Culture of Service

by Mark Baker
AOPA President and CEO
Published in Midwest Flyer Magazine April/May 2022 online issue

I OFTEN TALK about the programs, initiatives, and services we develop to maintain and protect your freedom to fly here at AOPA. But, like other successful organizations, our work on your behalf is only as strong as our team. We can only get the job done if we have the right people doing the right things in the right places.

However, it seems that everywhere you look, there are those who want to rob us of this freedom. Airports are under threat from uninformed politicians; laws are being enacted across the nation that are designed to be roadblocks in the sky; and airport neighbors are not being, well, very neighborly.

From the day I joined AOPA, I have been blessed to have an amazing team—with the talent, can-do attitude, and strategic approach we bring to the office every day.

It’s no wonder that among the more than 220 staff we have here at AOPA, the average tenure is nearly 10 years on the job. Give people a clear mission and vision, the tools to be successful, and the support they need—that’s a recipe for success, for employees and our members.

I must take time this month to recognize three special colleagues who will be moving on to their next chapters after long and successful careers here at AOPA protecting your freedom to fly.

Tom Haines

After 34 years at AOPA, Tom Haines has decided to retire from his role as senior vice president for media, communications, and outreach (see AOPA Pilot, April 2022, “Waypoints: And That’s the Way It Is,” p. 20, and “Milestones: Tom Haines to Retire,” p. 34). Tom has been a prominent face of AOPA and general aviation. He has been one of the industry’s April 2GA through a period of tremendous change and expansion. Under his leadership, Tom has guided and reshaped the group that brings you the story of general aviation through print, digital media, video, and events.

No doubt you have come to rely on Tom’s reporting on AOPA Live This Week, a program he helped develop. He certainly has been one of my go-to people during my tenure, and I thank Tom for his incredible and even-keeled leadership and expertise.

Melissa Rudinger

Also retiring from AOPA after 30 years of dedicated service is another familiar face: Melissa Rudinger. Melissa has served AOPA and the GA community in many important roles. She was a key liaison to the FAA in her government affairs position, protecting general aviation from overly restrictive policies in the aftermath of September 11, 2001. Melissa helped to enable the safe integration of drones into the national airspace system and advocated for the NextGen modernization initiative. Melissa also assembled a great team at the AOPA Foundation and put it in excellent shape for the future. A reminder that the AOPA Foundation funds important programs here: You Can Fly and the AOPA Air Safety Institute.

Many of you also know Melissa through her time as an AOPA Live This Week co-host with Tom. AOPA and the general aviation industry are better off today because of Melissa, and we wish her the best in her next chapter (see AOPA Pilot, April 2022, “Milestones: Melissa Rudinger Starts Own Company,” p. 35).

Ron Golden

One more person I’d like to recognize has served our members in a critical, but behind-the-scenes way. Ron Golden is retiring after 42 dedicated years at AOPA, most recently as our deputy general counsel. Over his decades of protecting your freedom to fly, Ron’s many accomplishments include helping to form and launch the AOPA Legal Services Plan, now with 73,000 members. Ron has represented AOPA and our members in state supreme courts, federal district courts, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and has defended general aviation rights in landmark cases.

A heartfelt thank you to Ron for his years of tireless devotion to AOPA, and for helping to protect our members’ cherished freedom to fly.

Tom, Melissa, and Ron are emblematic of the incredible team here at AOPA, and I will miss their daily guidance. The good news is that all three are active GA pilots, so I plan to still see them on the ramp!

Now don’t get me wrong. You don’t have to be “seasoned” to make an impact here at AOPA on members’ behalf. In fact, many great new people have joined the AOPA team over the past few months, and I’m excited to see how their contributions benefit the community.

Maybe that’s why we’ve only had five presidents in AOPA’s 83-year history. There’s nothing magical about the leaders, but there is something very special to the people who support them—and you.

mark@aopa.org          www.aopa.org         800-872-2672

Posted in AOPA, April/May 2022, Columns, Columns, Columns, From AOPA Headquarters | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

What Is The Value of Your Local Airport?

by Bob Worthington
© Copyright 2022. All rights reserved!
Published in Midwest Flyer Magazine April/May 2022 online issue.

Most non-aviation people view airports as being in two distinct different versions. Those which service the airlines and the much smaller county or municipal airports without commercial air service.

Many airports do not have a control tower. The larger airports with commercial air service are seen as necessities, because so many people fly today. The smaller airports are typically seen as noisy, catering only to local “rich guys” and their expensive toys. Few citizens realize how important their local airport is to the economy and wellbeing of the community it serves.

As too often happens, a local resident where I live (southern New Mexico) voiced his opinion (which was negative) decrying that our airport might grow because the city wants to provide commercial air service, turning it into “a noise-producing bane.” He called those who support our city’s general aviation airport a “miniscule-miniscule statistically insignificant number of folks.” These comments were published in a weekly community newspaper.

Our airport (KLRU), originally a World War II airport, is situated on 2,193 acres, eight miles west of the city on a mesa at an elevation of 4457 feet. The three runways (two are 7500 feet long and the other 6070 feet) provide six different directions for landing or departures. It has four instrument approaches (localizer, ILS, and two RNAV/GPS approaches). While non-towered, it does have radio-activated lighting for 24-hour operations. Due to our excellent weather (294 sunny days per year vs. U.S. average of 205 days), in 30 years of flying in and out of Las Cruces, I have only made one actual instrument approach. The airport does not offer commercial air service.

Working with the airport manager, I wrote a rebuttal to the publication, which had to be under 300 words. But thinking further, I realized the market of a small weekly newspaper does not have the reach of our US Today-affiliated daily newspaper. So, the following rebuttal is a longer “opinion piece” I wrote for my local newspaper.

What is the value of our
Las Cruces Airport?
by Bob Worthington

The Las Cruces, New Mexico International Airport was constructed during WW II as an auxiliary to support the Army Air Force bombardier training at Deming Field (50 miles west), long before any housing development near our airport. After WW II, the military released the airport for civilian use. Today, located on the West Mesa, 8 miles west of our city, it is a lifeline for residents of Las Cruces and significant as a regional general aviation airport, a vital part of the U.S. national air transportation system. While it does not offer commercial air service, it is a very active airport.

Our airport is home to over 120 business and private aircraft, supports 16 aviation-related businesses and seven non-profit organizations. They employ more than 83 full-time personnel (and several part-time workers).

Most of us use banks and shop in retail stores. Several are branches of state, regional, or national corporations which fly into Las Cruces monthly to support their businesses. State government officials conducting business here use our airport. Border security patrols fly from here. A New Mexico National Guard aviation unit is based on the airport. Military and cross-country transient planes stop here for refueling and food. Charter aircraft often use this airport providing transportation for local businesses (to include Spaceport America tenants) and catering to sports teams associated with New Mexico State University in Las Cruces.

