SayAgain.SEMPERAPOLLO.COM

The Case For Long Range Regional Jets

Chris — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 18:36:00 GMT

A Practical Application

By Christopher Williams

The regional jet has become a dominant force in air travel in the last decade. While there are economic drawbacks to small jets on short routes, there are decided advantages on longer trips. Because of these advantages, it may be time to move towards long range regional jets. However, before an analysis of a long range regional jet is begun, it is necessary to examine why lower capacity makes sense in not only the traditional hub and spoke system, but in a direct flight system as well.

“Regional jet” is a fairly recent term for a fairly old concept. The Fokker 28 and McDonnell Douglas DC-9-10 would both fit into the category of regional jet (hereafter referred to as RJ) even though neither were consistently used in a manner congruent with current RJs. The modern class of RJs spans the gamut from the 50 seaters such as the Embraer ERJ-145 and Bombardier CRJ200, to the much larger 100 seaters like the Embraer E-190. They are generally powered by high bypass turbofans that have tremendous fuel consumption improvements over turbojets and low bypass turbofans that powered first-generation small jets. Due to their small size, they typically do not have multiple lavatories and baggage storage space is somewhat limited.

Larger airliners (often referred to as "mainline") have the numbers advantage in terms of seat cost per mile, fuel consumed per seat per unit of distance, or any other statistic involving dividing a quantity by the number of seats. The more passengers that can be carried equates to a lower cost per passenger to operate the flight, which in theory should result in lower fares. RJs are at a disadvantage from the start due to their lower total capacity. Unless total operating costs are reduced by the same factor that the passenger capacity is, there will always be a disadvantage to operating with fewer total seats.

The disadvantage of larger airliners is their higher upfront purchase cost and their higher total operating cost. This is where RJs have the advantage from being smaller aircraft. The aviation consulting group Morten Beyer & Agnew refers to this as the “RJ Operating Cost Paradox”. Even though RJs cost less upfront to buy and less total per hour of operation, they still cost more per person and thus have a much smaller maximum profit margin. [1] This problem has led manufacturers to build larger RJs, like the aforementioned E-190 which boasts up to 114 seats and a breakeven capacity of 61%. [2]

But RJs are not the only aircraft that suffer from reduced capacity. The larger overall cost of operating a full size airliner at reduced capacity is even more of a problem for their operators, which is why so much effort is made to fill every seat on flights. It’s a lot like gambling. With small jets, you take a smaller investment and end up with a smaller return provided you fill your seats. With a big jet, you take a larger investment and end up with a much bigger return, again as long as the seats are filled. If the RJ doesn’t fill its seats, the total loss is still less than a larger jet in the same predicament. Win big, lose big.

Regional aircraft of varying sizes line up for takeoff at Denver International. Where mainline jets used to do more short to medium range trips, RJs have taken over the lions share of the workload.

How can it be possible combine the advantages of airliners and RJs? The answer may lie with what passengers want rather than what airlines want to give them. For an airline it makes financial sense to use the hub and spoke system to funnel passengers to a few mega-airports and then redistribute them to other smaller airports via RJ or commuter turboprop. For passengers it makes sense to go to an medium sized airport not too far from one’s home and fly direct to wherever they need to go. Unfortunately, unless people live near a large international airport, chances are good that they will have to switch planes at some point, even for a relatively simple trip between terminals of moderate size.

The hub and spoke system was first adapted to passenger aviation by Delta Air Lines in 1955 and later adapted to freight by Federal Express. [3] While this system works wonderfully for packages that have to arrive only by a certain time, say Monday at noon, it does not work well for passengers who want to get to their destination as soon as possible. A package does not care if it sits in a warehouse for 10 hours before being loaded onto a connecting flight to its destination. Passengers tend not to be as enthusiastic about such delays. Another reason for the popularity for hub and spoke had to do with the aerodynamics and performance of first and second-generation commercial jets. With their very high rates of fuel consumption at low altitudes, it was not wise to use them on short trips or at low altitudes. At the time, this had less to do with the price of fuel and more with getting useful range out of the aircraft. To fill the gap, turboprop commuter airliners were pressed into service to connect outlying airports to the major ones. While extremely efficient and fast, passengers still equated them with old lumbering piston airliners. Even though turboprops are technically jet engines with an exposed propeller instead of a shrouded fan, perceptions count for a lot.

