If you dream of owning or flying a Cessna 162 Skycatcher, the manufacturer posted the POH for the 162 online. Please enjoy reading this description of the light sport aircraft that many of us have been looking forward to flying. For more information, visit Cessna.com.

The title says it all!!

We’re looking forward to another great BBQ designed and executed by our very own Curt Nehring. Plan on attending, having a fantastic meal, and swapping aviation stories with your friends in the San Carlos Airport Association.

The BBQ is a free benefit for paid-up members of SCAPA. The fee for guests of members, including spouses, is $10 per person.

Courtesy of the folks at Jeppesen, here’s a plate for Capt. Sullenberger’s landing on the Hudson.

Note: mentioned on Fly With Blake

Hat tip to Ted for posting this joke on the Plastic Pilot blog last year:

A USAF C-5 Galaxy is being escorted across the Atlantic by an F-16. The F-16 pilot is feeling rather proud of himself and executes a roll just off the wingtip of the much larger C-5. The conversation that followed is priceless:

Fighter Jock: “What’dya think of that?”

C-5 Pilot: “That was alright… but just watch this…”

Ten Minutes Elapse…

C-5 Pilot: “What’dya think of that?”

Fighter Jock: “Like what?”

C-5 Pilot: “I just got up, stretched my legs, took a piss and grabbed a cup of coffee…”

Fighter Jock: “Oh…”

Origins of the 100LL replacement crisis

According to AOPA Online click here, Congress enacted the Clean Air Act of 1970 and shortly after created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In 1978 the EPA established a National Ambient Air Quality Standard for lead. …In the 1970s, EPA set national regulations to gradually reduce the lead content in gasoline. By 1996, EPA promulgated regulations that banned the use of leaded gasoline in highway vehicles.

The EPA is now forced to act, due to pressure such as “PETITION FOR RULEMAKING SEEKING THE REGULATION OF LEAD EMISSIONS FROM GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT UNDER § 231 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT” submitted by Friends of the Earth on October 3, 2006. See: http://www.epa.gov/oms/regs/nonroad/aviation/foe-20060929.pdf

According to FAAST Blast Notice Number: NOTC2273 of May 06, 2010: On April 28, 2010, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM), the first step in a process that may lead to standards mandating GA’s transition to unleaded avgas. …Avgas is the only remaining transportation fuel in the United States that contains lead. …EPA estimates that lead emissions from aircraft using leaded avgas accounts for approximately half of the national inventory of lead emitted to air. EPA will accept public comment on the ANPRM until June 28, 2010.

Where is lead (TEL) still used in fuel? According to click here, Countries where Leaded Petrol is Possibly Still Sold for Road Use. As at 10th May 2010. Compiled by Robert Taylor, Researcher, The LEAD Group Inc. [LID 12714]

1. Algeria
2. Egypt
3. Afghanistan
4. Korea, Dem. People’s Rep of (N. Korea)
5. Myanmar (Burma)
6. Bosnia and Herzegovina
7. Montenegro
8. Kosovo
9. Serbia
10. Iraq
11. Yemen

Who makes TetraEthylLead (CAS 78-00-2)?

Innospec http://www.innospecinc.com/ IOSP on Nasdaq A Delaware, USA corporation. From their SEC form 10-K: “Our principal executive offices are in Ellesmere Port, United Kingdom. We became an independent company on May 22, 1998, when we were spun off from our then parent corporation Chemtura Corporation, previously known as Great Lakes Chemical Corporation. We changed our name from Octel Corp. to Innospec Inc. on January 30, 2006. On March 21, 2006 we transferred the listing of our common stock from the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) to the Nasdaq Stock Market (“NASDAQ”).” …“Our Octane Additives business is the world’s only producer of tetra ethyl lead (“TEL”).”

Guiyang Yifeng Fine Chemical Co., Ltd Zhazuo, Xiuwen, Guiyang, Guizhou, China. From their information on http://www.tootoo.com/: “The company was estasblished in 2005. Guiyang Yifeng Fine Chemical Co., Ltd is a new Chemical Company specially manufacturing Tetra Ethyl L Lead. Our output is 3000MT per year including TEL-CB (used for autos) and TEL-B (used for aviation) . We are the biggest producer of Tetra Ethyl Lead in the world at present time. Meanwhile, we are the only one legal manufacturer of this commodity in China. …Any end users or dealers are welcome to contact with us”

Chenhaibin Rm2203, Bldg.4, No.88 Jianguo Rd, Chaoyang Dist, Beijing City, China 1000, Beijing, China 100022. From their information on http://www.ecplaza.net/: “Beijing Hua Di Union Investment Co., Ltd has invested RMB 70,000,000 (USD 9,000,000) to set up a manufacturing factory to produce the tetraethyl lead (tetraethyllead; lead tetraethyl;tetraethyl plumbane). There are 25000 square meters in the whole land of the factory. There are more than one hundred employees is the factory. Five of them are senior engineers and eight are engineers. We are a high technical and professional team in the field of producing the tetraethyl lead in China. The product of the tetraethyl lead can improve the work efficiency of the engines of the motors and the aircraft. As an additive in the process of refining the crud oil, it can promote the octane value of the fuel. So far the products are sold to the United States, Southeast Asia, East Europe, Middle East and South Africa.”