Several airport businesses provide aviation fuel and aircraft maintenance services supporting southern New Mexico and west Texas.

LRU is also home to the New Mexico State University Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS or drones) Flight Test Center. It is one of seven FAA-approved UAS test centers in the U.S. Its mission is to define how UAS can be safely integrated into U.S. airspace. To accomplish this the Center has several UAS aircraft, air crew, technicians, and engineers, as well as a propulsion test facility.

COVID-19 has brought many medical facilities to the brink of capacity. People need emergency medical treatment every day and aerial medical evacuations allow patients to be transported quickly and safely to where proper emergency care can be provided. Our airport supports 4 to 6 medical evacuation flights every day.

The largest business on the field with 19 professionals is the air ambulance (helicopter) service. It alone, averages from 35 to 56 flights a month. It has its own maintenance facilities and back-up helicopters, and the parent corporation has medical transportation airplanes for longer flights. I am a very, major fan of aerial medical evacuation procedures because in 1968, in Vietnam, a military med-evac saved my life.

On-airport flight schools train pilots from around the nation as the sunny days are optimal for maximum flying without weather delays. Which is why the U.S. Navy conducted primary training here during the winter, in the past.

Our airport is not and never will be a noisy nuisance, but an essential economic, transportation, and medical necessity for which everyone benefits.

Airports are the lifeblood of aviation. Without airports, there is no flying. A member of our local helicopter ambulance service described it this way. “Without an airport, we could not exist. Yes, we land on highways for accident patients, and land at hospital helicopter pads. But we need an airport to base our operations, for fuel, for maintenance, and to place our back-up helicopters. Airports allow us to do our job.”

In my experience, if a local airport has no commercial air service, most residents have never visited their airport, nor do they understand how important it is to the local economy and their wellbeing because of aerial medical transportation. And the COVID in the past couple of years has limited any opportunities to promote the airport by offering aviation-related events (such as EAA fly-in breakfasts or air shows).

As owners and pilots, we need our local general aviation airports. We need to confirm their value to our community. We need to explain to our neighbors how important the airport is to all of us. Yes, we use it constantly for “touch and goes” or practicing instrument approaches, but it is essential to our local commerce and a medical necessity for everyone.

Summary

As pilots, working with airport management, you can use the above editorial piece as a template to write a similar piece for your local media. Work with your airport management to get the facts. Help your community to recognize how valuable their airport is to their welfare. Instead of being a noisy nuisance or playground for rich boys with their expensive toys, it can mean the difference between living or dying for a friend or loved one. Local small airports are the lifeblood for a community, even if the citizens do not know that. You can rectify that by penning an opinion piece. Share with your neighbors why their airport is of value to them.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Pilot, Viet Nam veteran and former university professor, Bob Worthington of Las Cruces, New Mexico, is the author of “Under Fire with ARVN Infantry” (https://mcfarlandbooks.com/product/Under-Fire-with-ARVN-Infantry/), and producer of the 2019 film “Combat Advisor in Vietnam” (www.borderlandsmedia.com). Facebook: Bob Worthington Writer. Website: www.BobWorthingtonWriter.com. Bob Worthington has placed excerpts about combat flying in Vietnam (from his books) on his website. Here is a direct link to those excerpts: www.BobWorthingtonWriter.com/combat-flying-in-vietnam/. Every couple of months, he adds another excerpt.

DISCLAIMER: The information contained in this column is the expressed opinion of the author and is not intended to be legal advice. Readers are urged to seek the advice of others, and refer to publications and resources available from local, state, and federal government, including the Federal Aviation Administration, as well as the Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association. Neither the author, Midwest Flyer Magazine, Flyer Publications, Inc., or their staffs, employees or advertisers assume any liability for the accuracy or content of this column or any other column or article in this publication.

Posted in April/May 2022, Columns, Columns, Columns, The Left Seat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Spring Hazards, From Bugs & Birds, To Old Liens

by Pete Schoeninger
© Copyright 2022. All rights reserved!
Published in Midwest Flyer Magazine April/May 2022 online issue

Q) A friend has offered to sell me his airplane at what I consider a fair price. He did mention that there is an old lien from a bank that went out of business 20-plus years ago, and that he was sure there would never be any repossession action. Should I buy it?
A) Not immediately! Don’t buy it until, and unless, you can get a clear title search from a title company or attorney. That snag on the title will be a significant hinderance when the time comes for you (or your estate) to sell the airplane, even if no repo company ever chases you. Sometimes, but not always, a title company or an aviation attorney can get a title cleared for you for a modest fee. Two good aviation attorneys who are contributing editors to Midwest Flyer Magazine are Greg Reigel and Ed Leineweber. Give Greg a call at
214-780-1482 or email greigel@shackelford.law, and Ed at 608-604-6515 or email eleineweber@leineweberlaw.com.

Q) I heard the original Piper PA-32 Cherokee SIX could legally carry seven (7) people, but the newer PA-32 models, Lance and Saratoga, cannot. Is that true?
A) The Cherokee SIX 260 and 300 models, and the Lance, can legally carry seven (7) people IF equipped with bench seats and IF weight and CG limitations are observed. Three people (none with big butts) sit in the middle bench seat, two passengers in the rear seats, and two up front. To the best of my knowledge none of the versions of the Saratoga had bench seats, so max people capacity is six (6) people. Note the Cherokee SIX was the father of the Lance, and the grandpa of the Saratoga. Whatever you do, when in doubt, never take a chance. It’s always best to be conservative when people’s lives are at stake.

Q) A trivial Cherokee SIX question. A friend said a very few early Cherokee SIX airplanes had fixed-pitch props. Is that true?
A) Yes, but their performance was not good. Constant speed props were a much better choice. I don’t recall ever seeing a Cherokee SIX with a fixed-pitch prop. Answers to these and other questions can be found online by searching PA 32 Type certificate and look at the FAA information that comes up and go to the end of the information and read “notes.”

Q) What preparation for tailwheel transition, if any, can I do in flying my Piper Archer?
A) Do your best to touch down on landing with NO drift, and with the longitudinal axis of your airplane exactly in line with the runway. Being able to do these two things will make tailwheel transition easier for you.

Q) Can you recommend any internet sites for armchair viewing?
A) I have enjoyed and frequently view the following sites: AOPA Air Safety Institute; Dan Gryder, search Probable Cause: Dan Gryder; Scott Perdue, search Flywire – Scott Perdue; Juan Browne, search Juan Browne Blancolirio.