RJs are jets through and through which makes passengers happy. But while pilots who may have upgraded from 4 and 6 seat general aviation or charter aircraft might think they’re big, the truth is many passengers still consider them small. And even though newer designs such as the CRJ900 are much larger than the original cadre of RJs, they still cannot compete with the sheer size of an Airbus A340, or Boeing 777. Size aside, the speed and ride quality are on par with small to medium sized airliners. Regional airlines and their supporting major airline counterparts could not buy enough RJs until the fuel crisis of the mid-2000s. At the point when fuel prices skyrocketed, the once beloved aircraft became very unattractive in the eyes of airline accountants. [4] Regional carriers wished for their fleets of turboprops back and many invested in newer designs like the Bombardier Q400 that rival jets with respect to ride quality and sound levels inside the cabin. On short trips, taxi, climb out, descent take up a major portion of a jet’s time and fuel. In some cases the actual time spent at cruise may be around 30 minutes, severely reducing whatever advantages the manufacturer may have designed into the airframe for that portion of flight. In a turboprop the maximum altitude is usually far lower, in addition to the fact that they use a lot less fuel at low altitudes making them more efficient on short trips.

Many people had assumed with the advance of RJs, so too would the ability to travel almost anywhere within reason in the United States without having to go through a hub airport. This never materialized and by 2007, flight delays had risen to a 13 year high as hundreds of RJs tried to occupy the same airspace and parking areas as hundreds of mainline jets. [5] By using RJs to fill in gaps in the hub and spoke system, airlines had unwittingly taken away the major advantage of low capacity jets and undermined their mainline fleets. With the lines blurred between RJ and mainline equipment, some low cost airlines such as JetBlue opted to use A320s for transcontinental and international routes and E-190s for shorter hauls. [6] Oddly enough, successful low cost carriers like JetBlue and Southwest Airlines fly on watered down versions of hub and spoke and use small airliners or RJs on all routes. It remains to be seen if current regional airlines will continue to serve as feeders for the majors or if they will venture off into the volatile world of low cost national operators. Major carriers, currently uninterested in their own RJ fleets, may change their position if that happens.

This next part of this paper will not deal with how to build such an aircraft in detail but will outline the criteria that will be required of the next generation of long range RJs.

Mainline jets, as mentioned, have a huge passenger advantage over RJs. This is also their Achilles heel if the flight is operating at reduced capacity. On red-eyes or on low demand long range routes, using a nearly empty Boeing 757 makes less economic sense than using a partly full Airbus A320. In that respect, using a partly full A320 would make less economic sense than using a nearly full long range RJ. For this to happen, the RJ would have to have transcontinental range with enough reserve to account for average yearly headwinds, missed approaches, a diversion to an alternate field in case of poor weather and any other situation that may stretch the endurance of the craft.

Airliners of all sizes only make money when they fly, and then only if paying passengers are riding inside. Empty seats do not make money which is why full airplanes equal happy shareholders. But passengers do require a bit more room and creature comforts than the average overnight parcel. It is for this reason that future RJs must have as much personal room as the smallest mainline jets. This will require advanced ergonomic design to ensure that the aircraft remains light enough to land at smaller airports, produces minimal drag in cruise but still allows people to stand up in the aisles or go to the bathroom without having to crouch. These same comfort features will be extremely important when considering that the next generation of RJ will have to be able to fly at least 2500nm, if not more.

Takeoff and landing are critical issues for any aircraft and commercial jets have a plethora of criteria to meet before every being certified to carry a single passenger. Airliners do not usually need an entire 10,000 foot runway to takeoff at normal weights, but the extra distance is required in case of an engine failure on takeoff. Below a certain speed (V1) the jet must be able to stop in the remaining runway. Above that speed the airplane must be able to accelerate to takeoff speed in the same remaining runway. For this reason, a Boeing 737 that might be able to become airborne in 3500 feet may require 7000 feet for regulations. This is the balanced field length that is listed as the takeoff distance for all commercial aircraft. Any reduction in takeoff velocity, any increase in acceleration or any combination thereof will go far in reducing balanced field length and thus open up whole new airport markets to airlines. This of course is if there is a demand for the service at those locations.

From takeoff to cruise the aircraft is in a climb. Usually this is not a constant uninterrupted climb as almost all airports have departure procedures (DPs) that require a pause in the ascent at certain points to help with traffic management. Once clear of the immediate area though, most jets are free to climb at their most efficient rate. A major problem for aircraft climbing has not been ability to climb, but excessive noise. Novel concepts for reducing power at strategic segments of the climb such as the Quiet Climb System by Boeing are aimed at making living near an airport quieter. [7] Another approach to the problem is to design aircraft with more excess thrust that allows for steeper climb angles that removes the source of the noise from the ground much faster. An added benefit for pilots and airlines is that the jet will arrive at cruise altitude sooner and begin its most efficient profile earlier in the trip. While excess thrust sounds wasteful, it is only used when required, thus allowing the engines to work at far lower power settings during normal phases of flight, prolonging their lifetimes.

