developer (”dave”) has added a view based on tiled and geo-referenced US sectional charts. So now you can go anywhere covered by US sectionals — including many Canadian cities — and zoom in or out, and switch among sectional, road map, and satellite views. Very nice. Unlike other free online sectional viewers, this one gives you a decent size viewing window, on top of all the Google Maps bells and whistles.

The site also shows airports near your current location, with colour coding for weather conditions reported in METARs, as well as TFR outlines. Unfortunately, all of this is available only for the U.S. right now (hint to dave: Paul Tomblin maintains a free database with worldwide airport, navaid, and intersection data). Looking at the sectionals makes me even sadder that the U.S. is the only country with the decency to make geodata and charts available free to the public — it would be nice if VNCs were available for full Canadian chart coverage.

One current shortcoming is that it’s not possible to bookmark a view and come back to it, but I’m sure that will be fixed soon.

One of the first questions that occurs to new pilots is this: buy or rent? A lot of people write about this question online and in print, and they mostly try to help you make the decision by opening a spreadsheet to figure out the cost of owning and operating a plane, dividing the cost by the number of hours you’re likely to fly, and then comparing that with rental rates. I took that approach before buying my Warrior.

That approach is completely useless.

When renting doesn’t work

I spent a few months as a renter after my plane was hit by lightning, and the experience reminded me why I don’t rent. Unless you’re willing to book weeks or (more likely) months in advance, you’re not going to be allowed to take a rental airplane away for a whole weekend, much less a whole week. If you are allowed to take a rental plane for that long, and the weather cooperates (remember that you cannot leave a day earlier or come back a day later), you’re usually going to have to pay a minimum fee — say, 3 hours/day — whether the plane flies or not.

That money adds up fast. If I rented a Cessna 172 for CAD 120/hour dry to fly from Ottawa to PEI for a week in the summer (about eight hours’ flying round-trip), my cost before fuel and taxes would be not CAD 960 for eight hours, but CAD 2,520 for 21 hours, even though the plane was tied down for most of that. Add about $300 for fuel, and you’re well over CAD 3,000 total for the trip. Of course, the odds of getting a 172 for a full week in the summer are so small that this is mostly hypothetical.

When renting does work

On the other hand, rental planes are almost always available for two or three hours, even on the weekend. If you want to just fly around the area to take friends up for sightseeing, or work on a rating, or fly with a buddy for a quick lunch at a nearby airport, renting works great, and you’ll save a lot of money over owning.

If one rental plane is down for maintenance, you can just take another one. If the plane makes a funny noise during runup, you can just taxi it back to the hangar and hand the problem over to someone else. If all you want to do is fly a plane the way your friends use their boats, a few hours at a time on nice weekends, then renting is a very low-stress solution.

Making the decision

So, if you’re a new pilot trying to decide whether to buy or rent, ask yourself this: do you want to do nothing but fly around the area on Saturday afternoons, or do you want to go places on overnight trips? If you want to do any non-trivial amount of travelling, even just a couple of family or business trips every year, you can put away your spreadsheet, because owning — either alone, in a partnership, or as part of a fractional ownership program — is really your only choice.

Owning is often expensive, but it does not have to be, especially if (unlike me) you’re willing to share a simple, slow plane with a few partners: 25% of a Cherokee 140 in a 4-way partnership will cost you as little as CAD 10,000 up front (which you’ll get back — less sales tax — when you sell), maybe CAD 2-3,000/year in fixed costs, plus fuel and engine reserve for each hour you fly. It will also, of course, cost you the headaches of ownership, including arranging maintenance, paying unexpected costs, changing oil, cleaning bugs, waxing wings, shovelling snow, finding alternatives when the plane is down for a few months for painting or engine overhaul, taking time off work to go to the shop, etc.

Airplanes aren’t like cars

It’s too bad that renting planes cannot be more like renting cars. Our family gets by with only one vehicle — we live near downtown, and when there’s a conflict and one of us cannot walk or take transit, we use VRTUcar (an extremely inexpensive shared car program — there are two parked a couple of blocks from my house) for in-town travelling, or we rent a car for out-of-town trips. The money we save from not owning a second car covers a huge part of the cost of owning our plane. Go figure.