Daqing TST Chemical Industry Co., LTD 49 Huagong Road, Xinghua Village, Longfeng district, Daqing, China, Daqing, Heilongjiang, China 163714. From their information on http://www.ecplaza.net/: “Daqing TST Chemical Industry Co.,LTD is a manufacturer of tetraethyl lead in China. Tetraethyl lead output is 2000mt/year. Have two type of specification :TEL-B and TEL-CB . we can produce according to requirement of customer .We would like to establish business relations with company in the world. ”

About avgas: who makes it?

Annual US avgas consumption is about 186,000,000 gallons. That is less than 0.14% of the volume of automotive gas, and only .08% of total refinery volume: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_cons_prim_dcu_nus_a.htm

According to the US Energy Information Administration, there are about 150 refineries in the US: http://www.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_cap1_dcu_nus_a.htm

According to a Nov 1, 2007 article by Matt Thurber, only 4 companies made avgas:
click here.

The following avgas refineries are active in the US:

1. Conoco Phillips: Sweeney, TX, Borger, TX, Billings, MT
2. Chevron Texaco: Richmond, CA, Salt Lake City, UT, Pascagoula, MS, Hawaii
3. British Petroleum: Toledo, OH
4. Exxon Mobil: Torrance, CA, Baton Rouge, LA

What is 100LL, and why is it so special?

The properties of both Avgas 100 and 100LL are defined in ASTM D910. The current revision is 7a. It’s available for $38 from ASTM: http://www.astm.org/Standards/D910.htm Various labs offer testing services, to verify that a sample of fuel meets this spec. For an example, see: http://www.intertek.com/testing/aviation-fuel/ If you don’t want to spend $38, avgas vendors usually offer a tabulated characterization of their fuel in a format similar to D910. For example, see pages 8 and 9 of the Air BP Handbook of Products.

Thus, ASTM has created a fuel specification; history has proved that this fuel is good for airplane engines. Engine manufacturers have long specified that this fuel be used in their engines.

The problem is that, despite more than 20 years of trying, nobody’s been able to meet all the requirements of ASTM D910 without TEL. The assumption that D910 must be met has paralyzed efforts to produce a substitute unleaded avgas.

Over the years, many industry committees have been formed, and many meetings have been held. Most recently, according to a June 25, 2010 article: click here. a new Industry Avgas Coalition has been formed; members are the GA advocacy groups:

1. EAA (Experimental Aircraft Association)
2. NBAA (National Business Aviation Association)
3. AOPA (Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association)
4. GAMA (General Aviation Manufacturers Association)
5. NATA (National Air Transport Association)
6. API (American Petroleum Institute)
7. NPRA (National Petrochemical & Refiners Association)

They call for a government/industry program for the development of an unleaded avgas, FAA leadership to ensure safety and establish appropriate airworthiness and lead emissions standards, and a provision for the long-term viability and safety of GA. Their FAST (Future Avgas Strategy and Transition) Plan has been designed to identify the most viable unleaded solution possible to replace 100LL, and establish a transition timeline which addresses aviation safety, technical feasibility and impact upon the GA and avgas industries.

Sadly, FAST is another cruel oxymoron. The inability of aviation interest groups to provide a solution has spawned an “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore!” movement. One example is the Clean 100-Octane Coalition; see their website http://www.100octaneformyplane.com/

Fortunately, while alphabet soup groups have been wringing their hands others have been working to solve the problem.

Unfortunately, several solutions are being pursued and none satisfies everybody.

One solution is 94UL fuel, which is 100LL without TEL. Some call it “white gas”. Using it in an 8.5:1 C.R. engine requires compression ratio reduction, or ignition retard; both mean power reduction. Owners of lower-performance engines (C.R. already less than 8.5) are happy with this solution. So is TCM; they want to offer a compression reduction kit for existing engines, or replacement engines that recover power by increased displacement or turbocharging. Paul Bertorelli is editor of Aviation Consumer magazine; he’s long been following the 100LL replacement issue. Listen to his podcast interview with Bill Brogdon of TCM: http://www.podcastdirectory.com/podshows/8065427

The 94UL solution is opposed by the Clean 100-Octane Coalition. They represent the “20% of airplanes that burn 80% of the avgas” and they need at least 100 octane. Lycoming also opposes it; although engines with electronic ignition improvements such as knock sensor-imposed ignition retard can tolerate lower octane fuel, it always means power reduction. Lycoming is pushing for a full 100 octane replacement; listen to Paul Bertorelli’s podcast interview with Michael Kraft of Lycoming: click here.

