4 questions I am stumped on.

[poadeleted20]

The 42 is a retract correct?

Correct, but until a recent FAA exemption, it wasn't complex because it didn't have a pilot-controllable pitch prop (single level FADEC control). The FAA recently issued an exemption saying that a DA-42 was complex enough to count for the 10 hours towards initial Commercial and to use as complex on the initial Commercial and initial CFI-A practical tests. For most of the schools using them, that's enough -- they'll just have folks get the initial Commercial and CFI with ME ratings in the DA-42, and then add-on the SE ratings in a DA-40 or DA-20.

 

[CowboyPilot]

Correct, but until a recent FAA exemption, it wasn't complex because it didn't have a pilot-controllable pitch prop (single level FADEC control). The FAA recently issued an exemption saying that a DA-42 was complex enough to count for the 10 hours towards initial Commercial and to use as complex on the initial Commercial and initial CFI-A practical tests. For most of the schools using them, that's enough -- they'll just have folks get the initial Commercial and CFI with ME ratings in the DA-42, and then add-on the SE ratings in a DA-40 or DA-20.

Ron,

Is this not "dumbing down" our future pilot generation? Looks to me like the almighty FAA is lowering already low minimums on requirements and actual skills/experience simply because the equipment exists.

Hell, why not start counting computer flying video games as real log book hours--can THAT be far behind?

With the FAA's hellbent position on "no drivers license 3rd class medicals" for PRIVATE pilots, yet loosening minimums and "excepting" standards/previous requirements for freaking COMMERCIAL pilot candidates. . . it don't make sense.

But then, I'm retired from the gov't and I never saw it make much sense for better than forty years. . .

Regards.

-JD

 

[poadeleted20]

Is this not "dumbing down" our future pilot generation? Looks to me like the almighty FAA is lowering already low minimums on requirements and actual skills/experience simply because the equipment exists.

Dunno, but which aircraft do you think is more representative (in terms of systems complexity) of what a commercial pilot today will be flying -- a carbureted 1968 Piper 180 Arrow with steam gauges and a couple of mechanical nav/comms or a 2006 DA42 TwinStar with turbocharged engines and a G1000 avionics suite? Or do you think manipulation of that blue-knobbed prop control is really essential to earning the CPL on your way to the right seat of an RJ? Frankly, I'm not sure what the answers to those questions are.

 

[Henning]

Ron,

Is this not "dumbing down" our future pilot generation? Looks to me like the almighty FAA is lowering already low minimums on requirements and actual skills/experience simply because the equipment exists.

Hell, why not start counting computer flying video games as real log book hours--can THAT be far behind?

-JD

I'm not too sure it's a bad thing if you think about it. Twin training is for the most part about getting people ready to fly air carrier type equipment with turbines which a DA-42 with FADEC and a glass panel is considerably more representative of than older equipment. They still learn how to use a prop with the DA 40 doing the SE training (I mean really a prop is not that difficult to use).

 

[KennyFlys]

I'm not too sure it's a bad thing if you think about it. Twin training is for the most part about getting people ready to fly air carrier type equipment with turbines which a DA-42 with FADEC and a glass panel is considerably more representative of than older equipment. They still learn how to use a prop with the DA 40 doing the SE training (I mean really a prop is not that difficult to use).

Although you have older planes being replaced by TAA/FADEC and the number of controls may be reduced in the cockpit, I think having had experience in the older planes goes a lot further in preparing for an airliner. One of the biggest issues in learning complex aircraft is division of attention. That need certainly does not go down but rather expands as one moves into larger aircraft.

I think it's also important to get time in TAA's since glass is clearly the standard in large aircraft. But, you can't let a computer become your babysitter in flight. That is happening and it only contributes to a greater level of complacency.

This is the prime reason manufacturers like Cirrus has strong sponsorship in training and currency in their specific make and model. Pilots have died while depending on systems and equipment rather than simply being the pilot.

 

[Henning]

Although you have older planes being replaced by TAA/FADEC and the number of controls may be reduced in the cockpit, I think having had experience in the older planes goes a lot further in preparing for an airliner. One of the biggest issues in learning complex aircraft is division of attention. That need certainly does not go down but rather expands as one moves into larger aircraft.