Q) I’ve been looking for an older used four-place simple airplane, looking mostly at old C-172s and a few Cherokees. While on vacation far from home I came upon a Stinson with a Franklin engine for sale. The owner took me for a ride. That airplane has lots of room and is attractively priced. Should I consider it?
A) A major consideration if buying any airplane that is not brand B, C, or P, is, do you have a local or nearby mechanic familiar with them? If your local mechanic happens to be familiar with Franklin engines and Stinsons, it could be a serious consideration for you. (Remember, you will need a tailwheel endorsement if you do not already have one.) But if your local or nearby mechanics are not familiar with Stinsons, or whatever somewhat unusual airplane you are considering, it would be hard to go wrong buying a Cessna 172 or Piper Cherokee.

Q) Last summer, a friend had his J-3 Cub painted by a “shade tree” mechanic for a thousand bucks, cash! He calls it a “Hundred Foot paint job” because it looks OK from a distance only. The mechanic used school bus yellow equipment enamel, and just washed the airplane, then scuffed it very lightly, then painted it with two coats of that cheap yellow paint, using about 3 gallons. Then the owner flew it home and did the masking for the N numbers and lightning stripe that almost all J-3 Cubs have. Is that possible, or legal?
A) Yes, possible, but NOT recommended, and probably illegal. Most paint applications now require a properly vented spray booth, the FAA will recommend controls removed and balanced, logbook entries, etc. In short, don’t do it. But here’s a major FAA violation… If your friend flew the airplane home with no N number on it, that’s a big no no.

Q) I think you have answered this before, but how can I find ownership history of my recently acquired 1962 Piper Comanche?
A) Do an internet search for “FAA CD.” You can buy a CD from the feds for about $10.00 that will show chain of ownership since manufacture, as well as maintenance highlights.

Q) What kind of ground hazards should I watch out for this spring?
A) Different hazards to be aware of include insects plugging your pitot system, birds building nests in your engine cowling or tail area, soft/wet fields, and gusty winds when you are parked outside. Spring gusts can blow an untied airplane around on a ramp, so tie it down before leaving it parked!

Q) And how do I detect insects and birds?
A) For insects in your pitot system, as you start your take-off run from experience you know about when your airspeed indicator should come alive. If at that point you see no motion on your airspeed indicator, you might want to abort the take-off and investigate. Birds building nests will sometimes drop a few pieces of grass and poop as they enter your airplane.

Q) You told my friend when taking a neighbor for a ride over their house, try and do it toward evening. Why then?
A) Air is usually smoother mornings and evenings, than mid-day. Early morning flyovers might upset some neighbors, so I suggest evening flights are a good idea. Another good idea is to have your friend’s neighbor tell his neighbors to watch for them, rather than be surprised.

Q) What’s the best way to get good publicity for our local airport and its businesses?
A) Invite the public to come out to your airport by offering discounted rides and introductory flights, and sunset flights on the slowest day of the week (Monday?). Of course, fly-in breakfasts are always well received by the public or offer families the opportunity to seat in an airplane and tour maintenance shops, offices, and hangars.

Q) I am going to have to spend about $7,000 at my annual inspection on my 172M for propeller replacement (mine won’t pass overhaul inspection,) and a new alternator, and battery. How much if any will these changes affect the value of my airplane?
A) Sorry to tell you, the items you mentioned add almost nothing to value. They are maintenance items needed to be changed occasionally to keep the airplane in airworthy condition. Cosmetic items like new paint and interior, and avionics upgrades, will increase your airplane’s value somewhat, but not as much as they cost.

Q) How does the American Champion Scout compare to the Aviat Husky?
A) Salesmen for either will claim a better airplane. Overall, they are pretty similar – well-built, two-seat, fabric-covered, strong utility aircraft suitable for off-airport operations, available with 180 to 210 hp Lycoming engines. The Husky is built to newer FAR 23 standards, and the Scout has lineage back to the old Aeronca Champion (although there are huge differences). Both have good factory support. The Scout offers a lower retail price, and more fuel capacity. If you’re in the market for a rugged utility airplane, take a good look at both of them, then contact an owner or two of each for their feedback. You can’t go wrong with either. Huskys are made in Afton, Wyoming, and Scouts are made in Rochester, Wisconsin.

Q) Recently, I landed for the first time at a big airport with my flight instructor. (I am a new private pilot). On final approach, the tower switched runways on us, and we had to land on the huge runway airliners normally land on. We arrived okay, but with a good hard thud because I had a difficult time with depth perception. Any ideas on how to better gauge depth perception in this situation? Any tips?
A) This problem (depth perception on a big area) can occur on wide paved runways and is more frequently a problem on wide grass or snow-covered runways or when landing on lakes. What some pilots do is to make their last few feet of descent at a very gradual rate, and slightly nose high. You won’t know exactly when you are going to touch down until you do. This technique is very frequently used by seaplane pilots landing on smooth water.

Q) Of the three most popular “classics” (i.e. Piper J-3 Cub, Aeronca 7AC Champ, and Taylorcraft BC 12D), people tell me the Cub is significantly slower. Is this true? If so, why?
A) Yes, it is true. As I recollect from yesteryear flying those airplanes, a Cub will cruise at about 70 mph, a Champ at about 80 mph, and a Taylorcraft at about 90 mph, all with 65 hp engines. The Cub has two big drag makers; the others do not. The first is obvious – the eyebrow cowlings that stick out in the breeze and deflect cooling air over cylinders. The second is the big shock absorber system Cubs have that sit outside the cabin in the slipstream.

Q) A friend told me that there is a great book by a Cessna engineer about the development of various Cessna models from 1950 to 1985, but it is expensive. Do you know what he is talking about?
A) I suspect that’s CESSNA WINGS FOR THE WORLD by Bill Thompson. It is an excellent book detailing single model introductions, and subtle improvements. The author also includes a few funny flight test stories. If you have interest in Cessnas of that vintage, I highly recommend this book. Expect to spend around $100 for it in paperback. Expensive, yes, but the knowledge is priceless. (I bought my copy for 20 bucks 25 years ago!)

Q) To settle a bet, could you affirm my belief that the Cessna 175 was Cessna’s most quiet single-engine airplane? If you know anything about them, how about a brief description.
A) Yes, you are correct according to Bill Thompson, because the prop turned relatively slow, reducing prop noise. (See previous question.) The 175 was a unique airplane, powered by a souped-up Continental 0-300 engine. The engine normally produced 145 hp and was also installed in early 172s. Cessna and Continental got 175 hp out of that engine by upping the redline RPMs by about 500 to over 3200, but with the prop geared down to around 2400 rpms. Engine TBO was only 1200 hours. Many of the remaining model 175s have had engine changes, most to the 180 hp Lycoming, which improves reliability, increases TBO, and increases performance over the original 175 hp model. About 2,000 were built from 1958 to 1962, and available on wheels with options to install floats or skis. I did own one (with a new 180 hp conversion)…paid $10,000 in 1982. I should have kept it!