Two companies are testing unleaded avgas with octane ratings of 100 or more:

Swift Enterprises has been working since 2005. A patent application has been filed. Their original efforts derived from biomass feedstocks. Recently, they’ve announced that they can also derive from natural gas. Their fuel, now called UL102, is heavier than 100LL; it’s about the density of jet fuel. They’ve finished extensive testing at the FAA’s Wm. J. Hughes Technical Center, and they’re into an STC program with Embry Riddle. ASTM specification of UL102 is underway. For more, listen to Paul Bertorelli’s July 2, 2010 interview with David Perme, Swift’s CEO: click here.

GAMI, the people who brought us custom-tuned fuel injectors, has recently begun an effort. The composition of their G100UL fuel is secret. Their fuel is made from materials “already inside the fence of existing refineries”. Their fuel is also heavier than 100LL, although their numbers claim it’s lighter than UL102. Engine testing has been at their own facility. They have just recently applied for an ASTM standard. Cirrus is interested in working on an STC with them. For more information, listen to Paul Bertorelli’s July 2, 2010 interview with George Braly of GAMI: click here.

I’ve recently written an article summarizing Swift’s efforts. See the next 2 pages.

“Swift Fuel” is now UL102

According to their president Mary Rusek, Swift Enterprises (swiftenterprises.com) has been developing an unleaded replacement for 100LL since 2005. Their early fuel formulations were multi-component, and some of those components were petroleum derivatives. Since 2007, they’ve settled on a primarily two-component formulation codenamed “Swift 702 fuel”. 702′s two main components, mesitylene (1,3,5-trimethyl benzene) and isopentane (2-methyl butane), can be derived from biomass. Thus, 702 can be made from completely renewable resources as described in Swift’s most-recent patent application (http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20080244961). The ASTM taskforce recently agreed to the designation UL102 to fit into the new ASTM nomenclature; it has a minimum octane rating of 102, compared to the 99.6 rating for 100LL under ASTM D910.

According to Dave Atwood’s report DOT/FAA/AR-08/53 issued in January of 2009, he and other researchers at the FAA’s William J. Hughes Technical Center “performed detonation and power performance tests on the Swift 702 fuel as compared to a locally purchased 100LL in two of the highest octane requirement engines in the fleet. A Lycoming TIO-540-J2BD and a Lycoming IO-540-K were evaluated on both fuels… Any fuel satisfying the octane requirement of these two engines would satisfy the octane requirement of the majority of the piston, reciprocating engine fleet… The Swift 702 fuel had a motor octane number (MON) of 104.4, as determined by the international standard test ASTM D 2700, and the locally purchased 100LL had a tested 103.6 MON… A power baseline and detonation test was run in the IO-540-K engine, comparing the performance of the Swift 702 fuel to 100LL fuel, and a detonation performance test was run in a Lycoming TIO-540-J2BD engine… At all engine speeds and manifold pressures, the Swift 702 fuel produced more than 98% of the horsepower as the 100LL and produced an average increase in EGT of approximately 50°F… The Swift 702 fuel met most of the current leaded aviation gasoline specification ASTM D 910, except for the 50%, 90%, end distillation points, and heat content… and outperformed the 100LL in detonation testing… Further endurance testing is required to determine the significance of operating with 50°F higher EGTs… Future full-scale engine endurance tests will verify whether there will be issues with oil dilution, nozzle and fuel system deposits, bearing failure, induction varnish buildup, or cylinder and valve deposits from using Swift 702 fuel.”

Aside from octane rating, there are two other significant differences between UL102 and 100LL. One is that UL102 weighs more; its density is about the same as jet fuel. Like jet fuel it also has greater per-volume heating value, although the per-mass heating value is slightly less. As Dave explained in his January 2009 report, “The Swift 702 fuel was roughly 1.01 lb/gal heavier (or 17.5%) than the 100LL at 87°F. However, since the Swift 702 fuel had 96.3% of the energy density on a mass basis as the 100LL, the Swift 702 fuel has approximately 13% higher energy per gallon of fuel than 100LL. On a fuel mass flow basis, the Swift 702 fuel will produce slightly less power than the 100LL; however, on a fuel volume flow basis, which is typically more of a concern to a pilot, the fuel will produce more power than the 100LL. Therefore, the same number of gallons of fuel will weigh more for the Swift 702 fuel than the 100LL, but will provide a greater range of flight.”

