Flying

Mountain Checkout

I did my pilot licence training in Kelowna, British Columbia. As such, there was some mountain training intermixed with the rest of my training because unless you head directly south from Kelowna, you’re gonna run into some mountainous terrain. Even the terrain directly surrounding the Kelowna Airport, though nowhere near as high as the Rockies, is somewhat intimidating. Despite my past training and experience, when I switched clubs a few years ago and started flying out of the Calgary Flying Club, I was told that a mountain checkout from the club was needed before any flights into the mountains would be permitted. And I understand; it’s an insurance requirement. But I’ve been trying to get that done now for the past two years. I have a regular instructor at the club and I have been insisting on doing it with him, which has made it hard given my busy schedule and his constant training with students there at the Club.

As it turns out I haven’t really wanted or needed to fly out west so it hasn’t been a burden. But, this coming Monday, weather permitting, it’s going to happen. CFC instructor Jason and I will be flying to Invermere (CAA8) in the Club’s Cessna 182P, via the Trans Canada Highway.
[…]

Poorly Designed Online Apps

When I first heard about Nav Canada’s plans to make filing a flight plan available on the net I was quite excited. Then the project was delayed such that the application wasn’t released until well after the promised date. I don’t remember the length of the delay but I recall that it was several months at the very least. I also have no idea why there was a delay but I can only assume it had to do with the code that they likely had to build to integrate the web application with the existing system. Why? Because the web application is terrible.

Professionally built web applications these days, as a whole, are generally good and most of the older apps have been updated as time goes on so as to take advantage of the features offered in modern browsers. The Royal Bank’s Online Banking is one such example. I’ve been using their web banking since it was made available and though the years they’ve added more features and made things easier. Their design hasn’t changed much, though I think that is a reflection of a good design in the first place. The applications built by Solium Capital are also very good, though since I was a part of that, I might be somewhat biased. Nav Canada’s online flight plan filing, on the other hand, is a step backwards. Maybe two or three in fact.

The first impression of the app is frightening. There are 32 sections that are required to be filled in, all listed on one long page. To Nav Canada’s credit every field has a link which popups a reference within the user manual so you can read about what each field means or how the field is to be filled in. But, that said, there is no per field validation when storing a flight plan. For example, the cruising speed field expects N0140 for 140 knots or M082 for Mach 0.82. That’s fine except that I’m not a flight service specialist nor have I ever flown an aircraft that would require me to file the cruising speed as a mach number. So my first ever stored flight plan has 105 in that field.

Perhaps if I used this system every day I would eventually remember this but given that I fly a few times a month, it would be much easier to have a help icon of sorts that popped up a small window. Inside that window could then be a text field and a drop down. The drop down would have two choices: knots and mach. In the text field I would enter 105 and then select ‘knots’. Then when I pressed the submit button, my choice would be converted to N0105 and filled into the proper field on the original page. The same could be done for most of the other fields. And while the documentation is fairly thorough, it would be nice if the gave a couple of complete examples for the route field. They have a samples of single points but not of a complete route.

Don’t get me wrong. I think it’s great that Nav Canada is using the Interenet to try and make it easier for me to file a flight plan. But I’ve gone on perhaps a dozen cross country trips since I registered for the online flight plan filing. But I haven’t actually used it once because it takes me 15 minutes to make sure I’ve filled in the fields properly but only 2 minutes to call up the 1-866 number and talk to a specialist. I actually tried to use the system once but when I went to submit the flight plan I found that I needed to enter my PIN, which would be fine except that I couldn’t find it and it wan’t anything I normally use. That’s because the PIN (which is different from your passowrd needed to login in the first place, is a randomly generated four letter password per se that is assigned when you register for the system. There’s no way to reset or change the PIN and if you ever lose or forget it, Nav Canada can’t reset it either. They have to delete your account (thus losing any saved flight plans) and you must re-register. Not even the online banking apps are that archaic or poorly set up.