Cruise speeds have been the same for almost all commercial airliners since the 1960s. RJs typically cruised slightly slower than their larger brethren. If the next generation of RJs cruised as fast as or slightly faster than mainline jets, a large advantage would be recognized when combined with the quick climb technique. Current state of the art includes winglets to increase effective aspect ratio of the wing, high bypass turbofans, vortex generators and laminar flow wing sections that all combine to reduce drag.

Descent in commercial aircraft is generally accomplished via flying a standard terminal arrival route (STAR) which is a series of waypoints and altitudes that aircraft follow to remain sequenced and separated on their way to a busy airport in all types of weather. An MIT led study using late night UPS flights into Louisville, KY helped develop the Continuous Descent Approach which saves fuel, time and reduces noise on the terminal approach phase of flight, which often begins over 80nm away. [8] Applying these techniques to an RJ that may even be capable of steeper descents simply means that the high speed cruise portion of flight can last longer and save even more fuel and time overall.

Finally, landing must meet other criteria much like the takeoff had to. Having a low approach speed, strong brakes, thrust reversers (very important on wet, slushy or icy runways as wheel brakes have reduced friction) and aerodynamic devices are all required to make the RJ land in a short distance consistently and safely. The latest in cockpit technology including heads up displays and velocity vector symbology will assist the pilots in using minimal power until the final portion of the approach and touching down exactly where they want to.

Even though flying is the glamorous part that everyone wants to talk about, no aircraft will fly unless it is serviced and repaired on a regular basis. An airplane that is a joy for pilots and passengers will be short lived with airline management if it consumes twice as much in maintenance costs as its contemporaries. Making it easy to work on is another very important aspect. Providing access panels, regardless of material used in construction of the aircraft is very important to maintenance personnel who may have limited time to get an aircraft turned around. Industry standards may apply here as most modern airliners have a 98% or higher dispatch reliability.

When one begins to think of RJs as actual airliners, possibilities for the restructuring of national routes begin to multiply. At this point, the advantages of point-to-point travel begin to make sense and airlines will have the freedom to place their fleet strategically at places that have the demand. If there are seasonal changes, the RJ can much more readily deal with the increase in demand, which may not be enough to warrant using a larger aircraft. It may become possible to fly from a low traffic airport such as Atlantic City, NJ directly to another low traffic airport such as Lansing, MI. How many people actually need to travel to certain city pairs will dictate how often the jets are used. In some cases it may be a once or twice weekly service. In others it may be multiple daily flights. Regardless, the longer segments of the new RJs will make it more economical to use even with a lower total passenger load.

But despite point-to-point being an intriguing idea for travelers, it is not likely that airlines will change their entire route structure overnight. It is therefore important that the new RJs can operate within the current hub and spoke system efficiently as well. This is perfectly feasible provided they are used for the segments that require them. For 65 people who need to travel 1000nm from a hub to an outlying city, they really are not concerned if their airplane is a Boeing 737-800, an Airbus A320 or a CRJ900. What matters to them is that they have practical options for departure and arrival times, that the aircraft is comfortable enough for the stage length and that the aircraft is safe. For pilots what matters is an aircraft that has enough performance to fly the assigned trips without undue effort, that its systems are intuitive and that it is safe. And of course airline managers want it to be inexpensive to purchase, operate and maintain. Having passengers, pilots and maintainers like it only helps to increase the overall value of the purchase.

The maturation of the RJ into an aircraft that is respected and loved by pilots, passengers and airlines is currently taking place. New procedures will have to be developed, new routes will emerge, and new pay scales will have to be developed as airlines integrate long haul RJs into their fleets of mainline jets. Pilots need not look at future RJs as almost-airliners or little airplanes. They will still carry passengers at a significant fraction of the speed of sound several miles above the earth. For those who enjoy flying but wish to spend more time at home with family, flying RJs can offer an attractive option to flying longer international routes. But crew pay must be fair in order to ensure the same caliber of pilot who is flying the Boeing 747-400 over the Pacific is flying the advanced RJ over the Midwest. Murphy’s Law does not care how big an airplane is and sharp individuals are required for all airframes. US Airways flight 1549 is perfect evidence of that.

In today’s economy it has become necessary to rethink everything. That includes how flights are planned, how aircraft are used, how we define what is major, what is national, and what is regional. But it should be remembered that classifications matter not, in the end only the efficient survive.

