(Skip to main content.)

Blogs Quoderat Land and Hold Short

Land and Hold Short

Archive for February, 2006

The future of radio navigation in the U.S.

Saturday, February 25th, 2006

The U.S. government has released its 2005 Federal Radionavigation Plan [PDF, 74 pages]. Here is what they are proposing for each type of aviation-related navigation aid:

GPS
Will be the primary federally-provided radionavigation system for the foreseeable future. Will continue to work on augmentation, both through initiatives like WAAS, and by providing two new civilian signals, L2C and L5, to support special operations (like lifesaving).
Loran-C
Will continue to operate until the end of 2006, while evaluating long-term need. Promises at least six months notice if the system is going to be shut down.
VOR
Will phase down the VOR system (enroute and approach) beginning in 2010, based on anticipated decline in usage, but will still a “minimum operational network” (MON) of VORs as a backup to GPS.
DME
Will maintain the existing DME service to support RNAV systems. Plan to install more low-power DMEs to support ILS precision approaches.
TACAN
Will keep the air-based TACAN system until all military aircraft are properly integrated with GPS for national and international controlled airspace (not sure if this applies to all NATO aircraft, or just the U.S.). Sea-based TACAN will continue indefinitely.
ILS
Will reduce the role of Cat I (regular, 200 ft DH) ILS approaches as GPS precision approaches come in, beginning in 2015. ILS will still be available at major terminals.
MLS
Not installing any more systems. Will phase out existing installations beginning in 2010.
NDB
Most NDBs will be phased out, except for those that serve International Gateways, and those in Alaska (for LF airways, similar to the airways in northern Canada). Some may be kept for missed-approach procedures. Phase-down began in 2005.
Marker Beacons
Will be phased down, replaced (in many cases) with published DME distances, navigation waypoints, etc.

So, I’ll be good for IFR in my Warrior for a few more years without an IFR-certified GPS, but I’d better start a savings fund if I want to do precision approaches after 2015. It looks like the DME receiver in my panel will be useful for a while longer, though.

Some related postings

What province is Ottawa in, again?

Tuesday, February 21st, 2006

(Not about flying.)

By population, Ottawa is the fourth largest city in Canada (after Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver) and the second largest city in Ontario (after Toronto). Ottawa is also the nation’s capital, hosting the Parliament buildings (with the House of Commons and Senate), the Supreme Court, and not least, Rideau Hall, the governor-general’s residence.

This is information that every Canadian, at least, should know. So imagine my surprise at seeing the following headline from the Canadian Press: Gov.-Gen. Michaelle Jean decries youth alienation on first visit to Ontario. First visit to Ontario? To make things even sillier, she was welcomed to Ontario by its premier, Dalton McGuinty, who happens to be an MPP for a riding in … um … Ottawa.

Perhaps we’ll be hearing soon about U.S. President Bush’s first official visit to the Beltway.

V speeds

Sunday, February 12th, 2006

(kias: knots indicated airspeed; kcas: knots calibrated airspeed; ktas knots true airspeed)

V speeds [Wikipedia] are the critical performance speeds of an aircraft — while some of them are illustrated on the face of the airspeed indicator using lines and bands of different colours, a pilot is usually expected to be able to cite them from memory for each aircraft she flies, off by heart, backwards, while standing on her head drinking a glass of water. For example, my Warrior stalls
at 44 kias dirty (Vso) and 50 kias clean (Vs), best angle of climb (Vx) is 63 kias, best rate of climb (Vy) is 79 kias, and so on. Simply memorizing isn’t always enough, however, because of a couple of gotchas.

Gotcha #1: indicated vs. calibrated airspeed

The first gotcha isn’t usually too serious, but it’s worth keeping in mind when comparing different aircraft, and it becomes critically important for gotcha #2. All of the V speeds are given as indicated airspeed, so that the pilot can read them straight off the airspeed indicator. With the flaps up in the middle speed range, usually around Vy, indicated and calibrated airspeed are about the same; however, under other circumstances, it gives a distorted picture of how fast you’re actually going:

  • at lower speeds, indicated airspeed is almost always slower than the real, calibrated airspeed; for example, the Cessna 172p has a Vs (stall, clean) of 44 kias, but that’s actually more like 51 or 52 kcas — the plane’s not actually landing as slowly as you think it is, though the performance tables in the POH take that into account
  • at higher speeds, indicated airspeed is almost always faster than the real, calibrated airspeed; for example, the Cessna 172p cruises at about 111 kias at 75% power (120 ktas at 8,000 ft), but that’s actually more like 108 kcas
  • flaps distort the airspeed indication even more — dropping 10° flaps in the 172p at slow speeds makes the indicated airspeed read 9 knots slower than the calibrated airspeed

It’s easy to notice that these errors tend to work in the aircraft manufacturer’s favour — who doesn’t want a plane that lands slower but cruises faster? There may be other engineering reasons not to mess with the airspeed indicator, but it does not look like it would be difficult to design an ASI that shows something closer to the actual calibrated airspeed, at least with the flaps up.