The other main difference between UL102 and 100LL is vapor pressure, or volatility. Avgas must be volatile enough for good vaporization when starting an engine at low temperatures, yet not so volatile that it boils easily at altitude. These characteristics were not investigated in the testing summarized in the January 2009 report. As Dave Atwood stated, “The Swift 702 fuel did not meet the 50%, 90%, or end point of the distillation curves. This was due to the high aromatic hydrocarbon content of the fuel. Previous and extensive FAA tests determined that an unleaded fuel could meet the current detonation performance of the current ASTM D 910 100LL leaded aviation gasoline only if it contained at least 10% of a specific aromatic amine or it contained a very high concentration of aromatic hydrocarbon. In either case, it is highly unlikely that any such fuel would meet the distillation specification for an aviation alkylate-based fuel. Further tests are planned on the Swift 702 fuel using two separate high-power engines, a Continental and a Lycoming, for long-duration tests.”

The full-scale engine endurance tests Dave mentioned have been completed. A report is being written and should be available around 7/19/2010; look in: http://ACTlibrary.tc.faa.gov/ for DOT/FAA/AR-10/13 “Full-Scale Engine Endurance Test of Swift Enterprises UL102 Fuel” by D. Atwood.

Given differences in aircraft weight & balance, flying range, and possibly different starting procedures in cold weather, an STC looks like one way for a certified aircraft to use UL102. In a joint project with Swift Enterprises, Pat Anderson of Embry-Riddle’s Eagle Flight Research Center in Daytona Beach, Florida is now doing certification testing for an STC allowing use of UL102 in its fleet of 172s; see http://www.eaa.org/news/2010/2010-02-25_swift_fuel.asp. After a little more than 40 hours of initial testing on their Piper Seminole, Pat has noticed only two problems. One is relatively hard starting at temperatures below 30 degrees F; this may be related to the fuel distillation curve differences vs. 100LL, as mentioned by Dave Atwood. Swift is working on that now. The other is that an engine adjusted to idle properly on 100LL will idle rough and emit black smoke on UL102; a clean idle is achieved by manually leaning the mixture during ground operation, which is good practice even when using 100LL.

According to Pat Anderson, STC certification testing must be done with normal volume-production fuel, rather than with laboratory-prepared samples. This creates a chicken-and-egg situation; it’s difficult to invest in a volume production plant without the STC-enabled markets.

An additional problem is that, using unoptimized processes and without economies of scale, early quantities of UL102 will probably be expensive. Fortunately, UL102 can be blended in any ratio with 100LL.

Swift Enterprises will give five presentations at EAA’s AirVenture Oshkosh 2010 in the Learning Center and the Forums Plaza, covering their fuels and fuel cells. Check the AirVenture forums schedule for times and places. Swift representatives will be in Embry-Riddle’s booths 397 to 401, adjacent to Aeroshell Square and also in the Learning Center.

Visit Swift’s website. Attend their forum. Stop by, and talk to them. If you, like me, see UL102 as a way to continue flying the airplanes you love, see what you can do to help.

7/7/10 by Curt Nehring
EAA 683629

Here’s another photo from Steve Bell (thanks Steve) showing the new terminal at San Carlos Airport as it looked in 1968.

Steve is now living in Florida and would like to hear from old friends in the SQL community. He can be reached at s8b at earthlink dot net.

Carol Ford, President of the San Carlos Airport Association and Vice President of the California Pilots Association has been a leader in the fight against the placement of power plants near airports. It has been shown that these facilities generate hot air plumes that are dangerous to aircraft maneuvering close to the ground. Recently the FAA added a section on power plants to the AIIM. Click here and go to page 213 to see what the FAA says about this hazard.

Read the latest communication from Carol to the California Energy Commission by clicking here.

Another photo is in from Steve Bell, formerly a CFI at West Bay Aviation at SQL. It shows Roger Hines, Ken Kidd, Bob Lane (owner of West Bay Aviation), and Wally Mathews.

Steve is interested in renewing old acquaintances. You can contact him at s8b at earthlink.net.

If you have other classic photos of San Carlos Airport, feel free to send them to webmaster at sancarlosairport.org

The following photo is captioned “Early 1947; San Carlos Airport; F8 Fairchild Aerial Camera 1-400 Sec.; Focal Length 15 in.; from 1000′.” This photo shows the San Carlos Airport in its previous location nearby the present Best Buy on Industrial Rd.

The following photos (originally posted in June 2008) are courtesy of Steve Bell, a CFI who flew out of San Carlos Airport in 1966. Steve reports that the trailer on the west side of the approach end of 12 housed West Bay Aviation, where he worked when he took these photos. Steve is now living in Florida and would like to hear from old friends in the SQL community. He can be reached at s8b at earthlink dot net.

