North up or track up?

I was reading through an article on pilotage [Wikipedia] in the December AOPA Pilot. In general, I found the article enjoyable, but one thing stuck out like a wart — the author’s assumption that people should always read a chart track up (with the chart rotated for the direction they’re heading) rather than north up.

I have no objection to the suggestion that people try using a chart track up, but frequent claim that it’s easier — and some pundits’ and instructors’ insistence that it’s the only proper way — grates a bit. In informal surveys on aviation mailing lists, I’ve found people split about 50:50 between north up and track up, and I suspect that it has to do with how different people’s brains work, something along the lines of left-handedness and right-handedness.

Personally, if I’m flying west, my mind already pictures me flying right to left, so it’s by far easier to hold the chart north up so that it lines up with what I’m seeing in my head. Track up would be a double annoyance, since (1) I’d have to rotate everything in my head, and (2) all the text on the chart might be sideways or upside down. Likewise, when I’m walking, cycling, or driving around a city, I think of myself as heading northwest, south, etc. — I never memorize a trip as a series of left or right turns. I imagine that people who do navigate that way probably also find track up easier.

So if you fly, hike, boat, or whatever, do you prefer to hold your charts (or set your GPS display) north up or track up? Why? If you’re an instructor (aviation, seach-and-rescue, orienteering, etc.), have your students generally found one or the other easier? Has anyone every done a proper scientific study?

Tagged , , | 15 Comments

U.S. WWII F4U Corsair training film online

A friend sent me a link to this 20 minute U.S. government training film for the F4U Corsair (Google Video). Make sure your wings are locked in the down position before takeoff, and remember that you’re burning well in excess of 200 gallons/hour at military power. Stall is a bit exciting, and make sure you don’t pull more than 7Gs in a dive.

A lot of the stuff here, though — like the checklists and mixture management, and the caution not to ride the brakes while taxiing — will still be familiar to a student pilot in 2007.

Posted in General | Tagged | 4 Comments

Gate shortage foils space invasion

Some workers at Chicago/O’Hare Airport claim to have seen a UFO on the night of November 7, 2006 (CNN story): it hovered over the field and then climbed rapidly out of sight. The FAA talked a lot about low ceilings and airport lights creating optical illusions, but I found the explanation from controller and union rep Craig Burzych much more convincing:

“To fly 7 million light years to O’Hare and then have to turn around and go home because your gate was occupied is simply unacceptable.”

Next time you’re in an airliner landing at a major hub, don’t grumble if you’re stuck for 15 or 20 minutes because another plane is in your gate — it might just be saving the world from eternal servitude to a race of hyperintelligent (but impatient) cyborgs.

Tagged | 1 Comment

Winter flying around the Great Lakes

There is one really, really, REALLY important rule about winter flying near the Great Lakes:

Remember which way the wind’s blowing.

Lake effect snow.

Even if there are blue skies everywhere else, a cold wind will often pull streamers of lake effect weather off the Great Lakes, so if you’re downwind from (say) Lake Ontario or Georgian Bay, expect long streams of clouds with significant icing, snow, and low IFR conditions underneath, topping out somewhere around 6,000-8,000 feet (unless they hit hills like the Adirondacks, in which case the tops can shoot way, way up). This evening, the new photo of the day at Wikipedia (originally from NASA) is a beautiful colour satellite photo of streamers coming off the lakes (click on it for a much larger version), caused by what I’d guess is a low-pressure system centered in northern Quebec a bit east of James Bay. Notice the long fingers reaching out into central Ontario (off Lake Huron and Georgian Bay), Michigan, Ohio, and upstate New York.

My normal flying route from Ottawa to Boston or New York takes me across the St. Lawrence River, and depending on the wind, I can usually expect to have to overfly lake effect weather somewhere along my route. If the wind is from the west, I can expect to find it over Watertown, NY and the relatively flat area of NY state, possibly as far as Lake Champlain; if the wind is from the southwest, it will blow straight up the St. Lawrence towards Montreal, possibly boxing in Ottawa as well; if the wind is from the northwest, it will head towards the Adirondacks, and may throw up cloud too high for me to fly over; it will also blow off Georgian Bay across my route from Ottawa to Toronto, so even if the TAFs are CAVU for Ottawa and Toronto, it might be unflyable in between.