Gotcha #2: weight, balance, and wing loading

Most of the V speeds apply only when the aircraft is being flown straight and level in coordinated flight at maximum gross weight with the centre of gravity (CG) somewhere in the middle of its allowed range. Shifting the CG has only a tiny effect on V speeds (typically a knot or two), but the other factors can play big.

Roughly speaking, most V speeds will vary proportionally to the square root of the aircraft’s weight. For example, if an aircraft stalls at 50 kcas at 2440 lb, it will stall somewhere around 46 kcas at 2000 lb. Here’s the formula, for anyone who’s interested:

sqrt(weight / maximum weight) * V speed

2000 divided by 2400 is 0.82, the square root of that is 0.91, and 0.91 * 50 is 45.5. Note however, that you have to do the math on the calibrated airspeed, not the indicated airspeed, to get this right, especially since the variation between the two gets huge near the stall speed.

This math works in your favour when you’re flying light, but it works against you in a turn. In a coordinated, non-descending 60° bank, the aircraft is double its normal weight, so a 2440 lb aircraft actually weighs 4880 lb. Running the same formula, the stall speed will be multiplied by sqrt(2), or approximately 1.4. If the aircraft normally stalls at 50 kcas, it will stall at about 71 kcas in that turn. Smaller bank angles still have a significant effect on stall speed, and can be especially dangerous while maneuvering right after takeoff or just before landing, when the aircraft is already slow.

Maneuvering speed

One place that the POHs do take this into account is the maneuvering speed (Va), the maximum speed for abrupt maneuvers, such as recovering from upsets in moderate or severe turbulence. Typically for light, non-aerobatic aircraft, Va is roughly double the stall speed (calculated using calibrated speeds), so that the wing will stall under a load of more than 4Gs (double the speed will lift four times as much weight, more or less). This is critically important not only for protecting lifting surfaces like the wings and horizontal and vertical stabilators from excessive loads, but also for keeping the engine from ripping off its mount though sudden accelerations. As a result, POHs generally give VA not as a single number, but as a range — for my Warrior, it ranges from 88 kias (89 kcas) at 1531 lb to 111 kias (108 kcas) at 2440 lb. Running the above formula on the 108 kcas at 2440 lb gives a result of 86 kcas at 1531 lb, which is 3 knots low, but pretty close.

Cutting speeds to increase safety margins

As mentioned earlier, nearly all of the V speeds actually work this way. Most of the time, pilots don’t have to worry, but if you’re flying in and out of short, obstructed fields, doing the math can be a huge help. For example, if you normally fly an approach with full flaps at 63 kcas at 2,440 lb, and your plane is loaded only to 1,900 lb, you can fly the approach at 56 kcas (don’t forget to convert to kias!) and shorten your landing distance without giving up your safety margin; likewise, if your Vx (best angle climb airspeed) is 60 kcas at 2,440 lb, you can climb out at 53 kcas and clear the trees by a few more feet. If you want to get above the turbulence quickly to keep from getting sick, you can adjust Vy down as well — if you normally climb out at 79 kcas, climbing at 70 kcas will get up higher, faster, at this light weight (though it might not let your engine get enough airflow for cooling).

Of course, if you have a long runway, no trees in the way, etc., you probably don’t need to worry about these calculations, since the published V speeds give you an extra safety margin. Just make sure that you don’t add an extra extra margin when you’re flying light — if your normal approach speed is 70 kias, the plane is lightly loaded, and the air is a bit rough, you already have about a 9 kt safety margin, so there’s no need to add another 10 kt and approach at 80 kias, increasing your landing distance even further. One reason that people claim that more powerful aircraft “float a lot” on landing is that those aircraft often have much higher maximum gross weights, so when a pilot is flying one of them alone (and thus, very light), he usually approaches way too fast.

Airliners and other larger aircraft make calculations like these for every flight. There is no fixed V speed to do a takeoff or landing in a 747, for example; instead, the dispatcher or a computer on board calculates the optimal speeds based on fuel, cargo, and passenger load for each trip. After all, for a 747, an 8,000 ft runway is a short-field landing.