Click here for PC wallpaper
Click here for super size (16 MB)

Click here for PC wallpaper
Click here for super size (27 MB)

If you have any comments on these photos or if you have classic photos of San Carlos Airport that you’d like to add to our collection, please contact webmaster at sancarlospilots.org. We can scan photographic prints if necessary.

The following image from the San Francisco Sectional Aeronautical Chart from sometime in the 1950′s shows the locations of the San Carlos, San Mateo, Belmont, Mountain View, Palo Alto, Moffett, Hayward Army, Oakland, Alameda, Half Moon Bay, and San Francisco airports.

The following image shows the airport near the previous site of the Bay Meadows racetrack. It could be the San Mateo Airport referred to on the above Sectional. If you have any information about that, please contact webmaster at sancarlospilots.org.

The following image shows the Belmont Airport from an unknown date. Maybe sometime in the 1950′s.

If you have any comments on these photos or if you have classic photos of Bay Area Airports that you’d like to add to our collection, please contact webmaster at sancarlospilots.org. We can scan photographic prints if necessary.

Santa Rosa, Calif. – Sonoma County pilot Malvika Matharoo in partnership with The Valley of the Moon Teen Center Girls’ Circle and North Coast Air, Inc. launched, “Take to the Sky,” a program designed to encourage young women to pursue their dreams, in November 2009. The program offered the winner of an essay contest an opportunity to soar over the Sonoma County coastline for an introductory flight, followed by lunch with Matharoo. After a motivating talk with the girls about their goals and the 500-word essay contest, the program made its inaugural flight with the three winners.

The winners of the essay contest from the teen center were Diana Bucio, Miriam Tinoco and Diana Bernardino. They flew with Matharoo on a private flight along the beautiful California coast, donated courtesy of North Coast Air, Inc. “It was an opportunity for them to see firsthand what they can achieve if they choose,” said Matharoo.

Matharoo, a minority and female pilot from Punjab, India, was inspired to start the program to show young women that they too can achieve their dreams including the predominantly male field of aviation. Less than 10% of all pilots are women and even smaller percentages are minorities. Matharoo graduated with top honors from the University of North Dakota (UND) in 2007 with a degree in Aviation Management.

“I want to show young women to never settle for less than they deserve in life. If you pursue your dreams, you can do anything you wish. By providing these young women with the opportunity to fly with me, I hope to show them that if I can make my dreams come true, so can they,” said Matharoo. “None of the young girls ever flew in a private plane. One of the girls never flew before at all. I hope the experience will be a springboard to their success in life.”

“This experience made me realize there are no boundaries for the teens we serve, as big as the world is and as many opportunities as there are, they are achievable and attainable especially with the support of mentors, family and an overall community of people willing to help our youth transition into adulthood,” said Rebecca Hermosillo, Director of The Valley of the Moon Teen Center.

North Coast Air, Inc. is Sonoma County’s leading airplane flight training center and full-service flight school owned by Rob Clark and NAFI Master CFI, Art Hayssen. For more information contact North Coast Air, Inc. at (707) 542-8687.

Contact Info:
Malvika Matharoo
Petaluma, CA 94954
(707) 364-2579

by Ken Steiner

Editor’s Note: Ken Steiner is the Claims Manager and Asst. Vice-President for the San Francisco office of the United States Aircraft Insurance Group (USAIG), one of the world’s largest aviation insurance companies. He has been with USAIG for over 29 years investigating all manner of aviation accidents involving aircraft from Piper Cubs to Boeing 777’s. Ken is an active pilot holding ATP and CFI certificates with over 3800 flying hours. He flies a Turbo Skylane based at San Carlos, and yes, his flying record is free of any accidents, incidents and violations!

All summer long it seemed that no matter which direction I headed, there was a permanent headwind attached to the front of the plane. If this kept up I was going to trade my airspeed indicator in for a calendar. Finally, the winds agreed to partner up with me on a flight to Truckee giving me an extra 20 knots on the tail. A “smiley face” icon lit up on the GPS ground speed display.

As I entered the pattern for runway 28, that helpful southwesterly was starting to show another personality as it became a brisk low-level crosswind. While my focus was on contending with a crosswind landing, I was not particularly mindful of the “push” I was getting from the tailwind on base leg. Sure enough it blew me well to the right of the runway 28 centerline as I was rolling out on final.

This is a pivotal and sometimes fatal moment for pilots. I knew instantly what not to do. About 4 years earlier at this very runway I had investigated the crash of a corporate Learjet that overshot the extended runway centerline while turning final from a circling instrument approach. As in my situation, the crew found themselves off to the right side on the final approach. In an attempt to get lined up, the crew made a steeply banked turn to the left. Witnesses reported the bank to be well in excess of 45 degrees. The jet stalled in the turn and slammed into the ground killing both the pilot and co-pilot. Fortunately no one else was on board and no one on the ground was injured.