Q) Any comments on the rapid rise in prices of some used airplanes? Will it continue with the possible re-emergence of Covid?
A) If you own an airplane which has appreciated rapidly, you might want to call your insurance agent and consider raising hull value coverage. You don’t want to have a total loss (totaled) on your airplane (to say $100,000), only to find out that the settlement you receive from your insurance company will not come close to paying for a similar airplane, now for sale at perhaps $125,000. On the future direction of used airplane prices, I think in normal times prices would continue to rise given the very small number and high prices of new airplanes made. But I am not sure we are in for normal times, so I won’t hazard a guess on price direction. Old age, and too many wrong guesses about airplane price trends in my previous life, have turned me into a Wisconsin Chicken!

Q) I learned to fly in a 1970 Cessna 150. The fuel system was stone simple… it was either on, or off. Now I am checking out in a 1980 Cessna 172. It has a 4-position fuel valve, both on, both off, or left or right. What should I know about this?
A) When you position the fuel valve in that C172 to both, fuel can flow freely between the two main tanks like your Cessna 150. This is the most common fuel position to use. When parked, fuel will flow thru the fuel selector if in both position until the tanks are roughly even. If you park the airplane on uneven ground, fuel may flow from the higher tank to the lower tank, causing the lower tank to vent fuel overboard. In the new generation C172s, the checklist recommends placing the fuel selector away from both when parking the airplane and I think that’s a good idea to do in older Cessna 172s as well.
An incident I am aware of occurred when a fuel cap was not placed on the right tank of a Cessna. Most of the fuel vented overboard in flight, and as the fuel in the right tank lowered quickly, fuel in the fuller left tank flowed into the right tank, only to be sucked overboard as well. This happened on a flight of about an hour, and most of the 80 gallons or so onboard were gone. Had the pilot selected one tank, rather than both, the fuel in the left tank would not have flowed in the right tank.

Q) As a follow-up question, what airplanes have fuel quirks to know about?
A) Many do, and a pilot must know and understand them all to be safe. A couple of odd ducks: the old two-place Swift had two wing tanks, but only one filler tube, and it was easy to think you had completely fueled the airplane when the “other” tank still was not full. Some Bonanzas are placarded against taking off when there is minimum fuel in the selected tank. Some old Cessna 172s needed to be switched to a single tank upon reaching 5,000 feet. On Citabrias, the low point in the fuel system, which you should sample before flight, is on the bottom of the fuselage well behind the landing gear.

Q) A friend has a Bonanza and is going to put a turbine engine in it. What will he gain by doing so besides a big hole in his wallet?
A) Several things… For some, it is the “Machismo” sound of a turbine starting that will get all the airport bums to look at him. Performance-wise, the turbine engine with 100-150 more horsepower will provide a shorter takeoff roll and a stronger rate of climb than the piston engine it replaced. The airplane will be a little lighter because the turbine engine is lighter than the piston engine it replaces (that’s why the turbine engine must be mounted further ahead of the firewall) which allows a little more useful load. But there is no free lunch, as that turbine engine will suck lots more fuel per hour than the piston engine it replaces. So, in some situations, your actual range with reserve will be less with the turbine engine. To get good fuel economy in a turbine engine, you should get pretty high, which requires an oxygen mask, which many pilots and passengers don’t like. Some issues to be aware of with the turbine… It has happened that they are mis-fueled with aviation gasoline rather than the required jet fuel. Something else to be aware of is that at many smaller general aviation airports, mechanics will be familiar with the Bonanza airframe, but not the turbine engine if/when maintenance is needed.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Pete Schoeninger is a 40-year general aviation veteran, starting out as a line technician as a teenager, advancing through the ranks to become the co-owner and manager of a fixed base operation, and manager of an airport in a major metropolitan community. He welcomes questions and comments via email at PeterSchoeningerLLC@gmail.com.

DISCLAIMER: The information contained in this column is the expressed opinion of the author only, and readers are advised to seek the advice of others, and refer to aircraft owner manuals, manufacturer recommendations, the Federal Aviation Regulations, FAA Aeronautical Information Manual and instructional materials for guidance on aeronautical matters.

Posted in April/May 2021, Ask Pete, Columns, Columns, Columns | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

When Was The Last Time You Flew An ILS Approach?

by Michael J. “Mick” Kaufman
© Copyright 2022. All rights reserved!
Published in Midwest Flyer Magazine April/May 2022 online issue.

As our avionics continue to improve, many pilots have panel updates scheduled or in pro.ress, and in some cases, these panel updates cost more than the airplane cost when it was originally purchased. Among the updates are Global Position Satellite (GPS) instruments. And as a result, many of us have not flown an Instrument Landing System (ILS) approach in quite some time, because GPS approaches are much easier, as are transitions navigating from GPS en route, to a GPS approach.

I have been doing ILS approaches since I earned my instrument rating almost five decades ago, but they do have several shortcomings. The ground equipment for the ILS is very expensive for the FAA to install and maintain, while the equipment we need in our airplanes to successfully fly an ILS approach can now be purchased for under $1,000. Because the ILS ground equipment is so expensive from the government side, you’ll only find it at major airports and only for one or two runways. The major benefit of an ILS approach over a GPS approach are the lower “minimums.” As far as I know, there are no GPS approaches that have lower minimums than ILS approaches. And “zero-zero” ILS approaches require additional equipment and special pilot training.

To fly an ILS approach, we need an ILS receiver, which is usually part of old VOR and glideslope receivers. A new $70,000.00 panel upgrade will not do a better ILS approach than an old King KX-170 did five decades ago.

As pilots we need to know that there are a few shortcomings to both the ILS approach and GPS approach.

Some 20-plus years ago, I was returning from Florida in my Bonanza and checked the weather for my home airport at the time, Tri-County Regional in Lone Rock, Wisconsin (KLNR) and it was not good. The only approach available at that time was a VOR-A approach with high minimums. So, I decided to divert to Dubuque, Iowa (KDBQ) for the ILS 31, but that airport also had low Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC).