As Bombardier CRJs line up at Philadelphia International, a Boeing 737 taxies past. Perhaps the future of commercial air travel lies in integration for maximum profit and passenger satisfaction.

Works Cited
1. Beyer, Morten & Agnew, Robert. “Morgan Stanley Conference-Regional Jet Update” http://www.mba-consulting.com/presentations/040301_regional_jet_market_update.pdf

2. “Embraer 190 Specifications”: http://www.embraercommercialjets.com

3. “Delta Through The Decades.” http://www.delta.com/about_delta/corporate_information/delta_stats_facts/delta_through_decades/index.jsp Retrieved: Feb 6, 2010

4. Bachman, Justin. “Airlines Give Propellers Another Spin.” BusinessWeek, April 30 2008 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24390211/page/2

5. Zibel, Alan. “Flight Delays Soar To 13 Year High.” The Washington Post, August 7, 2007 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/07/AR2007080700583.html?tid=informbox

6. “JetBlue and Southwest Airlines Destination Maps”: http://www.jetblue.com/wherewejet/http://www.southwest.com/travel_center/routemap_dyn.html?int=FOOTHOME_WHERE : Retrieved Feb 6, 2010

7. Friedrich, Jerry; McGregor, Daniel; Weigold, Douglas. “Quiet Climb System”. Aero, First quarter 2003: http://www.smartcockpit.com/pdf/flightops/flyingtechnique/25

8. Walton, Jim. “Continuous Descent Arrivals.” 2005 Boeing Performance & Flight Operations Engineering Conference: http://www.smartcockpit.com/pdf/flightops/aerodynamics/5 http://www.smartcockpit.com/pdf/flightops/aerodynamics/5

America's Pastime Grows Up

Chris — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 20:49:00 GMT

Below is yet another article submitted to newspapers and subsequently ignored. Apparently I don't have the proper black frame glasses and the "I worked all month on this beard" stubble to get published. Whatever, thats why I have my own website repository for articles.

Signing onto Facebook in the early hours of November 5, 2009 was a little strange. The overwhelming joy of Yankees fans combined with the for the most part, respectful disdain of Phillies fans made me think I had stumbled upon some bizarre interactive version of SportsCenter. Scattered among the jubilation and disappointment were grumblings about the Yankees being nothing more than hired hitmen, mercenaries, and overpaid. All I can say is welcome to sports in the 21st century.

For over a hundred years baseball has been touted as America’s Pastime. A game that families could go to and enjoy together. A game that many kids learned at a young age and then continued to watch in stadiums and on television sets as they got older. A game that was about the love of playing. Above all else, it was a game.

But the game is and always has been a business. While the business aspect was in the background for many decades (not counting the strike of 1994), the results of the 2009 World Series have brought it out into the open. The price of new stadiums and players is not cheap and fans who attend the games are the first to recognize this. New stadiums cost hundreds of millions of dollars and often require corporate sponsorship from business entities who’s connection with sports is tenuous at best. The new Yankees Stadium which cost $1.5 billion was financed through tax exempt bonds which, combined with the Yankees organization’s marketing power is probably why there was no outside sponsor involved with the construction. The Philadelphia Phillies play at Citizens Bank Park which cost just over $450 million to construct. Safeco Field in Seattle cost over $500 million in 1999. Jumping sports to football, recently opened Cowboys Stadium cost a reported $1.8 billion. And these numbers are not likely to get smaller but bigger and bigger as new stadiums are built. An interesting note is that many of the newer facilities have fewer seats than their predecessors, something to remember when considering ticket prices.

Armed with a new stadium and a reputation to live up to, the 2009 Yankees had no choice but to secure the most effective combination of players possible (there very well may have been a full scale riot had they lost the World Series…not from sports fans but from taxpayers). They signed A.J. Burnett, Mark Teixeria and C.C. Sabathia for a combined $423 million payable over up to 8 years. And while many may point fingers at the salaries, it should be noted that one of Mark Teixeria’s former teams, The Texas Rangers offered him $140 million over 8 years in mid 2007. About a year later, he accepted a $180 million/8 year deal from the Yankees. While how valuable a skill it is to be able to hit, throw or catch a ball between painted lines is completely subjective depending on who you ask, there is no doubt that the massive contract is just another part of the business.

So to the Phillies fans who complain that the Yankees bought talent, you are right. Every team buys talent at some price, the Yankees just paid a lot more for theirs. And to the complaints that the Phillies fans are just angry because their team didn’t win, that might be true, but it might be a little bit of the innocence being ripped away as they and many other baseball fans across America realize that this game is serious business.