The trick in every case is to make sure that I can stay above the cloud, because it’s pretty nasty underneath it (not to mention inside). For emergencies, as you can see in the photo, there are usually clear spots between the streams for an emergency descent. If the streamers are over your point of departure or destination, on the other hand, forget about it. People on the U.S. side have it a lot harder in the winter, since the cold winter winds usually come from the northwest and blow over them on the southeast sides of the lakes. Aside from central Ontario near Georgian Bay, the Canadian side is usually clearer.

(Source: NASA Astronomy Picture of the Day.)

Posted in General | Tagged , , , | 5 Comments

Simple, at last

It’s been four years, almost to the day, since I bought my 1979 Piper Warrior II, and it’s time for another annual inspection (I’ve moved it up from May to December to avoid missing good flying weather, so this is the second annual in 2006).

So far, everything looks good, but this is not going to be the stereotypical owner-pilot annual inspection progress posting. Instead, I wanted to mention that while people refer to the Cherokee as a relatively simple plane, this is the first year that it has actually seemed simple to me.

I was able to talk to my AME (mechanic) on his level instead of forcing him to stoop to mine, and I knew — not just academically, but from real experience and sense of touch — what nearly every exposed part was and how it was supposed to work. A couple of weeks ago, I prepared a short spreadsheet of the extra work I wanted done and my estimated hours for each item, and the AME agreed that my estimates were in the right ballpark. Today we walked through the inspection snag sheet quickly and efficiently. I approved a small amount of extra work based on the findings during the initial inspection, then drove my altimeter down to the instrument shop for its biennial recertification.

It really is a different experience when you understand what’s under the cowling and behind the interior panels. Early bush pilots had to take care of their own planes, but from what I understand, a modern commercial pilot flying (say) a Cessna 182 is not even allowed to change her own oil unless she also happens to be an AME. I’m not sure this is a good thing: maybe a month or two helping on a shop floor (fetching buckets of propwash or what-have-you) would be a good addition to the commercial pilot syllabus.

Tagged , | Comments Off on Simple, at last

Changes at Toronto City Centre Airport

Update: I’ve just received a PDF of the new apron layout from the airport manager.

A few weeks ago, I had a coffee with Flyin Dutchman, a local professional pilot here in Ottawa (Dutchman flies a Pilatus PC-12 all over North America — check out his weblog for some excellent photos). He mentioned that there have been some significant changes at my favorite airport, Toronto City Centre. Starting from what he gave me, I’ve been following the news, exchanging e-mail with COPA and working the phones when I’ve had a chance, and here’s a summary of what I’ve been able to find:

Changes at CYTZ since last summer

  • As most people already know, Porter Air is now flying a regular schedule between Ottawa and City Centre using DASH-8s: I’m hearing them frequently on ATC frequencies. Air Canada Jazz has also managed to restore service to City Centre, though I’m not sure if they’re using the same terminal as Porter. (not yet, according to Paul Hayes.) This is good news for the future of the airport.
  • The Toronto Port Authority suspended the $11.50 landing fee for light aircraft belonging to COPA (and, I think, AOPA) members over the summer, but they have since reinstated it.
  • The new ferry and dock are in operation.
  • Porter Air (at the west end of the field) is currently the only FBO selling fuel at CYTZ, since they bought away the Esso franchise from (much more GA-friendly) TransCapital. Porter charges $1.50/litre + GST for 100LL (2006-12-11), plus a $10 ramp fee for a quick fueling of a light piston single. Parking is $35/night. No fees are waived for buying fuel.
  • TransCapital (at the east end of the field) has not quite given up the ghost yet — they have tanks in place, and hope to resume selling Jet-A and 100LL in the new year under a different brand. In the meantime, they still offer parking for only $20/night (when they had fuel, they waived the first night with a fuel purchase, and never charged a ramp fee if you wanted to fuel up or park for a few hours during the day).

Choices, choices

Assuming that you’re visiting Toronto for two nights, you can either pay a total of $80 in extra fees to park and fuel up at Porter, or $40 to park at TransCapital, and then stop to fuel somewhere on your way in or your way home (such as Peterborough for me). Once TransCapital sells fuel again, you’ll probably be able to get away with only $20 for two nights’ parking, if they go back to waiving the first night’s charge with a fuel purchase.