I was being vectored for the approach by Chicago Center as there is no approach control at Dubuque. I checked the Automatic Terminal Information Service (ATIS) and set my altimeter to 29.62 inches, then intercepted the localizer on a vector. The glideslope came alive, and I was on the approach. I always check my altimeter when crossing the final approach fix (FAF) against the published altitude on the approach plate. If this is not one of your procedures when flying an ILS or GPS approach, you could be a candidate for disaster. As I crossed the FAF on the glideslope, I realized I was some 360 feet below the published crossing altitude shown on the approach chart. Not good! Now on the tower frequency with a cleared-to-land clearance, I immediately declared a missed approach.

I then asked the tower for the current altimeter setting and was given 29.26. I must have set the wrong altimeter setting. I was switched back to Chicago Center and was given vectors for another approach. This time, everything checked out crossing the FAF, and I landed without further incident. I taxied to the ramp, turned off my avionics, and shut down the engine, but something bothered me… How could I have made such an important mistake? I decided to turn the radios back on and listen to ATIS again. What I found out was when the controller made the ATIS tape, he transposed the altimeter setting from 29.26 to 29.62. I called the tower and asked them to listen to the ATIS tape, which they did, and the controller acknowledged his error. If I had followed the glideslope correctly to published minimums without seeing anything, I would have been 160 feet lower than I thought I was – lesson learned!

Several years later while training a pilot for an instrument rating doing the same approach at the same airport, a similar situation occurred, but in VFR conditions. Again, I called the tower for an altimeter setting, but this time it matched what was reported on ATIS, so we landed. I figured it was another similar error, but after landing, the altimeter matched the touch down zone elevation. How can this be? So, I called the avionics shop, and they had us bring the airplane to the shop. The glideslope was out of calibration, so it was recalibrated, and everything worked correctly.

Every two years we have a pitot static, altimeter and transponder check done on our airplanes. When flying IFR using VOR for navigation, we as pilots must do a VOR check and log it in the aircraft records, but nothing is said about the localizer or glideslope. I learned that the localizer and VOR use different electronic circuits, and the VOR check means nothing to the localizer.

FIG 1 & 2

 

When we look at some of the differences between ILS and RNAV/GPS approaches, we need to be aware of the accuracy of the approach. To the surprise of many of you, the ILS approach, which has been around for about 75 years, is still the winner. We have implemented WAAS which has greatly improved the accuracy of GPS approaches, but it still cannot be as accurate as the ILS approach. This is due to the weather conditions, such as temperature and humidity that affect the radio signals from the GPS satellite. You may see notes on approach plates (FIG 1 & 2) that tell us the VASI may not align with the approach course, or the approach cannot be done if the temperature does not fall between the guidelines needed for obstacle clearance. As depicted, we can see a description of the two services, though both will provide an obstacle clear path to the runway.

A precision approach is an instrument approach based on a navigation system that provides course guidance and glidepath deviation meeting the precision standards of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Annex 10. For example, PAR, ILS and GLS.

An approach with vertical guidance (APV) is an instrument approach based on a navigation system that is not required to meet the precision approach standards of ICAO Annex 10 but provides course and glidepath deviation information. For example, Lateral Navigation and Vertical Navigation (LNAV/VNAV) and Localizer Performance with Vertical Guidance (LPV) are APV approaches.

When we fly the ILS approach today, it is the same as we did it 50 years ago; the difference being how we get established on the approach. We do not need to have a GPS in the airplane to fly an ILS approach, as we did not have GPS when the ILS was first developed. Once established on the inbound course, we fly using the localizer and glideslope, and from a previous article, if we are hand-flying the approach, we learn to dance on the controls to keep those needles centered, especially in turbulent air.

When we are being radar vectored for the approach, GPS is not needed, and it might be better not to use any GPS for reference. I will explain later.

During the radar vector, the controller will specify, or should specify, that this is a “vector for the approach” and will specify the runway on the first vector the controller gives you. The last vector will include an altitude and heading until established, along with the approach, again for pilot verification. This requires a total readback from the pilot… heading until established, altitude and the name of the approach.
When we are going to be flying an ILS approach with radar vectors and without using GPS assist, there are some “gotchas” to remember.

Before GPS, I had a lot of fun with instrument students on this type of approach. There are false signals from the localizer and glideslope that will trick the pilot into thinking they are on the proper signal (FIG 3), so you must fly to the Initial Approach Fix (IAF) and positively identify it, then fly the charted approach as depicted on the approach chart. If you are using GPS assist and flying the full approach with a course reversal, you will not even be aware of these false signals because you are in GPS mode on your navigator.

It is important when either loading the approach or activating the approach the first time, to make sure you load the “ILS frequency” from the standby window to the active window on the navigator.

I recommend that pilots go to settings on their navigator while on the ground and select the option to manually switch from GPS mode to VLOC mode for ILS approaches. The GPS does a much better job of getting the airplane correctly established on the inbound course, as the “auto switch” occurs once inbound on the procedure turn. Autopilots flying roll steering (GPSS) do a much better job getting established on the inbound course than trying to capture a localizer signal in VLOC mode.

The last configuration on flying an ILS approach, which I mentioned earlier in this article, is using GPS assist when getting radar vectors and why this could fool you if you are unaware of how it works.

You have been told by air traffic control (ATC) that you are getting radar vectors for the ILS approach, so you load the approach, put the ILS frequency in the active window and then select “vectors to final” on your GPS navigator. ATC starts vectoring you and suddenly you notice that your navigator shows “suspend,” kind of like when in a holding pattern. This does not always happen as it depends on where you are in relation to the inbound approach course. As you follow the vectors from ATC, you notice the navigator is still in suspend and you know that pushing the OBS button takes you out of suspend. It is tempting to push that button, but don’t do it, as it will come out of suspend automatically at the proper time. Pushing the OBS button will cause the box to sequence to the next waypoint and this would be bad.

Remember, when using the GPS navigator on vectors to final, there will be no magenta line to follow until on the inbound approach course.

In conclusion, go ahead and fly the ILS approach when offered to help you stay current. Better yet, practice with a safety pilot or instructor before you tackle it in IMC. It is not difficult to do, though there are a few more steps involved than sitting back and just watching the airplane fly the GPS approach with no pilot input.

Stay safe and train often with an experienced instructor.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Michael J. “Mick” Kaufman is a Certified Instrument Flight Instructor (CFII) and the program manager of flight operations with the “Bonanza/Baron Pilot Training” organization. He conducts pilot clinics and specialized instruction throughout the U.S. in many makes and models of aircraft, which are equipped with a variety of avionics. Mick is based in Richland Center (93C) and Eagle River, Wisconsin (KEGV). He was named “FAA’s Safety Team Representative of the Year” for Wisconsin in 2008. Readers are encouraged to email questions to captmick@me.com or call 817-988-0174.