F-22 Raptor: Advanced Budget Scapegoat

Chris — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 05:42:00 GMT

In a recent vote, the US Senate voted down the building of 7 more F-22A Raptors for the 2010 fiscal year. Anyone who is surprised by this hasn't paid attention to this nation's history of defense spending. In a nutshell, we come up with a great idea for defeating a certain threat, then we take so long to actually put the idea into production that the threat is gone before said idea becomes operational.

Lockheed Martin's magazine "Code One" ran a 2 part article in 1998 about the design history of the F-22. Even though the "official beginning of the ATF program" (program that begat the Raptor) began in 1981, the idea dates back to 1972. It took until 1986 before two major companies had been allocated funds for what was known as demonstration/validation; in other words, a competition. Both Northrup and Lockheed (no Grumman or Martin at this point in history) received close to $700 million each to build multiple flying prototypes. It took Lockheed a year simply to figure out what configuration would be the best compromise of speed, maneuverability, lethality, stealth, maintainability, etc. It took another year for them to refine the configuration (Config. # 632) to the point that it could do all the things required of it by the USAF.

The resultant YF-22 (remember Y-planes and X-planes?) was rolled out in August 1990 and flew one month later. By April of 1991, Secretary of the Air Force Donald Rice named Lockheed the winner of the ATF program. The contract called for 750 aircraft to be delivered starting in 2005, which was soon reduced to roughly 650, then to 339 and finally to 187 aircraft. During the 14 years between 1991 and 2005, the F-22 went through an exhaustive series of redesigns, tests, evaluations and upgrades to meet the changing threat picture. In all, 24 years elapsed since the official start of the program and the first deliveries to operational squadrons. That is an extraordinary amount of time for any weapon system to be in gestation. Compare this to the 6 month development time of the WWII superstar of the European theater, the North American P-51 Mustang.

P-51D and F-22; two extremes of development time.

I will be the first to admit my bias for the F-22. Anyone with a love of engineering, aviation, military power, etc cannot help but to be amazed by the jet. You don't just see this aircraft fly, you feel it. Pilots rave about its carefree handling and ability to knock out targets that have no idea they are being stalked. That being said, I can also admit that the program took way too long from a political standpoint. The quicker a product is put into operation, the harder it is for its investors (taxpayers) to have second thoughts about it. And with the breakup of the USSR, the lack of a clearly defined enemy has made the Raptor enemy number one for budget watchers. There are calls to reduce production and cut funding to the program but there are a few very basic problems with this mentality.

The jet is paid for!

Not all of them, but for the most part, the bulk of the money has been spent. Research and development funds are long since gone. As are the costs for building the tooling and infrastructure to mass produce the jet. The only way to reduce the unit cost is to spread it over a large number of airplanes. If for example, $10 million dollars was already spent and each copy of a particular aircraft would cost $250,000 to build, the cost to build 10 airplanes comes out to ($250,000 x 10) + $10,000,000 = $1,250,000/jet. However, if I build 200 of them, my cost drops to $300,000 per aircraft. Politicians seem to think as they have for years that by reducing the number of aircraft, tanks, ships, etc that they can save money. Taxpayers need to be aware of this so that they aren't lied to. The $1.75 billion allocated for the 7 new F-22s implies that the unit price is around $250 million each. It is unknown if these funds also include operating costs (what's even more interesting is that The Pentagon wants to build over 500 F-35s in the near future as a lower cost option that would create more jobs...just wait until that number gets slashed and the jet suddenly gets really expensive).

In closing, I have seen too many so called journalists who don't do enough research take aim at military programs that are not immediately sent overseas and used to blow up Taliban hideouts and call them useless:

1. "Its never fired a shot in anger."
That's a good thing, unless your idea of proving a weapons system is being in a constant state of intense global conflict. Thats what test and evaluations are for. Look how long systems like the F-14 were around before they fired a "shot in anger". Ohio class nuclear submarines have never fired their main weapons in anger and most people hope they never have to.

2. "It costs x-amount per hour to operate."
Fighter jets are expensive. There's no way around it. Anything with high performance will be expensive. Is it less expensive than earlier jets like the F-106 and F-15? Time will tell but chances are that when you have the ability to drink over 50,000lbs of fuel per hour PER ENGINE in full afterburner, you'll notice at the fill-up pump.

3. "It has y problem...for that much money it should be perfect."
Its a machine. All machines have flaws and glitches. People who think that the canopy locking incident is newsworthy were not around for the troubles of the F-111, F-105 or B-1B. All of those aircraft later matured into lethal, effective and important parts of the national arsenal. The early years are the years when all the bugs are worked out and the aircraft's strong points are really brought forth. It took 24 years for the F-22 to go operational. What will be the global situation 24 years from now in 2033?