Typically a plane turning base to final is already low, slow, and close to the runway. If wind or bad planning causes you to overshoot the final approach turn, there is a natural urge to want to get realigned in a hurry often by cranking in excess aileron and rudder. The increased load factor in a steep bank significantly raises the stall speed. Further, a pilot may try to arrest the increased rate of descent in a steep turn by increasing pitch attitude. The increased angle of attack causes the already shrinking stall safety margins to further erode. All of this is leading to an accelerated stall that can leave one planted firmly short of the runway. Add poor rudder control and you may even be able to perform a spin on your way down.

Ideally, proper pattern planning is the first step in avoiding this scenario. If you do find yourself off the final centerline, limit bank angles to 30 degrees and don’t use excess rudder to get realigned. Use proper elevator inputs (pitch attitude) to maintain airspeed and use power to control the rate of descent. If you can’t get back to the centerline in an orderly and stabilized manner then prepare to go-around. Don’t let the turn to final become your final turn.

Some well known aviation humor…

=========================================
The following are accounts of exchanges between airline pilots and control
towers from around the world.

——————————————————————-

While taxiing the crew of a US Air flight departing for Ft. Lauderdale made
a wrong turn and came nose to nose with a United 727. The irate female
ground controller lashed out at the US Air crew, screaming:
“US Air 2771, where are you going? I told you to turn right onto Charlie
taxiway! You turned right on Delta! Stop right there. I know it’s
difficult for you to tell the difference between C’s and D’s, but get it
right!”

Continuing her tirade to the embarrassed crew, she was now shouting
hysterically: “God, you’ve screwed everything up! It’ll take forever to
sort this out! You stay right there and don’t move till I tell you to! You
can expect progressive taxi instructions in about half an hour
And I want you to go exactly where I tell you, when I tell you, and how I
tell you! You got that, US Air 2771?”

“Yes ma’am,” the humbled crew responded.

Naturally the ground control frequency went terribly silent after the verbal
bashing of US Air 2771. Nobody wanted to engage the irate ground controller
in her current state. Tension in every cockpit at LGA was running high.
Then an unknown pilot broke the silence and asked “Wasn’t I married to you
once?”

——————————————————————-

The controller working a busy pattern told the 727 on downwind to make a
three-sixty–do a complete circle, a move normally used to provide spacing
between aircraft.

The pilot of the 727 complained, “Don’t you know it costs us two thousand
dollars to make even a one-eighty in this airplane?”

Without missing a beat the controller replied, “Roger, give me four thousand
dollars’ worth.”

——————————————————————-

A DC-10 had an exceedingly long rollout after landing with his approach
speed a little high. San Jose Tower: “American 751 heavy, turn right at the
end of the runway, if able. If not able, take the Guadalupe exit off Highway
101 and make a right at the light to return to the airport

——————————————————————-

It was a really nice day, right about dusk, and a Piper Malibu was being
vectored into a long line of airliners in order to land at Kansas
City. KC Approach: “Malibu three-two Charlie, you’re following a 727, one
o’clock and three miles.” Three-two Charlie: “We’ve got him. We’ll follow
him.”

KC Approach: “Delta 105, your traffic to follow is a Malibu, eleven o’clock
and three miles. Do you have that traffic?”

Delta 105 (in a thick southern drawl, after a long pause): “Well…I’ve got
something down there. Can’t quite tell if it’s a Malibu or a Chevelle.”

——————————————————————-

Unknown aircraft: “I’m f…ing bored!”

Air Traffic Control: “Last aircraft transmitting, identify yourself immediately!”

Unknown aircraft: “I said I was f…ing bored, not f…ing stupid!”

Tower: “Eastern 702, cleared for takeoff, contact Departure on 124.7.”
Eastern 702: “Tower, Eastern 702 switching to Departure. By the way, after
we lifted off we saw some kind of dead animal on the far end of the runway.”
Tower: “Continental 635, cleared for takeoff, contact Departure on 124.7.
Did you copy that report from Eastern?”

Continental 635: “Continental 635, cleared for takeoff, roger; and yes, we
copied Eastern and we’ve already notified our caterers.”

——————————————————————-

The German air controllers at Frankfurt Airport are a short-tempered lot.
They not only expect one to know one’s gate parking location, but how to get
there without any assistance from them. So it was with some amusement that
we (a Pan Am 747) listened to the following exchange between Frankfurt
ground control and a British Airways 747, call sign “Speedbird 206″:

Speedbird 206: “Top of the morning, Frankfurt, Speedbird 206 clear of the
active runway.”