After all this, I’m curious as to what others think of the web app? Am I just being snobbish because of my past experience building web apps or are others hesitant to use the system also?
[…]

Missing Plane Found

While waiting for my cab to show up to take me to the airport I took a few minutes to catch up on some new courtesy of CBC Online. One of the articles I came across was about a plane that was found just southwest of Calgary. I guess the aircraft had gone missing a week ago after leaving Springbank airport. I hadn’t actually heard that the plane was missing in the first place; last week was such a busy week. But what scary is that they plane was found two kilometres from it’s last known position which was only 50 kilometres from Calgary. I’m not familiar with the ridge mentioned in the article but I’m going to try and look for it next time I have my maps out. Still, I’m some creeped out by the fact that a crash can happen so close to civilization and yet not be found for a week.
[…]

Flying in the NYC Area

At the end of September I’m flying down with my wife to New York city for a week long getaway. She’s been to NYC once before but it was a rushed trip and I’ve never been at all. We’re both looking forward to it and the best part about the trip is that we have a free place to stay, courtesy of my former business partner who was recently promoted to President of Solium Capital Ltd., Solium Capital’s subsidiary in the United States. And he’s conveniently located in New York.

We plan to do the typical NYC things like take in a show and visit Central Park and such, but I thought that I would rent a plane while I was down there and try to do a little sightseeing from the air (and perhaps log some time while I was at it). Anyone have any suggestions on a good place to rent from? Since I don’t feel like doing a full checkout that will likely be required by any school, I’ll likely bring along an instructor as a guide so I’ll probably want to rent a Cessna 182 since it will confortably take four people. Thoughts?
[…]

Changes to Villeneuve

On Friday we flew from Calgary/Springbank (CYBW) to Edmonton/Villeneuve (CZVL) in a Piper Warrior rented from the Calgary Flying Club. Our dog came along and was again sound asleep before I had even finished taxiing to runway 25 (it really is a dog’s life for him when he flies).

The takeoff from Springbank offered a chance to do something you don’t get all that often; a low level fly over the airport. By the time we had taxied to runway 25 and completed the run up, the active runway had switched to 16. Rather than taxi back to the other side of the airport, I opted for a crosswind takeoff. The controller asked for a left turn on climbout to keep me out of runway 16’s traffic, which I was happy to comply with. As I told one friend, because of how the tower is positioned, a left turn on climb out is somewhat like using the airport as a race track and the tower as a pylon. Sadly enough, instead of race speed it was a climb at the Warrior’s V_y of 79 kts (though I admit airspeed dropped to about 70 kts for a couple of moments as I admired how close to the tower I was allowed to go).

The remainder of the flight at 8,500 feet was uneventful as we flew direct to Villeneuve. As expected, just over Gull Lake Edmonton Centre descended me to 5,500 to keep me out of the way of the scheduled flights (those IFR guys are so demanding; can’t wait till I’m one too *g*). At that point I don’t actually mind the lower altitude as much as there is some nice countryside. Just short of Highway 16 (which I didn’t know the name of at the time), Edmonton Centre has us contact Villeneuve Tower and I then struggled (long day perhaps) to describe where we were, knowing that Villeneuve Tower is stuck in a time warp and is without radar. Or at least I thought, until the controller kindly told me that she had me radar identified at which point we chatted about the new radar. I had hoped to go for a tour but ran out of time; will have to try for that next time.

In preparation for my IFR training, I spent most of the flight trying to work on my scan and keep my altitude and heading within flight test parameters. Once within Villeneuve Class C space, I was cleared for the right base on an extended final for runway 08. My approach was rock solid, though in the end my landing was 95% given that I landed 100-200 feet further down the runway that I was aiming.

The best thing about Edmonton/Villeneuve aside from the fact that it now has radar, is that the airport doesn’t have a landing fee and offers free parking with tie downs. And better still, the free parking is right beside the Cardinal Aviation Centre building, who offer reasonably priced fuel (only 3 cents per litre higher than my discounted CFC member rate) and other services. And there’s no fee for an after hours callout. How great is that? And top it off with friendly service and you can’t go wrong. I would, in fact, go out of my way to get fuel at Cardinal rather than Edmonton Intl or Edmonton City Centre.
[…]

Double Check Everything

One of the first lessons a soldier learns [especially with respect to weapons] is that if you didn’t do something yourself, check it. So, with your C-7 rifle (the typical personal weapon for a soldier) you always check the status when in doubt, erring on the side of caution and assuming that the rifle is loaded. It’s a safety thing; safety for yourself and for others. If someone says they swept the floor for you and they actually did nothing, you might catch flak from your sergeant but it’s not going to kill anyone. But if your gunner says he cleaned the sand out of your tanks coax machine-gun, you may want to just double check to ensure that he did since you may need to use that machine gun in an upcoming battle.

That’s a good lesson to remember; if your life may depend on something, you should double check it to the best of your ability. I was reminded of this as I read in belief the TSB Report Number A03F0114 on a fuel shortage off the coast of New Zealand. On a delivery flight across the Pacific Ocean from Kelowna to New Zealand, two experienced pilots got lost 300 nm from New Zealand and although they landed safely in NZ, they did so with only 360 pounds of fuel remaining. To a GA aircraft, 360 pounds is a lot of fuel but for a Convair 580 that equates to perhaps 10 minutes of flying time; not a lot of room to spare.

The TSB investigators found that the pilots were navigating using GPS but neither pilot had actual input the waypoints nor confirmed their validity. New Zealand is just west of the 180° meridian; that is the destination was 175° E. The waypoints, however, were entered into both GPSs with west longitude instead of east longitude, resulting in reciprocal points on the opposite side of the 180° meridian. In most cases this east/west entry error would have been caught as the GPS would report an obviously wrong direction and distance to the next way point. However, because of New Zealand’s close proximity to the 180° meridian, the error was much more subtle. But that error should have been noticed long before the aircraft got close to it’s destination.

I suspect that there were two dozen or more waypoints along the three legs of the journey to NZ. Checking all those waypoints on both GPSs at once seems like a daunting task to do all at once and it doesn’t make sense to check them all thoroughly before depature anyway. A waypoint I need for leg three may have been changed or removed from the GPS during leg one or two, so all that is required is to check the waypoints required for the next leg. Inherent trust in someone else is sometimes easier than checking yourself, especially if you are pressed for time. But it could also cost you your life.
[…]

Recreational Pilot Permit

I went to the dentist today for a long overdue checkup (look Mum, no cavities!). As I was sitting in the chair getting the usual (and unavoidable) plaque build up removed, I overheard another patient talking about some flying related things. So I tuned out of the cleaning, which I normally try to do anyway, and listened in on what the other patient was saying.

I didn’t catch the whole conversation but it sounded like he owned a small aircraft of sorts (perhaps an ultralight?) and that his spouse was ‘thinking of going the recreational pilot permit route’. Up until today I really didn’t know much about the Recreational Pilot Permit (RPP), mostly because it wasn’t available when I got my licence in 1992 and also because it is a lower licence per se; that is, a step down from what I already have. In fact, the only thing I knew about the RPP was that it required fewer hours to be licenced and that the Calgary Flying Club only lets members with recreational pilot permits flying in Alberta and Saskatchewan. So, in essence, I knew nothing. But the disturbing thing about the conversation I overheard was that the patient said that the recreational pilot permit teaches you how to ’take off and land and fly around’, in a very cavalier, ‘no-big-deal-to-get-it’ kind of voice.

After work today I looked up the details on the Canadian Recreational Pilot Permit in the AIP and CAR. The AIP states recreational pilot permit is only valid in Canada. The CARS (401.22) go on to state that the holder of a recreational pilot permit may, under day VFR, act as PIC of any single-engine, non-high performance aeroplane so long as the aeroplane is designed to carry no more than four passengers and no more than one passenger is carried in the aeroplane. Furthermore, only a Category 4 Medical Certificate is required. Finally, in order to receive your permit, the holder must have 25 hours of flight training which must include 15 hours of dual instruction (including 2 hours cross country) and 5 hours of solo time. Oh, and no ground school required. Did I miss anything?

The Transport Canada website has stats page listing the licences in force up to 2003. In 2003 there were 1227 recreational pilot permits in force. That doesn’t seem to be all that many so I’m wondering why the recreational pilot permit came into being in the first place? Especially if the general consensus is that it’s ‘just enough training to get me up in the air’. Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for sharing the vast air space with pilots of all levels of training, but I’m not so convinced of this blurring between licencing. It seems as if Transport Canada created what amounts to an advanced ultra-light licence.

Perhaps it was created to allow older pilots to continue to fly after a failed Category 3 Medical? But if that was the case, then why not just put additional requirements on private pilots with Category 4 Medicals? Or was licence cost the driving factor? Were flight schools pressuring the government to create a licence that would be more attractive financially to people? A licence that was cheaper to get? I sincerely hope that isn’t the case, as the last thing that we need is an aviation industry driven solely by financial factors.

So, I’m still at a loss as to why such a licence would be created. I know who can get the RPP, what is required to get the RPP and what can be done with the RPP. Yes, I understand all that, but why create this half trained, half brother to the private pilot licence?
[…]

Seven Pounds Per Minute

When I was a baggage handler for Canadian Airlines, I never really understood why the pilots would request a “plug in” rather than simply use the auxiliary power unit (APU) at the back of the 737-200s. It was a pain for all involved (mostly us, so it was probably a case of us being lazy *g*) and I always thought it made us look a bit like amateurs. This was especially true since back then, as is the case still, passengers walked out onto the ramp and up the stairs. So essentially they saw everything that happened on and around the ramp.

Today, I finally understand. I read Captain Dave’s entry on their aircraft’s weather radar in which he mentions that their APU burns 7 pounds of fuel per minute. Yes, per minute. As a general aviation pilot I find that number fascinating because if you get good tail winds and a perfect day, you can cruise at 125 knots in a Piper Warrior for less than 1 pound of fuel per minute. Yup, a small aircraft can fly for a seventh of what it takes to run the APU of a large passenger aircraft. I don’t know why but I just find that amazing. Oh, and now you perhaps understand why the airlines are legitimately complaining about the high cost of fuel.
[…]

Taxiing Around CYYZ

On a recent return trip from Toronto, we did what is probably the longest possible taxi at Toronto’s Pearson International; we taxied from a NW gate to runway 24R. I feel bad about this taxi because whether you are flying a Cessna 152 or a Boeing 737, a long taxi costs money. For private pilot it costs money because you rent a plane by the hour. For the 737 owner (ie. the airline) the long taxi costs money because of the fuel burned during the taxi.

I heard someone say the other day that they are tired of companies complaining about the rising fuel costs and adding fuel surcharges. I agree in principle, but only for companies who do not consider fuel in the top three of their operating expenses list. That means I think airlines (and aircraft owners in general) have every right to grumble. I don’t know for sure but I suspect that when running an airline that fuel costs are the number two recurring expense, right after the cost of labour (aka employee salaries).

Even as a pilot, I hadn’t fully understood all the fuel issues that face modern-day crews, until recently. I had always assumed that you fill up the fuel tanks as much as you can (so long as the amount burned will put you under maximum landing weight) and you head for your destination. Enter Flight Level 390, a great blog written by long time pilot, Dave, who flies as a captain for a major airline in the US. Dave goes into detail about re-routing issues, troubles with tire pressures and dealing with claustrophobic passengers, among other interesting tales.

And if you don’t know much about fuel burn in modern airliners, read Dave’s entry about a recent 4 day trip where they burned 3000+ pounds of fuel (the equivilent weight of a typical car) when landing at Las Vegas through no fault of their own.
[…]