4. "It's never been used in Iraq or Afghanistan."
Those two theaters are the current conflict. We have no idea what is in the future, which leads us to...

5. "Its enemy no longer exists."
But new ones will exist. To get rid of a system because its old intended purpose is no longer around is the same type of wisdom that, while assembling furniture, would lead a person to throw out a tool because the page of the instructions they're on no longer calls for it. What about on other pages? In the future?

Don't throw out your tools yet, America.

Sources:
www.CNN.com
www.guardian.co.uk
Code One: April 1998 (Vol 13, No 2)
Code One: October 1998 (Vol 13 No 4)
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/

Glass Cockpit Blues

Chris — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 04:19:00 GMT

It's been a while, but something that happened the other day prompted me to write.

I was observing on an instrument proficiency check in a Cessna 205 and noticed some things that really did stand out. The pilot undergoing the check was highly competent and ran very thorough checklists for all phases of flight. His VOR and ILS approaches were smooth and safe with limited deflection shown on the CDI that he corrected quickly. However the one instrument in the cockpit that caused the most trouble was the GPS. The instructor asked to see a GPS approach in Orange County. The PIC started pushing buttons to enter approach mode on the receiver. And the GPS promptly decided to ignore his request and do something else, like try to enter an approach for a VOR in the area (which to its credit, it gave a message saying "This is not an airport.").

So the PIC said lets try a different airport, like Lincoln Park. The instructor said okay, enter the approach and fly the procedure. Again the same flurry of typing and head scratching ensued. By now the instructor is fiddling with the unit and flipping through operation checklists to see if there were any shortcuts to getting it to switch modes. After about 5 minutes he proclaims victory over the beast in the black box and then asks the PIC to enter the approach. The PIC tried several times but each time hit a key that ruined the string of info just entered. That or the wrong option was selected, giving us a flight plan to Aviano. All the while, I'm scanning for traffic and telling the potential student next to me that flying is actually fairly easy, but operating the avionics is the thing that makes aces feel like aceholes.

We headed south back to Central Jersey Regional and by this time the PIC had figured out a way to get the GPS to accept the approach mode and leave flight plan mode for good. He flew a perfect GPS approach to runway 7, broke off and made a ridiculously soft landing. One of those landings where you have to remind the wheels that they're supposed to start turning because we are in fact on the ground. After the flight, I talked to the potential student about the joys of general aviation, while the instructor spoke to the PIC about the flight. It was painfully clear that while GPS is a great tool (the map mode would have kept us from guessing where NYC's class B began in case we couldn't see ground references) and it can help you fly more efficiently. However, if you are not completely comfortable using all modes of the GPS, you're only getting a fraction of the benefit. Even more importantly, with your head down staring at the various modes on your receiver, you're distracted from the primary task of flying the airplane. Granted this airplane had an autopilot and it had been used earlier, but the instructor wanted to see the PIC hand fly. The PIC got off heading and altitude far more often when messing with the unit than when he was just scanning. Granted, a person with an impeccable scan will be able to divide their attention perfectly, but the fact remains that you need to know exactly where the electrons are going before you start the engine.

If your GPS has home training software, use it. Don't just hit the Direct button and stare at the map. That's a waste of many thousands of dollars of capability. Practice going to a certain airport and then switching to an alternate. Know how the map orients itself and how to zoom in and out. If your GPS can output commands to an autopilot, do some local practice flights with it engaged in good weather. Basically using the full capability of any avionics needs to be second nature. Just as you can spin the numbers on the transponder without a second thought, so must be the operation of any nav gear.

In closing, a word to any avionics manufacturer who may be reading this (hey you never know). Please make your avionics big enough to use without having to train our fingers how to lock onto the right button while bouncing around in turbulence. Yes, panel space is always an issue but most owners would welcome a large knob that does the same thing in all pages (i.e. scan, change letters, change mode, etc), or large buttons that are spaced so that the bouncing finger doesn't hit the wrong one. Other than that, personally I love the color maps and built in nav/coms. Anything to make the average Piper more like an A320....except for the J-3 Cub.
Let's leave that one simple.

Copyright Forever

Chris — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 23:09:00 GMT

The following is an op-ed piece I've written in reference to the murky copyright laws and how they apply to online videos. I will have more on this in the future as many people have been affected by this situation.

There is a new type of criminal on the loose. They are in every state, in every town, most likely one is in your house and chances are good that it is you.