Cirrus SR22 demo flight: initial impressions

Wednesday, February 8th, 2006

SR22 Instrument PanelI spent a bit over an hour today flying a spanking-new Cirrus SR22-GTS, courtesy of Easy Air Share, which is setting up a fractional ownership program here in Ottawa. I flew in the left seat with Floyd, a production test pilot from Cirrus, in the right seat. Here, as a counterpoint to a previous Cirrus posting, are some of my initial impressions:

Best feature:
electric elevator and aileron trim — I used it religiously to relieve control pressures.
Second best feature:
pilot-side door.
Most overrated feature:
the glass panel (it’s cool, but it’s more information than I really want when I’m flying, especially VFR).
Hand flying:
slightly more slippery than a Warrior, but after a bit of practice, it was no problem holding heading and altitude — the stuff people say about needing the AP to fly is BS.
Instrumentation:
I missed the analog altimeter and gyro compass (there was a backup altimeter at the bottom), but I got used to the tape display fast enough.
Landing characteristics:
slightly higher approach speed, but otherwise almost identical to landing a Cherokee or 172.
Power:
I’d like to be able to choose my own RPM on the CS propeller; the engine flew nice and smooth lean of peak, though.
Castering nosewheel:
no big deal, no big problem.
Sidestick:
no big deal, no big problem, except that it requires very small inputs compared to a Cherokee or 172.
Leg room in the back seat:
(tested on the ground) very spacious.
Autopilot:
smooth and well integrated.
Four-point harness:
extremely comfortable.
Sound system:
nice, but not a big deal for me.
Chute:
no opportunity to observe.

Would I mind owning a share of an SR22? Not at all. It feels like a great machine for long cross-country trips, and I know my family would love every second in it. But I couldn’t help thinking how much more fun that same flight would have been in my trusty old Warrior, slow speed, and all. I love working on computers; I don’t know if I love flying them.

Response to NAV CANADA Notice of New and Revised Service Charges

Monday, February 6th, 2006

NAV CANADA is proposing additional fees for small aircraft using Canada’s eight largest airports — these will be per-departure/day fees (i.e. a fee for each day that an aircraft departs from the airport). Here is NAV CANADA’s proposal, and here is COPA’s view. This posting contains a copy of my own written response, sent to NAV CANADA today. If you are interested in responding — pro or con — you still have until Friday 10 February to do so (for contact information, follow the COPA link).


6 February 2006

NAV CANADA
P.O. Box 3411, Station “D”
Ottawa, ON K1P 5L6
Attn: Assistant Vice-President, Revenue and Performance Indicators

Thank you for giving us an opportunity to respond to NAV CANADA’s Notice of New and Revised Service Charges. I understand that NAV CANADA is in a difficult situation, caught between pressure from carriers frustrated at paying the majority of fees for air traffic services, and pressure from the general aviation (GA) sector anxious to avoid fees that might force them out of aviation completely. I can see that a great deal of careful thought went into your plan, and that it is an attempt to balance both of those concerns in a fair way.

As a private aircraft owner, however, I believe that there are several points that raise serious questions about both the effectiveness and the fairness of the plan:

  1. The plan aims to be revenue-neutral by raising fees for GA flying from Canada’s eight major public airports while reducing fees for carriers; however, the plan also aims to discourage GA traffic from using the public airports that would generate additional fees. If the plan is successful in reducing traffic, however, you will receive less money than expected from GA daily usage fees. In this respect, the two goals conflict.
  2. The plan does not take into account the different natures of the airports listed. For example, Ottawa/Macdonald-Cartier is the home base for many small aircraft that, for the most part, operate from a separate runway and a separate part of the field; it should not be treated the same way as a congested airport like Toronto/Pearson. These differences suggest that reducing traffic at airports is not a reasonable goal for NAV CANADA – that should be left for individual airports to deal with, for example, by requiring landing slot reservations or imposing landing fees. Individual airport authorities are in a much better position to know their local needs.
  3. The plan is designed to encourage GA aircraft to use reliever airports in the cities listed, but at present, unlike in the United States, many of the cities listed do not have GA relievers with ILS approaches for low-weather operations. In line with NAV CANADA’s responsibility not to set fees that affect aviation safety, it is likely that the company would be obliged to commission at least one fully-operational ILS approach at an alternative airport for each of the cities listed (where one does not already exist). Ottawa and Halifax, for example, have no alternative GA airports with ILS approaches, while the ILS approach at Toronto/City Centre is extremely restricted (it requires RNAV, and does not allow jet aircraft).
  4. The primary purpose of air-traffic services in terminal areas is to allow air carriers to maintain their schedules — terminal air traffic services bring only limited benefits to light aircraft, who can easily function without terminal control units, ground control, or tower control, so it is not reasonable to require light aircraft to pay more than a small fraction of the fees.

Thank you for reading my comments. If you have any questions or require further information, please feel free to write, phone, or to send me e-mail.

Sincerely,

David Megginson