If you’re just visiting for a few hours, I’m not sure if TransCapital will charge you the $20 or not (since they’re not making money on fuel right now), so it would be a good idea to call first and check. By spring, I hope that everything will be back to normal, more or less.

Tagged , | 5 Comments

Taking the fun out of flying

I’m flying to Boston on Sunday for the week to chair the XML 2006 conference. When I fly to New York City, I usually land at Teterboro Airport and park at Atlantic Aviation — the gas is expensive, but my Cherokee doesn’t use much, and since U.S. customs is located right at Atlantic I can fly non-stop from Ottawa, shaving 45 minutes from the trip.

I thought about trying the same thing with Boston this time by flying into Laurence G Hanscom Field Airport (aka Bedford), just west of the city. The Signature FBO is typical for a big city — expensive gas, $25 handling fee waived if you buy a minimum amount of fuel — so that’s not a problem. MassPort, who runs the major Boston airports, also tacks on a $10 landing fee and $12.75/night parking charge, but again, that’s not too bad.

After that, it starts to get strange. For example, some busy airports offer reduced landing fees at night where there’s not much traffic, but MassPort goes the other way: there’s a $49 surcharge for each landing between 11pm and 7am, and it doubles to $98 if you do it more than 5 times in a year. I guess that’s for noise abatement. MassPort also requires a prop lock on all parked planes, and there used to be a $10/day rental fee for them, but Signature now loans them out for free. Finally, the kicker is a $65 user fee for the privilege of clearing customs at KBED in a four-seat plane.

So much for that. I’ll add 45 minutes to my trip, clear customs for free (in Massena, NY or Burlington, VT), then land at one of the airports just outside MassPort’s ring of control and ride the commuter train in, as I’ve done three times in the past. Check out the MassPort fee page to see how easily bad government can take the fun out of flying — it makes the forthcoming Nav Canada big-airport user fees look tame in comparison.

Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Insurance

December is insurance-renewal time for me. Fortunately, this year it’s reasonably good news.

How airplane insurance works

There are two main components to aircraft insurance:

  1. liability insurance, which covers claims from people other than you (such as passengers and people on the ground); and
  2. hull insurance, which protects the value of your plane (some combination of in the air, on the ground in motion, on the ground not in motion, or usually all three).

Liability insurance for a private plane tends to be fixed at around $500-700/year for $1,000,000 coverage, as far as I can tell. It’s not too much, because (accident stories aside), pilots rarely hurt passengers or people on the ground. Liability insurance is required in Canada, even for visiting planes from the U.S.

Hull insurance is a percentage of the value of your plane, I think typically 1.5-3%/year, depending on the type of plane, your experience, etc., and is entirely optional — if replacing your plane wouldn’t be an extraordinarily large expense for you, then financially, you’re better off without the insurance (as with anything). Most of the claims don’t have to do with dramatic crashes but with taxiing collisions, wind/storm damage while tied down, wheel-up landings (for retracts), ground loops and wing damage (for tail draggers), etc. Planes are unbelievably expensive to fix, and what looks like a couple of tiny dents can sometimes result in a complete write-off.

Comparing costs

When comparing the cost of insuring different planes, it’s important to take hull value into account. For example, if the hull insurance costs 2% of the hull value, then you’ll pay $1,200 hull on a plane with a declared value of $60,000, but $8,000 hull on a plane with a declared value of $400,000. That, and not their safety record, is the main reason that new planes like the Cirrus are so expensive to insure: it costs a lot more to replace a more expensive plane (duh).

The failing U.S. economy and the aircraft owner

Although most Americans don’t realize it, their money has lost a huge chunk of its value over the past few years (about 30% against the Canadian dollar, and much more against the Pound and Euro), so everything priced in American dollars (including their houses, planes, boats, cars, and shares) is worth less than it used to be: a U.S. stock that was worth USD 100/share five years ago has to be priced at about USD 125/share now just to break even in Canadian terms (more in Europe), and that’s still providing $0 capital gain. Used planes are priced primarily in US dollars, so their real value has been tumbling in recent years, even if the US sticker price looks about the same. As a result, we Canadian airplane owners are taking a bath — the only good news is that since our planes are worth so much less, they’re cheaper to insure (it’s also cheap to buy up, if you’re so inclined).