No I am not talking about the people who download thousands of songs and make CDs for their friends and get paid. And I'm not talking about the people who take something that isn't theirs and try to pass it off as their own. I'm talking about the people who go to baseball games and make the mistake of posting a cell phone video of themselves cheering for their favorite player while a copyrighted song plays on the loudspeaker. Even though the rights to play the songs at 30,000 seat stadiums had been purchased, if any slight portion of them are heard on the video, it will be removed for copyright infringement. You also have parents who post videos of their kids having a birthday party and put in a song they happen to like. Does getting 5,000 views of your children getting new bikes after singing "Happy Birthday To You" (which just happens to be copyrighted) really take anything away from the original artist? I'm not sure but they too are criminals for infringement. And perhaps most devious of all, are the deployed military personnel who make music videos documenting their experiences overseas. Apparently we are all better off not being able to see the current conflicts through their eyes if it protects a copyrighted song.

The role of a record company has been steadily changing over the past few decades and those changes affect how everyone does business. The era of making enough money off a lone single or album release is no longer the case for artists (in fact it was almost never the case for most artists, but that's a different story). With the increased difficulty in traditional sales, things have become difficult for some larger record labels. And when things become difficult and no solution is visible, sometimes the reaction is swift, illogical and ultimately damaging to all parties involved. The reaction for some labels is to tag, remove and threaten anybody who creates and posts a video that even slightly borders on infringement.

The problem with the approach of these certain record labels is that instead of going about it the proper way and taking each case to court, they have taken to trolling websites and removing videos for copyright infringement without a valid appeal process. One of the popular video hosting sites involved in this mess will give you an opportunity to appeal the decision if you feel that the video is not infringement. However valid or intelligent your reasoning, you will most likely be sent an automated letter stating that someone somewhere has determined that your reasoning is flawed and the video is not allowed to be reposted. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act clearly states in Section 512 [(g)(2)(C)] that for any accused work where the creator serves a counter-notice and if there is no court order against said creator, the work must be returned to its original status within 14 days. It seems as though the prospect of legal fees for thousands of individual cases is too much for the accusers to contemplate. All this without any actual proof of how it violates copyright law other than their word is more expensive, therefore more correct than ours. Flag first and don’t ask questions later.

For the record, Copyright Law does provide for Fair Use, unfortunately, the accusers would rather thumb their nose at this provision while the video hosting site throws up their hands and leaves their users to the wolves. Fair Use is not a cut and dry assignment but a four step process by which both parties have to prove or disprove:
1. The purpose and character of the use (was the derivative work for profit? did it add anything substantial to the original work?)
2. The Nature of the copyrighted work (facts and information are less sensitive to infringement than art)
3. The amount of copyrighted work used in relation to the new work
4. The effect upon the potential market for the copyrighted work.

The more of these factors can be validly included in your argument, the better. We also have to look at intent of law. Reposting a copyrighted song or giving copies to your friends is not going to be able to use Fair Use as a defense. However a video of you having a conversation at a coffeeshop where the song is on the radio in the background is most certainly fair use. The topic was not the song, the attention should have been on the conversation and the music was unavoidable in that location. A jury may say that the accused party could have went outside but chances are someone would have driven by with a car stereo blasting copyrighted music, or the camera would have caught a logo on a billboard and we'd be back to square one. In this era of extremely easy video capture and sharing and a media saturated world, there needs to be a big dose of common sense on accusations of infringement. There is a distinction after all between social networking in public and profiteering.

Perhaps these companies own too much and like a child in the "Mine!" phase of development they wish to grab everything that looks inviting. But it’s easy to complain and I'm more interested in getting back to creating both original and derivative works. What we all need are solutions. To the lawyers who work for these media conglomerates:

Lead the way to the future of rights management and create a contract that gives individuals who legally purchased music to make not-for-profit videos using said music. Create a program where people who use a licensed song in their online video can either have overlay ads or pay a micro-royalty fee. Even a dollar times 50,000 people (an extremely low figure given the number of video creators online today) is not an insignificant amount, especially for what amounts to free advertising. Just because we aren't getting rich off our videos doesn't mean you can't.

I'm sure there are other ideas out there that are probably even more advantageous. But please be aware that we are not going to stop creating. A whole new generation of directors, producers, actors, musicians and the like could be discovered if the emphasis was put on the art instead of who owns what percent of what. The manpower assembled to rat out videos could easily be put to task finding new talent. But what do I know? I didn't go to school for how to convert 20th century companies with failing business models into 21st century industry leaders.

I sure hope someone did.