DISCLAIMER: The information contained in this column is the expressed opinion of the author only, and readers are advised to seek the advice of their personal flight instructor and others, and refer to the Federal Aviation Regulations, FAA Aeronautical Information Manual, and instructional materials before attempting any procedures discussed herein.

Posted in April/May 2022, Columns, Columns, Columns, Instrument Flight | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Age-Related Macular Degeneration

by Dr. Bill Blank, MD
© Copyright 2022. All rights reserved!
Published in Midwest Flyer Magazine April/May 2022 online issue

Age-Related Macular Degeneration (ARMD) is a major cause of visual loss. It affects approximately 11 million Americans. Its incidence gradually increases with age to 12% in people 80 and older. The macula is the central 2% of the retina. Whenever we look directly at something, we are using our macula. It gives us sharp, central vison for fine detail, color, and contrast. We need a healthy macula to be able to read. ARMD only affects central vision. Peripheral, or side vision is preserved. People with severe ARMD can be legally blind, but will be able to function at a reduced level because their peripheral vision is normal. They will never progress to being unable to detect light.

There are 2 forms of ARMD, dry and wet. The dry is much more common, 90% of the cases. The dry form leads to a slow deterioration of the retinal cells, the cones, of the macula with a gradual deterioration of central vision. The wet form is caused by the growth of tiny new blood vessels (neovascularization) into the macula from behind. These blood vessels tend to leak fluid and blood into the macula, leading to serious distortion and loss of central vision. This growth can occur quickly.

Symptoms of ARMD are related to the functions performed by the macula. They include blurred vision, central vision impairment, visual distortion, poor vision in low light, loss of contrast sensitivity and alterations in color vision perception. Progression can be slow and insidious with the dry form and quite rapid, a few hours to a few days, with the wet form. Risk factors include age, heredity, SMOKING, high blood pressure, hardening of the arteries and obesity. Exposure to ultraviolet light may also be a factor. You can see by looking through this list what you can do to decrease your likelihood of developing ARMD or decreasing its severity.

What treatments are available? Dry ARMD is essentially a result of aging. We are trying to slow down aging. Several years ago, the National Eye Institute did two studies called AREDS 1 and 2 for Age Related Eye Disease Studies. The purpose was to determine if preventative treatment with various antioxidant vitamins, minerals, and dietary supplements would be helpful. The studies showed that under limited circumstances, these supplements slowed progression to severe disease in some cases. These supplements are available over the counter under the names AREDS 1 and AREDS 2. AREDS 2 is for smokers. They should not take AREDS 1. The FAA permits these supplements.

Wet ARMD is thought to be caused by something called Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF). The goal is to inactivate it. This is done with intraocular (inside of the eye) injections into the vitreous of anti-VEGF medications and steroids. This is done as an outpatient. The frequency of injections depends upon the response. They are particularly helpful in stabilizing the condition.

Will the FAA certify anyone with ARMD? Yes, sometimes. An AME must defer anyone with significant dry or wet ARMD. The FAA will require a Special Issuance for anyone whose ARMD is beyond the early, mild stage. A complete ophthalmological exam will be required. Specific tests will be needed. Intraocular (intra vitreal) injections are approved. There is a 24-hour no fly period after the injection. With close monitoring, these injections have permitted pilots to continue to fly in spite of the disease and enjoy useful vision. In all cases, the airman must meet the visual standards for the class of medical certificate desired. 20/40 for distance and near, best corrected, or uncorrected in each eye is required for Third Class. First and Second Class need 20/20 for distance and 20/40 for near and sometimes for intermediate distances. Again, this apples to each eye. The frequency of follow-up for continued Special Issuance depends upon the individual case. I hope that none of you develop ARMD, but if so, there is hope.

Happy flying!

EDITOR’S NOTE: Columnist William A. Blank is a physician in La Crosse, Wisconsin, and has been an Aviation Medical Examiner (AME) since 1978, and a Senior AME since 1985. Dr. Blank is a retired Ophthalmologist, but still gives some of the ophthalmology lectures at AME renewal seminars. Flying-wise, Dr. Blank holds an Airline Transport Pilot Certificate and has 5600 hours. He is a Certified Instrument Flight Instructor (CFII) and has given over 1200 hours of aerobatic instruction. In addition, Dr. Blank was an airshow performer through the 2014 season and has held a Statement of Aerobatic Competency (SAC) since 1987.

DISCLAIMER: The information contained in this column is the expressed opinion of the author only, and readers are advised to seek the advice of others and refer to the Federal Aviation Regulations and FAA Aeronautical Information Manual for additional information and clarification.

Posted in April/May 2022, Columns, Columns, Columns, High On Health | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Address Airmen Give To The FAA Matters: Make Sure It Is Correct

by Gregory J. Reigel, Esq.
© Copyright 2022. All rights reserved!
Published in Midwest Flyer Magazine April/May 2022 online issue.

The FAA wants to be able to track you down. Why? Aside from the obvious compliance and enforcement reasons, the FAA also wants to keep airmen informed of seminars (e.g. Wings programs, etc.), to request input from airmen regarding local issues (e.g. airspace design, airport closure, etc.) and to provide airmen with any other aviation safety information it feels is beneficial or necessary. As usual, it accomplishes this goal through the Federal Aviation Regulations (“FARs”).

The Regulation

FAR §61.60 requires that airmen keep the FAA informed of their permanent mailing address. (A similar regulation applying to airmen other than flight crewmembers is found at FAR §65.21.) Specifically, FAR §61.60 prohibits an airman from exercising the privileges of his or her certificates if the airman has failed to provide the FAA’s Airman Certification Branch with a new permanent mailing address within 30 days of changing his or her permanent mailing address.

The change of permanent mailing address may be reported to the FAA via U.S. Mail or via the internet. If via mail, the notification must be sent to FAA, Airman Certification Branch, P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125. If via internet, airmen should go to the FAA’s website here, where a form may be completed to notify the FAA of a change in permanent mailing address.

When an airman cannot provide a permanent residence address (e.g. where the person resides in a motor home or is in the process of moving), it is permissible for the airman to use his or her parent’s or friend’s permanent address as the airman’s permanent address. This is frequently the case with newly hired airline pilots who are domiciled out of a different city from the city in which they will ultimately reside when they acquire enough seniority to hold the appropriate schedule.

Some airmen attempt to simplify compliance with this regulation by disclosing a post office box as the permanent mailing address. That way, so the argument goes, the airman can move as much as he or she wants without having to provide notice to the FAA with each move. This is a nice idea, in theory. Unfortunately, the regulation accounts for this scenario and requires the airman to also provide his or her current residential address if a post office box is disclosed as the permanent mailing address.