This year’s damage

My insurance cost has been declining gradually since I bought the plane due to my increasing experience and ratings, but the fall in the U.S. dollar (and subsequent drop in my plane’s resale value) has accelerated things. This year, I’ll be paying only CAD 1,520 to insure my Warrior for hull and liability, down from about CAD 2,300 when I bought the plane in 2002 — the drop in the plane’s value due to the low U.S. dollar accounts for $200-300 of that, and some of the rest might come from my having passed the magic 500 hour mark last year. Now I have to keep my fingers crossed for a cheap annual inspection as well.

Tagged | 3 Comments

Canadian airspace disappears overnight! (casualties of the DAFIF)

[Update 2006-11-20: it looks like they’ve pulled even the small amount of Canadian data that they can get from the FAA database — there’s nothing but US airports and navaids in there now.]

Well, the DAFIF — the free database of worldwide aeronautical information that used to be available free from the U.S. Department of Defense — has been gone for a few weeks, and it’s having repercussions that I hadn’t anticipated. It turns out that the most popular flight planning web site, Aeroplanner, was using the DAFIF for their non-U.S. data, so Canada has suddenly gone blank: aside from a few major airports and navaids that happen to be in the FAA database, and the segments of a few airways crossing the border, the airways, intersections, navaids, airports, terminal airspace, control zones, restricted airspace, and everything else that used to crowed their online maps is gone, leaving the site useless for anyone (Canadian or American) planning a flight that doesn’t stay entirely within U.S. airspace. The company graciously offered me a pro-rated refund for my subscription, though I decided not to take them up on it.

Lots of other people use the DAFIF for cheap or free flight planning, for controlling aircraft in flight simulators, and much more. In many cases, they can keep using the last public edition, which will slowly get more and more out of date, but that obviously wouldn’t be a responsible choice for a real-world online flight planning service like Aeroplanner.

Who’s the real villain?

So who should we be mad at? The U.S. DoD is an obvious target, since they’re the ones who pulled the data from public use, but let’s step back and think for a second:

  1. In the U.S., the FAA still publishes a free database for American airspace, with a bit of Mexican and Canadian thrown in.
  2. Almost every other country in the world refuses to release its air navigation data free to the public, period.
  3. The U.S. military used to make up for that by publishing a lot of every other country’s airnav data as well.

No more charity

Sure, I wish they still published the DAFIF (and I suspect their reasons for stopping are silly), but the real villains here are the Canadian government, the British government, the Australian government, and every other government that refuses to release free information to their own citizens about their own airspace. We were lucky that the U.S. DoD was willing to help cover that disgraceful gap for so many years, and that they have given us a good starting point for a free,collaborative airnav database (we still have the last DAFIF edition to start from), but our years of living off American charity have now ended.

A new start?

Speaking of free, collaborative databases, Paul Tomblin has set up a wiki to start discussing life after DAFIF. Why not swing by and take a look. And don’t be surprised if, in the meantime, your favorite flight planning tool suddenly turns Canada into the huge, empty white space that the rest of the world always imagined it was.

Tagged , , | 3 Comments

Serious upper winds

Check out the low-level upper wind forecast (FD) for Ottawa tomorrow — it looks like the gales of November are coming calling a couple of days early:

STN YOW – for use 3000 6000 9000 12000 18000
FDCN03 CWAO FCST BASED ON 291200 DATA VALID 301200 06-17 2939 3046-05 3151-08 3063-10 3197-22

In plain language, that means that at 18,000 ft the wind will be from the northwest at 97 knots (180 km/h). My Warrior cannot fly that high (the theoretical ceiling is around 14,000 ft, with a lightly-loaded plane and lots of patience), but many light piston singles and twins can. Even at 12,000 ft, the winds are strong enough that I could point the plane into the wind, drop flaps, pitch for slow flight, and fly backwards over Ottawa; at 9,000 ft, I could still pretty-much hover or move backwards very slowly.

Tagged , | 1 Comment