Lunar Tour 1

Chris — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 04:31:00 GMT

It's been quite a while since I used my telescope (8 inch dobsonian reflector for those who know what that means) and since it wasn't freezing tonight, there was no excuse not to pull it out. After everything was all set up, I couldn't understand why the image of the moon in the eyepiece was fuzzy. Apparently I'm smart enough to keep my scope covered but not smart enough to plug the ventilation holes at the bottom. While a year's worth of dust had been kept off the mirror, a years worth of spiderwebs crisscrossed the interior. Damn critters. Always making webs where the is absolutley no chance of catching other insects. I think the spiders in NJ have forgotten what they're supposed to be doing. In any case, faced with cleaning webs out of this long tube with delicate mirrors at either end meant that only one piece of machinery could do the job.

Wet/dry vac. In the middle of the yard. At night. My neighbors love me.

The cleaning was worth it. Below are the first astrophotos I've taken since summer of 2008. They're surprisingly easy to do, especially with modern digital equipiment. In the old days not only did you have to find high speed film, but keep it in the fridge or freezer to enhance its responsiveness to light. Some guys I knew would "push" their film to get ever higher ISOs but I never went to that level of dedication. Today it's very simple to line up a DSLR with the eyepiece of a telescope and get great images. Here are a few examples.

Wide angle view of the moon taken with a 26mm eyepiece on the telescope and 36mm on the camera lens. Exposure was 1/80 sec, f/10 and 800 ISO.

The crater Gassendi taken at the eyepiece of the scope. 800 ISO, 1/80 sec exposure at f/10 and 46mm. The eyepiece was at 26mm wide angle attached to a 1.25" barlow lens. Just to the left of the crater is Mare Humorum, to the right is Oceanus Procellarum (Ocean of Storms).

Orion and Taurus setting in the west. Taken at 22mm with a 20 second exposure at f/5.6 and 800 ISO. If you have a tripod, you can do this shot too.

Sinus Iridum (Bay of Rainbows) is tucked into the border of Montes Jura (the reverse "C"). The little crater on the edge of Sinus Iridum is Bianchini. To the far left of the photo is Mare Imbrium (Sea of Rains).

For more fullsize photos, go to the main website and download to your heart's content. If you have a camera and tripod, see if you can do some astrophotos of your own. Its a lot easier than it used to be but still a lot of fun.

We'll see ya!

Center Tank Blues

Chris — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 00:37:00 GMT

I learned this week that the faster the airplane, the harder it is to work on....generally. The example was a Piper Aerostar brought into the hangar to check for fuel and oil leaks. Steve had the plane up on jacks and Matt was getting ready to go into the wheelwells to disconnect the regulator which was directly connected to the fuselage center tank. Since I had the longest arms, I reached in to pull the center tank drain line and unbolt the regulator from the tank. Sounds simple, but it took us 3 hours. Steve was busy in the baggage compartment unscrewing the bladder, which of course had stuck screws. For those who don't know, most aircraft baggage compartments are a claustrophobe's biggest nightmare. For the rest of us, they're just really difficult to maneuver in.

In any case, we got the bladder out and they packed it up to be sent off for testing. That will ensure that there are no leaks in it. In the meantime I crawled into the baggage compartment and taped over the rivet heads in the hopper to ensure that there will be nothing to snag the bladder when it gets back. Slapping tape on rivets shouldn't take long right? Try about 2 1/2 hours. Banging my head on the ELT probably added 15 minutes to that total.

After that got buttoned away, the cowlings went back on, the gear doors got reconnected (retract halfway first, connect, then extend fully) and it was brought off the jacks. Steve is going to check the engines for oil leaks once the repaired bladder gets reinstalled. To be honest, despite the cramped quarters, the actual act of removing the bladder was easier than when I helped with a Cessna 206 last year. The Aerostar doesn't have snaps inside the hopper to attach the bladder to while the Cessna does. So replacing the 206's means reaching inside the fuel filler hole and somehow turning your arm into triple jointed affair and snapping the bladder into place.

So this week saw another 7 hours go down in the book. It'll come in handy when I eventually get an A&P way down the line. Next week we'll probably run the engines and check for oil leaks and of course, fix them. I'll update you when it happens....we'll see ya.

Weclome To The Future

Chris — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 20:39:00 GMT

Good afternoon and welcome to not only the first Semper Apollo blog but my first ever blog. Maybe its because I just don't like the word "blog". It sounds like something you scrape off the wall at a water treatment plant. Was weblog really too difficult to say in its entirety? Oh well. I'll be back soon with an actual post. In the meantime, check the podcast greeting to the new Semper Apollo website. I ramble a bit but who cares, it's all for fun. We'll see ya.

Welcome to Semper Apollo Podcast