FAR §61.60 does not specifically ask for your “residence” or where you live, except when you are using a post office box for a permanent mailing address. Also, the regulations do not define “permanent mailing address,” or “residential address” for that matter. However, the reasonable implication of FAR §61.60’s requirement is that the FAA wants an address where it knows that information mailed by it to that address will be received by the airman. For most airmen, this address is where they live.

Consequences of Non-Compliance

A failure to comply with FAR §61.60 usually presents in one of two situations. First, the issue may come to light during the course of a ramp check or check-ride conducted by an FAA inspector/examiner when he or she compares the addresses on an individual’s airman and medical certificates and the driver’s license or other government identification, which airmen are required to carry when flying. Inconsistent addresses on the documents may lead an FAA inspector to confirm the address on file with the FAA to determine which address was current and whether it matched the FAA’s records. If the airman’s current permanent mailing address does not match the FAA’s records, the airman is technically in violation of FAR §61.60.

However, it is unclear what sanction the FAA may seek to impose for a violation of FAR §61.60, if any. A review of the Sanction Guidance Table in FAA Order 2150.3C does not disclose a specific reference to FAR §61.60. Further, a quick search of National Transportation Safety Board (“NTSB”) reported cases does not reveal any reported cases in which the FAA has pursued enforcement action against an airman for violation of FAR §61.60.

This isn’t to say that the FAA will not or cannot pursue enforcement action for a violation of FAR §61.60. It simply means that if the FAA pursued an action, we don’t have any clear guidance as to what sanction the FAA would seek to impose. Depending upon the circumstances, the sanction sought could be anywhere from a minimal suspension, up to revocation.

Second, the consequences of violating FAR §61.60 often appear in enforcement actions arising from unrelated FAR violations. Many airmen have suffered suspensions and revocations for unrelated FAR violations without the benefit of a hearing or appeal as a direct result of their failure to comply with FAR §61.60. How does this happen?

Well, in order to initiate an enforcement action against an airman, the FAA must serve the airman with a “notice of proposed certificate action” (“NPCA”) or “notice of proposed civil penalty” (“NPCP”). This NPCA/NPCP offers an airman several alternatives for responding to the NPCA/NPCP and the airman must choose and pursue one of the alternatives within 20 days. If the FAA does not receive a timely response from the airman (in this case because the airman was unaware of the NPCA/NPCP because it went to the airman’s address of record with the FAA which was no longer current), then the FAA will simply issue an order imposing the sanction sought in the NPCA/NPCP.

When the FAA mails an order of suspension, revocation, or civil penalty to an airman via certified mail, service is effective on the date of the mailing. An airman must appeal an order within a specified period of time (20 days for a non-emergency order and 10 days for an emergency order or 2 days for appeal of an emergency determination), otherwise the order becomes final and un-appealable. (Of course, if the airman did not receive the NPCA/NPCP because of the incorrect address, more often than not the airman will not receive the order either.)

If an airman later learns of the FAA’s order and attempts to appeal the order, unless unusual circumstances are present, the airman’s appeal will likely be denied. NTSB precedent holds that when the FAA mails the order to the airman’s permanent address on file with the Airman Certification Branch, the use of such address constitutes constructive notice. As a result, if the FAA has provided constructive notice to an airman, the NTSB deems that the airman has received notice, whether the airman has actually received the NPCA/NPCP/order or not.

If the airman failed to keep the FAA informed of a change of his or her permanent mailing address, the airman will not be able to argue on appeal that he or she never received proper service. According to the NTSB, “[c]ertificate holders must ensure that they keep their official records, to include a permanent address of record at which they may receive official correspondence regarding their certificates, current.”

Further, failure to receive an order that was sent to the most current permanent mailing address contained in the FAA’s record, does not constitute “good cause” that would excuse the untimely filing of an appeal. The NTSB has rejected, and continues to reject, arguments of “good cause” based upon an airman’s failure to receive the mail when his or her permanent mailing address differs from the one contained in the FAA’s records.

The FAA and NTSB expect that the airman will check that address for FAA mail, especially if the airman was on notice of an investigation or aware that a NPCA could be sent. Airmen need to take steps to ensure that they are promptly notified of any mail from the FAA. If an airman is unable to check the mail regularly, the airman should have someone he or she trusts check it for the airman.

Conclusion

Like it or not, airmen need to make sure the FAA knows where it can reach them. Not only does FAR §61.60 require it, but it also makes good sense. The FAA does, on occasion, send airmen aviation safety information that is beneficial and unrelated to compliance and enforcement. And, if you are involved in an enforcement investigation, you probably want to make sure that the FAA sends things to an address where you know you will receive them so you can preserve your rights and respond in a timely manner. After all, if the FAA wants to pursue an action against you and it uses the current address it has in its records, it can do so whether you actually receive its order or not.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Greg Reigel is an attorney with Shackelford, Melton, McKinley & Norton, LLP, and represents clients throughout the country in aviation and business law matters. He has more than two decades of experience working with airlines, charter companies, fixed base operators, airports, repair stations, pilots, mechanics, and other aviation businesses in aircraft purchase and sales transactions, regulatory compliance including hazmat and drug and alcohol testing, contract negotiations, airport grant assurances, airport leasing, aircraft-related agreements, wet leasing, dry leasing, and FAA certificate and civil penalty actions. For assistance, call 214-780-1482, email: greigel@shackelford.law, or Twitter @ReigelLaw (www.shackelford.law).

Posted in April/May 2022, Aviation Law, Columns, Columns, Columns | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Aviation Leaders Deserving of Recognition

by Dave Weiman
Published in Midwest Flyer Magazine April/May 2022 online
issue.

In this issue, you will read articles recognizing the accomplishments of several aviation leaders who have recently retired. First, Randy Van Natta and Archie Becher have semi-retired and sold their engineering firm, Becher-Hoppe, to their employees. Second, my colleague, Tom Haines, has likewise decided to retire as Editor in Chief of AOPA Pilot magazine, along with Melissa Rudinger and Ron Golden, also of AOPA. Third, Michimasa Fujino, President, CEO and Founder of Honda Aircraft Company, has retired. I will miss working with these top-notch professionals and wish them well in retirement.

If these aviation leaders have not yet been inducted into their respective state aviation halls of fame, or named aviation persons of the year, they should be. But unfortunately, unless someone takes the time to nominate them, they could be passed up and forgotten.

State aviation halls of fame seek nominations, but they are not always on the lookout for deserving individuals and tend to wait for someone to nominate them. While the process of nominating individuals varies somewhat from state to state, it requires selflessness and a considerable amount of time on the part of the nominator. You must gather the information on the individual and solicit letters of support, and some states select nominees based more on the “quantity” of support letters, than on the “qualifications” of the individual, and standards are sometimes lowered.