I'm not to sure about that. I got a few hours in the 777 sim coutesy of AA, and it was simpler flying wise than my Travel Air not to mention a Jetstream. There's not even speed cards as you get a purple speed bug on the speed tape to indicate Vref. No props or mixtures to deal with, just throttles, flaps and gear. Where the complexity comes in is in systems and systems diagnostics, and that's why they are two pilot aircraft, so the Pilot Flying can pay attention to flying and the PNF can take care of the rest. Even the MD-11 was pretty simple as to flying.

 

[Everskyward]

Diamond Aircraft is working with the FAA to obtain approval for use as a complex trainer a modified version of the CS-prop version of the DA40. It still has fixed gear, but it adds little speed brakes selected by a gear handle to simulate the effects/sensations of gear extension/retraction.

It will be interesting to know how they handle the takeoff. Seems like it wouldn't be such a great idea to take off with drag you don't need in case something happens just after lift off. Still, you wouldn't want to teach people to take off gear up...

Although you have older planes being replaced by TAA/FADEC and the number of controls may be reduced in the cockpit, I think having had experience in the older planes goes a lot further in preparing for an airliner.

But jets don't have mixture controls or prop controls. They only have one go-fast lever for each engine. You don't have to worry about feathering the prop when the engine quits or adjusting the mixture as you climb and descend. I think the main adjustment pilots have to make is learning to think and plan ahead at jet speeds, but that just comes with time.

As far as the glass cockpits go, while it might be a good idea to have trained in one in advance, I'm guessing that almost everyone who flies glass in bigger airplanes now learned with steam gages and made the transition successfully so it wouldn't be a show-stopper.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

It will be interesting to know how they handle the takeoff. Seems like it wouldn't be such a great idea to take off with drag you don't need in case something happens just after lift off. Still, you wouldn't want to teach people to take off gear up...

Interesting point Mari. The other potential pitfall this brings is that an engine failure after takeoff may result in wanting to bring the gear up to stretch the glide.

I'm sure there will be revised takeoff performance charts at a minimum.

 

[KennyFlys]

In my earlier statement regarding use of older complex aircraft, I was speaking mostly to the process of dividing attention. If that skill isn't gained early on, it may never happen. In application to a heavy twin, business jet or airliner, you have numerous more systems and processes to follow. Division of attention is an element in most performance maneuvers as well as other tasks in the commercial pilot PTS. I'm sure it's there for good reason.

 

[poadeleted20]

I've given 11 hours of dedicated instrument training in a TAA (Piper 6X with Avidyne Entegra and dual 430's plus S-Tec 55X a/p) in the last six days. There is no question in my mind that there is more division of attention and things to do in this plane than in a Piper Arrow with 6-pack flight instruments and two KX-155's, even if you didn't have the prop and mixture controls. You have way more things to adjust, program and manipulate, as well as three times the information thrown at you. Swap the prop control for a gear lever, and add another engine, and you've got the complexity of a DA-42 -- I think it's plenty enough to start preparing one for a modern airliner cockpit. Now, if you want to fly a 727, maybe the Arrow is a better training step, but if you're headed for a new CRJ, this 6X (or any other TAA) is a more reasonable jumping-off point.

 

[midlifeflyer]

This discussion is bringing up an interesting point. Is the "complex" endorsement about handling multiple systems or is it about handling certain systems. Is it about dealing with a certain level of complexity or about not landing gear up?

I think a lot of the argument in the latter part of the thread reflects underlying assumptions about what this training is for.

...although I'm not sure that a "not really retractable but sort of acts like it" airplane really fits the bill for either assumption - sounds more like a hybrid solution created by a committee

 

[poadeleted20]

This discussion is bringing up an interesting point. Is the "complex" endorsement about handling multiple systems or is it about handling certain systems. Is it about dealing with a certain level of complexity or about not landing gear up?

AFAIK, all it is about is going around the pattern in an airplane with retractable gear, flaps, and a pilot-controllable prop. Beyond that, someone would have to go back to the preamble of the original NPRM for the complex endorsement and see how they justified the rule.

 

[CowboyPilot]

Dunno, but which aircraft do you think is more representative (in terms of systems complexity) of what a commercial pilot today will be flying -- a carbureted 1968 Piper 180 Arrow with steam gauges and a couple of mechanical nav/comms or a 2006 DA42 TwinStar with turbocharged engines and a G1000 avionics suite? Or do you think manipulation of that blue-knobbed prop control is really essential to earning the CPL on your way to the right seat of an RJ? Frankly, I'm not sure what the answers to those questions are.

I can see both sides pretty easily--just don't like one of 'em.

IF someone from the ticket mills is hellbent on being a professional Ramen-eater, then why not go with the most direct route to a CRJ? Learn how to watch TV, program a computer and occasionally look outside to see if your wings are level. . . and you're on the correct runway before taking off.

BUT, I know a lot of Commercial pilots who don't fly jets. An old friend, and mentor, of mine from way back in the late 60's flies a Cessna 421 for some oil-biz folks in western Oklahoma. This guy has over 38,000 hours spread out over 45 years.

Yet, he's never flown a jet from the left seat. Never has had a real interest in it. Flew C-123's in Vietnam, then C-130's for us spec ops guys. Left the AF and went back to Laos and flew for AA. He's been a working commercial pilot for 45 years and a working CFII for 41 of those years.

He trains a lot of guys/gals who are going to fly the bush, crop-dusting, mail-haulers, pipeline lookers, small commercial commute ops, etc etc.

He runs a hard classroom, lot like my instructor pseudo-son in the hangar, but when you're done, you're one helluva pilot. I run this Diamond thing by him and this was his question as well--"what about those folks who want/need a commercial rating but aren't going to use it to head for the airlines?"

You reckon the FAA is going to "standardize" the commercial training or instead maybe put some "pathway clauses" in the training. . . ie, if you're going the Regionals route, learn in the flying TVs, but if you're not going that route, learn in the airplanes that still have real, functioning LG levers and blue prop knobs?

Seems like it could be an awfully slippery slope for the FAA and the comm students otherwise. . .

Just my initial thoughts and musings.

Regards.

-JD

 

[Henning]

He trains a lot of guys/gals who are going to fly the bush, crop-dusting, mail-haulers, pipeline lookers, small commercial commute ops, etc etc.

He runs a hard classroom, lot like my instructor pseudo-son in the hangar, but when you're done, you're one helluva pilot. I run this Diamond thing by him and this was his question as well--"what about those folks who want/need a commercial rating but aren't going to use it to head for the airlines?"

I completely understand where you're coming from, obviously I do.

I just don't see a problem. It's not that the FAA is replacing any of the older planes saying they are now unacceptable, rather they are adding these craft and systems to the allowable retinue so that those who are lookin to go the airline route have a more effective route to go there as well. So now you can use them, they are available. No one says you must use them.

At least that's the way I see this.

 

[poadeleted20]

I completely understand where you're coming from, obviously I do.

I just don't see a problem. It's not that the FAA is replacing any of the older planes saying they are now unacceptable, rather they are adding these craft and systems to the allowable retinue so that those who are lookin to go the airline route have a more effective route to go there as well. So now you can use them, they are available. No one says you must use them.

At least that's the way I see this.

I see it that way, too. I have the fortune of having flown just about everything from J-3C's to the most sophisticated systems-oriented jet fighters the US has (well, had) to offer, including flight instructing and charter flying in piston aircraft. There's no one single appropriate path to learn them all. Given that the folks going through training programs like MTSU, UND, ERAU, etc., aren't going to be flying 206's and 402's for charter operators, and given that doing that big-bore piston flying has little relevance to the skills needed to start as an RJ co-pilot, I understand the FAA's decision.

The question has been raised as to whether the FAA needs to invent a new pilot certification concept, splitting the airline co-pilot track from the "traditional" commercial ticket that is appropriate for ag pilots, parachute haulers, light plane 135 ops, etc. This is being kicked around in the aviation education community, although that's about as far as the idea has gone so far. The FAA is (as we have seen from their failure to act on the idea of separate glass/6-pack IR's) loath to invent new ratings these days, and seems more content to let the insurance industry provide de facto regulation. We'll see what happens.

 

[midlifeflyer]

AFAIK, all it is about is going around the pattern in an airplane with retractable gear, flaps, and a pilot-controllable prop. Beyond that, someone would have to go back to the preamble of the original NPRM for the complex endorsement and see how they justified the rule.

It wasn't a historical question. The original reason for something might or might not be the same as reason for how it might be applied today. What is =was= all about doen't not necessarily tell us what is =is= all about.

BTW, I'm curious about you AFAIK - doesn't your own description about the way the FAA is approaching the issue suggest that it is =not= what it is all about? If "pilot controllable prop" means one that gives a pilot the ability to manually affect blade angle, a FADEC is not one. And if the idea is to have retractable gear, then pretend retractable gear just ain't retractable.

 

[poadeleted20]

BTW, I'm curious about you AFAIK - doesn't your own description about the way the FAA is approaching the issue suggest that it is =not= what it is all about? If "pilot controllable prop" means one that gives a pilot the ability to manually affect blade angle, a FADEC is not one.

That's correct.

And if the idea is to have retractable gear, then pretend retractable gear just ain't retractable.

More like the ability to move the gear handle up and down at appropriate points in the flight including the appropriate aircraft responses (the latter being why they don't accept the stick-on gear handle idea). The "DA-40R" proposal effectively covers that, but at the same time, the FAA has always allowed CS-prop/flap seaplanes with fixed gear to be used for the complex endorsement. Go figure.

 

[CowboyPilot]

I see it that way, too. I have the fortune of having flown just about everything from J-3C's to the most sophisticated systems-oriented jet fighters the US has (well, had) to offer, including flight instructing and charter flying in piston aircraft. There's no one single appropriate path to learn them all. Given that the folks going through training programs like MTSU, UND, ERAU, etc., aren't going to be flying 206's and 402's for charter operators, and given that doing that big-bore piston flying has little relevance to the skills needed to start as an RJ co-pilot, I understand the FAA's decision.

Seeing as how you view it and explain it, I understand the FAA's decision, too.

Just don't like it.

Reckon I'm old, cranky and a purist at heart when it comes to boats and airplanes. I'm also a believer in learning how to crawl, then walk, then run. So for me, that would be two-seat trainer, complex/HP (with real propellers and real retractable landing gear) and real hours in the left and right seat of real airplane in real IMC instead of sims and under hoods.

Just something about "airmanship" as I view it, I guess.

I can't count--even with the best Texas Instrument calculator I have--the number of AF jet-jockeys I've seen come and go in the past thirty-five years I've been flying and thirty-years that I've been a licensed pilot that could do wonders in a jet, but would porpoise a 182 all to hell and back on landing, stall it on departure, overload it in turns and banks, etc.

I guess I just like the idea of the new generation of airline drivers being able to fly it if it has wings and an engine--regardless of steam v glass, fixed v retractable, turbine v piston, etc.

AND be able to navigate across the country without GPS. . .

I feel like airmanship is a dying art that is being replaced with TV screens and push-button navigation systems and ever-increasingly capable auto-pilots, etc. Don't get me wrong--all three of my airplanes have damn nice GPS units in them. The Cardinal has a nice autopilot set up as does the RV. I haven't gone the glass route and will not do it on the Lancair or Four Winds when we start building them. I flew a G1000 Skylane several times and just didn't like it. But that's just me.

Yet, I just can't help but feel the broader your knowledge and experience, the better and safer and more serious a pilot you'll be.

Just my opinion, though. I'm probably older than fossil fuel in my views in that regard anymore.

The question has been raised as to whether the FAA needs to invent a new pilot certification concept, splitting the airline co-pilot track from the "traditional" commercial ticket that is appropriate for ag pilots, parachute haulers, light plane 135 ops, etc. This is being kicked around in the aviation education community, although that's about as far as the idea has gone so far. The FAA is (as we have seen from their failure to act on the idea of separate glass/6-pack IR's) loath to invent new ratings these days, and seems more content to let the insurance industry provide de facto regulation. We'll see what happens.

Not sure if I even have an opinion on creating new ratings or supplemental ratings for the above.

But what about an endorsement instead?

You're in the thick of it based upon what you do for a living. I'd be interested to know your thoughts--either here or feel free to PM me if you like.

Always looking for food for thought on these kind of things.

Regards.

-JD

 

[poadeleted20]

An endorsement for what?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

That's correct.

More like the ability to move the gear handle up and down at appropriate points in the flight including the appropriate aircraft responses (the latter being why they don't accept the stick-on gear handle idea). The "DA-40R" proposal effectively covers that, but at the same time, the FAA has always allowed CS-prop/flap seaplanes with fixed gear to be used for the complex endorsement. Go figure.

I was telling the local DPE about the "DA-40R" yesterday, and he said that it has been done before. He couldn't remember what type of airplane as it was some time ago, but he said "there is precedent for that."

Interesting.

 

[CowboyPilot]

An endorsement for what?

An endorsement for say like. . . glass panels. They take a whole 'nother set of instruction to learn them and be safe in them, much like learning to land a tailwheel when all you've flown is a nose wheel.

Complex and HP are endorsements because you can easily go your entire flying lifetime never needing either one, or a tailwheel endorsement.

Yet, when I got my ASES rating years ago. . . it was a whole different rating. But landing a plane on water is significantly different than landing it on concrete. Taxiing and docking is a helluva lot different than taxiing on a hard surface. Yet I didn't need a new rating or endorsement to put skis on our club's Super Cub up at Hill AFB and go landing on the salt flats. Go figure.

You said the FAA is loathe to create a new rating even though the equipment is changing significantly. Why not require an endorsement for glass cockpits, for example? No new rating needed and then insurance is also happy.

It seems that when we let insurance drive the bus, the result is overkill, but when the FAA drives the bus, it's underkill.

Something about "simulated retractable gear that is actually fixed" being used to train commercial/complex pilots just don't sit right. . .

Regards.

-JD

 

[Henning]

Reckon I'm old, cranky and a purist at heart when it comes to boats
-JD

I have a clear picture in my mind of JD sitting in the stern sheets beating the drum for the galley slaves with Ma Duece standing in the corner behind him

 

[poadeleted20]

An endorsement for say like. . . glass panels. They take a whole 'nother set of instruction to learn them and be safe in them, much like learning to land a tailwheel when all you've flown is a nose wheel.

The FAA has considered separate IR sub-ratings and additional training endorsements for 6-pack-trained pilots moving to glass and vice versa, but has elected (for the time being) to let the insurance industry "regulate" the matter. Generally speaking, the insurers require you to go to the school on the glass system you'll be flying before they'll cover you, and so far, this seems to be working. So far, I haven't seen any rash of specifically instrument flying accidents involving 6-pack-trained pilots flying glass panel airplanes, or the other way around. Since the FAA generally doesn't regulate unless people are busting their butts, I don't see them doing anything about it unless that situation changes.

Complex and HP are endorsements because you can easily go your entire flying lifetime never needing either one, or a tailwheel endorsement.

At the same time, of how much value is a complex endorsement earned in a C-172RG if you're going to jump in a Piper Malibu (not a "high altitude" airplane -- max altitude is not above FL250) without further training? Only the insurance companies "regulate" that.

You said the FAA is loathe to create a new rating even though the equipment is changing significantly. Why not require an endorsement for glass cockpits, for example? No new rating needed and then insurance is also happy.

Because it takes eight years to complete the entire process to create a new regulation, and they don't feel like going to that effort if there's no evidence such a new regulation is required.

It seems that when we let insurance drive the bus, the result is overkill, but when the FAA drives the bus, it's underkill.

Perhaps, but the actions of the insurance industry are not part of the FAA's mandate.

Something about "simulated retractable gear that is actually fixed" being used to train commercial/complex pilots just don't sit right. . .

How about airline crews making their first flight with paying passengers in a new aircraft type without ever having actually flown the plane before? Under certain circumstances, you can get fully rated and qualified in a new type purely in the sim, and make your first actual flight in the plane on a regular revenue run! Despite this apparently crazy rule, it seems to work. I guess it's a matter of accepting that technology is advancing to the point that we can teach and test the necessary skills with sufficient fidelity using alternate means. Kinda hard for those of us who grew up with vacuum tube radios and slide rules, but we really are in the 21st century now.

 

[nosehair]

we really are in the 21st century now.

The future is here...(Heavy Sigh..)

 

[poadeleted20]

I have a clear picture in my mind of JD sitting in the stern sheets beating the drum for the galley slaves with Ma Duece standing in the corner behind him

"All right, boys, here it comes -- the boss wants to waterski!"

 

[CowboyPilot]

I have a clear picture in my mind of JD sitting in the stern sheets beating the drum for the galley slaves with Ma Duece standing in the corner behind him

Hell,yeah. Especially given the price of dock gas these days. The Sea Ray has two freaking 496 Magnums in it. It uses more gas just sitting in the dock warming up than my wife's 2500 Suburban uses GETTING to the docks.

If I knew more about sailing, I'd definitely sell the 340 and look into a blowboat. We have friends who have a 62" moored down at Port Aransas--ocean-going rag boat. Saltwater to fresh water conversion, generator with solar assist, DEEP freeze, etc.

They can stay out for LONG periods of time.

Regards.

-JD

 

[Bill]

If I knew more about sailing, I'd definitely sell the 340 and look into a blowboat.

Take a sailing class and go do it, if'n you can learn to fly, you can certainly learn to sail.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Since the FAA generally doesn't regulate unless people are busting their butts, I don't see them doing anything about it unless that situation changes.

Without commenting on this particular issue, I think it's sad that people have to die before the rules are changed.

 

[Dwight B. Van Zanen]

Without commenting on this particular issue, I think it's sad that people have to die before the rules are changed.

True enough, but not different than adoption of new fire code requirements, or traffic laws, or even getting a traffic light or crosswalk or lower speed limit sign installed. Advocates for change need to overcome inertia, and a strong desire in the general public not to be inconvenienced at all. And it almost always takes a death (or several) to get it done. On the other hand, when people want to ignore regulations that have crossed that threshold, it tells me they have an inadequate regard for the safety of themselves or others.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Without commenting on this particular issue, I think it's sad that people have to die before the rules are changed.

It is, but some would say it would be even sadder if there was even more unnecessary regulation just because some politicians thought it would be a good idea.

 

[Henning]

If I knew more about sailing, I'd definitely sell the 340 and look into a blowboat.
Regards.

-JD

We can take care of that in a week.

 

[Everskyward]

It is, but some would say it would be even sadder if there was even more unnecessary regulation just because some politicians thought it would be a good idea.

You mean like my congressman (sad to say) and his crusade against the MU-2.

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/7newsinvestigates/9813065/detail.html

 

[CowboyPilot]

Take a sailing class and go do it, if'n you can learn to fly, you can certainly learn to sail.

Dunno. I've kinda come to rely on the maneuverability with twin screws when I'm in the water. Plus, we like to put the canopy on and do a little cruising around Thanksgiving/Christmas and so on down in the Bay and ICW.

Here's a shot of us in the harbor marina getting ready to do a cruise on Christmas.

Too many idiots out on the water that have no idea what the Rules of the Road are, which means they have zero clue that blowboats under sail have right away.

Still. . . with the price of dock gas, might not be a bad idea. Will have to consult the Admiral, though. It's "her" baby. (Even though I'm the one that dons the wetsuit and air hose every year to inspect the props, rudder, zincs, hull, etc and does all the work, scrubbing, waxing, and dreaded MSD maintenance. She just takes care of the solon and statesroom and galley.)

Regards.

-JD

 

[Bill]

Here's a shot of us in the harbor marina getting ready to do a cruise on Christmas.

Don't know much about power, but the oval port lights suggest SeaRay. My wife's cousin's husband is pres of SeaRay, and he keeps telling us he'd sell us a boat at a price that would make my head spin. Thus far, I've declined. Nice lookin' boat, JD.

Not our boat, but a picture of a sister ship. She's 25ft, which is plenty for the small inland lake we sail.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

You mean like my congressman (sad to say) and his crusade against the MU-2.

Certainly not condoning your congressman, but MU-2's seem to have had a very bad record. Not necessarily the plane's fault, but when parts of them are falling into people's bedrooms at night, it's not good for GA at all and you can't exactly expect people NOT to react to something like that.

(Or any of the crap that happened in CO last year, and didn't SD's governor die in an MU-2 back in 1992?)

 

[Bill]

Not necessarily the plane's fault, but when parts of them are falling into people's bedrooms at night, it's not good for GA at all

Maybe Mitsu thinks they're still building one use aircraft???

 

[Everskyward]

(Or any of the crap that happened in CO last year, and didn't SD's governor die in an MU-2 back in 1992?)

Of the two accidents that happened in his district recently, one had an engine fail, as I remember, but the other one was CFIT. I read that report recently.

Besides, if there is something that wrong with the design of the airplane don't you think it ought to be someone with some aviation background who brings this up, not some congressman pandering to people's fears?