Ground: “Guten Morgen. You vill taxi to your gate.”

The big British Airways 747 pulled onto the main taxiway and slowed to a stop.

Ground: “Speedbird, do you not know where you are going?”
Speedbird 206: “Stand by a moment, Ground, I’m looking up our gate location now.”
Ground (with arrogant impatience): “Speedbird 206, have you never
Flown to Frankfurt before?”
Speedbird 206 (coolly): Yes, I have, actually,in 1944. In another type of
Boeing, but just to drop something off. I didn’t stop.”

——————————————————————-

O’Hare Approach Control: “United 329 heavy, your traffic is a Fokker, one
o’clock, three miles, eastbound.”

United 239: “Approach, I’ve always wanted to say this…I’ve got that Fokker
in sight.”
——————————————————————-

A Pan Am 727 flight engineer waiting for start clearance in Munich overheard
the following:

Lufthansa (in German): Ground, what is our start clearance time?”

Ground (in English): “If you want an answer you must speak English.”

Lufthansa (in English): “I am a German, flying a German airplane, in
Germany. Why must I speak English?”

Unknown voice (in a beautiful British accent): “Because you lost the bloody
war!”

=====================

Not radio chatter, but these squawks were pretty good too:

After every flight, Qantas pilots fill out a form, called a “gripe
sheet,” which tells mechanics about problems with the aircraft. The
mechanics correct the problems, document their repairs on the form, and
then pilots review the gripe sheets before the next flight.
Never let it be said that ground crews lack a sense of humor. Here are
some actual maintenance complaints submitted by Qantas pilots and the
solutions recorded by maintenance engineers.

(P= The problem logged by the pilot.)
(S= The solution and action taken by mechanics.)

P: Left inside main tire almost needs replacement.
S: Almost replaced left inside main tire.

P: Test flight OK, except auto-land very rough.
S: Auto-land not installed on this aircraft.

P: Something loose in cockpit.
S: Something tightened in cockpit.

P: Dead bugs on windshield.
S: Live bugs on back-order.

P: Autopilot in altitude-hold mode produces a 200 feet per minute
descent.
S: Cannot reproduce problem on ground.

P: Evidence of leak on right main landing gear.
S: Evidence removed.

P: DME volume unbelievably loud.
S: DME volume set to more believable level.

P: Friction locks cause throttle levers to stick.
S: That’s what they’re for.

P: IFF inoperative.
S: IFF always inoperative in OFF mode.

P: Suspected crack in windshield.
S: Suspect you’re right.

P: Number 3 engine missing.
S: Engine found on right wing after brief search.

P: Aircraft handles funny.
S: Aircraft warned to straighten up, fly right, and be serious.

P: Target radar hums.
S: Reprogrammed target radar with lyrics.

P: Mouse in cockpit.
S: Cat installed.

P: Noise coming from under instrument panel. Sounds like a midget
pounding on something with a hammer.
S: Took hammer away from midget.

This editorial appeared in the Tampa Tribune (c) on Nov. 5, 2009.

The expense of flying a private airplane gives most people the impression that small airports have become exclusive clubs for the wealthy, whose political influence allows them to pass on the cost to taxpayers who don’t benefit.

That impression is inaccurate for many reasons. The 10,000 pilots in town this week to attend the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association aviation summit are one visible indication of the importance of private airplanes, and the small public airports that serve them, to the nation’s economy.

Many of these pilots use an airplane as a work tool. It is a serious business, even for those who fly only as a sport or to access remote vacation spots.

In a recent editorial, USA Today complained that “a wildly disproportionate” amount of ticket taxes that airline passengers are charged is spent on more that 2,800 fields they’ll never visit. Expressing a widely held view, the newspaper said, “It would be hard to find fliers who wouldn’t rather keep their money or see it spent on airports they use.”

Passengers who use Tampa International Airport are fortunate that Lou Miller, executive director of the Hillsborough Aviation Authority, has a more informed opinion.

An airport without scheduled passenger service does have an impact on airports that sell tickets. Miller knows that airplanes using the three small, public airports in Hillsborough County – Peter O. Knight, Tampa Executive and Plant City – are staying out of the air around the crowded major public airport. That’s why he calls them reliever airports.

Look up and you probably will not see an airplane. The sky is not crowded. Congestion occurs only around the big airports, especially the ones airlines use as hubs. Encouraging smaller planes to go to smaller airports helps minimize delays and avoids concentrating too much air traffic at one site.

Visit a small airport and you’ll see that not everyone who flies a private airplane has money to burn. Many airplanes are owned by groups of pilots who split the costs. Other pilots rent an airplane by the hour.

One unrecognized way small airports serve the traveling public is flight training. About half the landings at Peter O. Knight are by students learning to fly or pilots improving their skills. Mixing these small, slow planes with the fast jets full of passengers is not a way a rational passenger would want to save a few dollars on the price of a ticket.

Small airports are where many airline pilots come from. Some of the flight instructors are actually working on a career as an airline pilot, which requires many hours of flight time. Outside the military, there are few other affordable paths to a flying career.

The money for Hillsborough’s airports comes from user fees, not taxes. Ticket fees are collected from passengers, and pilots are taxed when they buy aviation fuel. But unlike the fuel used by cars and trucks, most of the fuel in an airplane is burned high above the ground and far from the runways, which are usually empty. It’s easy to overlook how much money the pilots are contributing.

Hangars and other amenities at Hillsborough’s small airports are self-supporting. Maintenance done at the airports sustains good jobs. And the nation’s network of small airports gives access to areas the airlines don’t serve.

These airports are used by law enforcement, firefighters, crop dusters, wildlife officials, charity flights, business executives, TV crews, medical services and tourists.

Pilots flying for all those reasons and more will be in Tampa today for the start of the three-day summit. About 100 airplanes will be on display at Peter O. Knight on Davis Islands. Ferries will take pilots from the convention center to the nearby airport. The Experimental Aircraft Association and the National Business Aircraft Association also are participating in the summit.

If you’re interested in flying, you might want to check out the seminars and exhibits available today and Friday. More information is available at www.aopasummit.org.

You can learn about flying and even sign up for a $70 introductory flight. If you do, you’ll be taking off in a small airplane, and the jet pilots coming and going from Tampa International Airport will never see you.

Read more: click here.

Appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle (c). Edward Guthmann, Special to The Chronicle, Monday Nov. 9, 2009

Amelia Earhart flew solo across the Atlantic in 1932. During World War II, more than 1,000 women pilots joined the Women Airforce Service Pilots. And yet, women pilots are still distinctly in the minority.

According to FAA statistics from December 2007, only 6.17 percent of commercial pilots and 6.06 percent of all pilots are women.

Malvika Matharoo, 24, is Earhart’s heir. A native of Punjab, India, she grew up in the Middle Eastern nation Oman. Matharoo studied aviation at the University of North Dakota and moved to California in December 2007. She lives in Petaluma and works for North Coast Air in Santa Rosa.

The film “Amelia,” starring Hilary Swank as Amelia Earhart, is playing in Bay Area theaters.

I am the first pilot in all the generations of my family. So there really wasn’t anybody who influenced me. I would always have dreams where I was flying – like I was a superhero – so I knew I had to do something about it. As soon as I started flying at the University of North Dakota, I said, “This is it! I like this, I really do.”

We flew all year round in North Dakota. I’ve even flown in temperatures of minus 45 degrees with wind chill. It wasn’t bad, actually.

What do I like about flying? It’s the joy and the adrenalin that you get from experiencing something so beautiful and phenomenal. It’s almost unexplainable.

As a pilot, your preparation starts 24 hours in advance of a flight: getting a good night’s sleep, eating right, checking the weather and runway conditions.

If you’re going to a new airport you need to look at the airport diagram; study radio frequencies, runway lengths and directions; plan ahead which runway you might use by looking at the forecasted winds; look at charts to get an idea of the terrain around the airport.

The most important thing is to always be vigilant and familiar with your surrounding area. Because when you’re flying, you need to always ask this one question: “If my engine quits right now where am I going to land?”

I’m a flight instructor at North Coast Air and my duties are to guide students and teach them how to fly. Help them get their licenses and ratings. A rating is part of our pilot certificate that states the privileges and limitations – basically what a pilot can and cannot do.

We fly the Cessna 172 Skyhawk, which is a four-seat, single-engine plane, and the Cessna 152, a two-seat, single-engine plane. The cost and length of time to get a private pilot’s license depends on the student: how fast they learn and how motivated they are.

I’m very happy where I am now but I would definitely love to fly corporate in the near future. I’ve always dreamed of flying with a company like NetJets, which has smaller business jets – the Gulfstreams or Falcons.

A corporate pilot also has a more flexible schedule than a commercial pilot. It’s very hard as a commercial pilot to be there for your family.

I just started a program called “Take to the Sky,” with North Coast Air and Valley of the Moon Teen Center in Sonoma. It’s a flight program where I’m trying to encourage young women to pursue their dreams, hopefully in aviation. To say, “You can do it. I’ve done it.”

I’ve come across a lot of teenagers who are, like, “No, I can’t do this because my parents don’t want me to,” or “I’m just not smart enough.”

I’ve always wanted to be a role model and motivate young teens to follow their dreams. If I can bring a change in somebody’s life, that would be the best feeling ever.

Read more: click here