To help ensure that only the most deserving individuals get nominated, I urge the selection committees not to wait for nominations to come in, but rather seek out and identify deserving candidates. And rather than lower the standards, state aviation associations (i.e., airports, pilots, fixed base operators) should consider creating an “Aviation Person of the Year Award” for those individuals who may have made a significant contribution to aviation, but who might not be deserving of hall of fame recognition. These awards can be presented at the annual state aviation conferences.

Posted in April/May 2022, Columns, Columns, Columns, Dialogue | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Phase Two of the Minnesota State Aviation System Plan Update Is Underway

Junior Lindsay
Planning Program Coordinator
MnDOT Aeronautics
Published In The Midwest Flyer Magazine February/March 2022 Online Issue

The Minnesota Department of Transportation is updating the Minnesota State Aviation System Plan. The MnSASP documents the performance of the current aviation system and provides guidance for the future development of aviation in Minnesota.
The MnSASP is the aviation part of MnDOT’s Family of Plans. It will help achieve the Minnesota GO 50-year Vision that outlines what Minnesotans desire from the state’s transportation system and identifies key guiding principles MnDOT strives to achieve.

The MnSASP is being updated in two phases. Phase One was completed in 2019, and included an extensive Public Involvement Plan, an assessment of the 2012 SASP, identifying and analyzing trends that will impact aviation, identifying airport/system performance metrics, defining objectives, documenting inventory needs and other elements.

Phase One’s Public Involvement Plan resulted in several recommendations that will carry into the Phase Two effort, including reviewing trends, white papers and recommendations received from the aviation community through public outreach.

The Statewide Airport Economic Impact Study was also part of the Phase One update. The study analyzed the annual economic impacts generated by 126 of Minnesota’s 133 public airports. Data from the study was then used to develop an airport economic impact calculator to estimate how airport businesses and projects benefit local economies.

Phase Two of the MnSASP is underway now. It involves reviewing the results from Phase One, analyzing policy issues facing the state aviation system, acquiring and managing data to develop a MnSASP database and display dashboard, publishing a report of the MnSASP and developing a continuous implementation plan.

Throughout Phase Two, MnDOT will continue to solicit input and feedback through several focus area working group meetings that concentrate on specific areas of Minnesota aviation. During these working group meetings, MnDOT, FAA, airports, municipalities, and other stakeholders across Minnesota will work to identify opportunities for improvement and concerns with Minnesota’s aviation system.

Policy issues that are currently being analyzed include hangar availability and funding, airport entry/closures and crosswind runways. Results from these reviews, as well as feedback from the working groups, will be used to inform MnDOT Aeronautics guidance documents being developed now.

Additionally, the data produced by the MnSASP will assist airport managers, operators, owners, local and state businesses, aircraft owners, and the public by allowing for better planning and policy that continues to support a high performing aviation system that benefits all Minnesotans.

The MnSASP update is expected to be completed in spring 2022. To stay up to date about the State Aviation System Plan Update, visit the State Aviation Plan website.

To learn more about MnDOT’s activities, you can contact MnDOT at aviationplanning.dot@state.mn.us.

Posted in Columns, Columns, Columns, February/March 2022, MN Aeronautics Bulletin | Tagged , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

Major Attractions At EAA AirVenture Oshkosh 2022

Published In Midwest Flyer Magazine February/March 2022 Online Issue

OSHKOSH, WIS. – The 75th anniversary of the U.S. Air Force will be one of the highlights of EAA AirVenture Oshkosh 2022, the 69th edition of EAA’s annual fly-in convention, July 25-31 at Wittman Regional Airport in Oshkosh, Wisconsin.

“At Oshkosh in 2022, we aim to showcase the memorable history of the Air Force, from its initial post-World War II era to the impressive personnel, aircraft, and technology of today,” said Rick Larsen, EAA’s vice president of communities and member programming, who coordinates AirVenture features and attractions. “The Air Force’s presence at AirVenture also helps spark inspiration among today’s youth toward the innovations and possibilities available to them through aviation.”

Specific activities and aircraft will be announced as they are finalized, but will include fly-bys, static displays, and presentations throughout AirVenture week, including evening programs at EAA’s Theater in the Woods. Some of the aircraft will also fly as part of the daily air shows that are always favorites among AirVenture attendees.

The U.S. Air Force was created on September 18, 1947, as part of the National Security Act, which established a separate military air branch and put all military branches under a new Department of Defense. It recognized the importance of military air operations and separated it from the former Army Air Forces while naval aviation operations remained separate.

U.S. military air operations date back to the Civil War when balloons were first used as reconnaissance platforms. In the early 1900s, the Army’s Signal Corps was tasked with “all matters pertaining to military ballooning, air machines and all kindred subjects.” The first aero squadron, as it was then known, became active in 1913 and saw its first combat duty in 1916.

Today, the Air Force has more than 325,000 personnel and more than 5,000 aircraft. The Air Force also has incorporated an increasing number of unmanned aerial systems as part of its inventory and continues development of new aerial technology to meet current operational demands.

Posted in EAA & AirVenture, February/March 2022, Sections, Sections | Tagged , , , , , | 10 Comments

Aerospace Center of Excellence Appoints New Executive Director

Published In Midwest Flyer Magazine February/March 2022 Online Issue

LAKELAND, FLA. – The Aerospace Center of Excellence (ACE) has announced the appointment of Daryl Price as its new Executive Director. An experienced business leader and aviation professional, Price will succeed Ed Young effective September 20th.

Relocating from Appleton, Wisconsin, Price will immediately begin having a direct impact on the ACE campus. After building and providing executive leadership to DJParagon, LLC for 22 years, his impact at ACE will be evident. DJ Paragon is a world-class training and technology company specializing in strategic and tactical business integration and training of technical, operational, and mission-critical business process systems. Leading the way, he developed and managed a world-class business training and technology company from inception to $18 million in annual revenue with 34 leading-edge emerging technology/data engineers and a customer presence throughout the U.S. and 17 foreign countries.

ACE President and CEO, John “Lites” Leenhouts states, “Daryl comes with a wealth of experience and knowledge, that partners exquisitely with a very engaging personality, all of which will be instrumental in leading our ACE Team as we bring the SkyLab Innovation Center to life.”

The Aerospace Center of Excellence is a 14-building aerospace STEM facility located on the SUN ‘n FUN Expo Campus. ACE has vibrantly created a vision of building a brighter future through aerospace and aviation.

Posted in Education, February/March 2022, Sections, Sections | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment