Practical Advice to Avoid what happen in Washinton

[corjulo]

I offer this up as a way to change the focus of what happen in Washington. Now lets talk about practical steps for avoiding it in the future. I know to many of you this may seem obvious. But there are a lot of students and low hour weekend flyers that could benefit from even the most seemingly obvious advice. Count me in that group. To keep this focused lets try not to attack each other suggestions without at least offering a few of your own.

I'll start

1. Buy a portable GPS. They're so cheap now that $500 on ebay could get you something pretty good.

2. Better training earlier in the process. CFI could start talking about airspace much sooner then they do now.

3. Make flight following mandatory around Washington. What I mean is ATC can't refuse VFR following in certain airspace.

4. Add TFR information to ATIS with a hundred miles radius of any TFR

 

[Iceman]

I offer this up as a way to change the focus of what happen in Washington. Now lets talk about practical steps for avoiding it in the future. I know to many of you this may seem obvious. But there are a lot of students and low hour weekend flyers that could benefit from even the most seemingly obvious advice. Count me in that group. To keep this focused lets try not to attack each other suggestions without at least offering a few of your own.

I'll start

1. Buy a portable GPS. They're so cheap now that $500 on ebay could get you something pretty good.

2. Better training earlier in the process. CFI could start talking about airspace much sooner then they do now.

3. Make flight following mandatory around Washington. What I mean is ATC can't refuse VFR following in certain airspace.

4. Add TFR information to ATIS with a hundred miles radius of any TFR

#1 - great idea...and I would say $500 is on the high side. You can almost get a 196 for that... A good 195 or so gps would really help for awarness for all types of flying. At the very least a $70 (one hour rental time) gps with all nearby airports saved would be a good idea.

#2 - I think for the most part CFI's are working very hard teaching all the aspects of flying. It might be nice to add a 3 hour mandatory ground school that goes over new technology/challanges in modern aviation.

#3 - Probably a good idea...but I don't want to infring on anyones rights.

#4 - It seems like that would be easy to do and would really help the average pilot going for the $100 meal...

Thanks for the good positive advice!

 

[BruceAir]

What's most frustrating for me, as a CFI, is that so many pilots and instructors don't take advantage of the many resources that are already available to teach and update knowledge in such areas as airspace.

For example, the AOPA Air Safety Foundation has many free online courses available to all pilots--even those who aren't AOPA members--at http://www.aopa.org/asf/online_courses/, including two specifically related to understanding and operating in today's airspace:

"Mission Possible: Navigating Today's Special Use Airspace" and "Know Before You Go"

The ASF also offers a variety of excellent publications (Safety Topics and Safety Briefs, etc.) that consolidate information from the FARs, AIM, Advisory Circulars, and other sources. They add graphics, quizzes, and references that make these publications terrific teaching and learning aids for new pilots and those wanting a refresher.

Yet I hardly ever see or hear instructors promoting or using these resources. And when I give safety presentations, I'm amazed at how amazed the audiences are when I tell them about the information and tools that are freely available to them.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

What's most frustrating for me, as a CFI, is that so many pilots and instructors don't take advantage of the many resources that are already available to teach and update knowledge in such areas as airspace.

For example, the AOPA Air Safety Foundation has many free online courses available to all pilots--even those who aren't AOPA members--at http://www.aopa.org/asf/online_courses/, including two specifically related to understanding and operating in today's airspace:

"Mission Possible: Navigating Today's Special Use Airspace" and "Know Before You Go"

The ASF also offers a variety of excellent publications (Safety Topics and Safety Briefs, etc.) that consolidate information from the FARs, AIM, Advisory Circulars, and other sources. They add graphics, quizzes, and references that make these publications terrific teaching and learning aids for new pilots and those wanting a refresher.

Yet I hardly ever see or hear instructors promoting or using these resources. And when I give safety presentations, I'm amazed at how amazed the audiences are when I tell them about the information and tools that are freely available to them.

DITTO THAT....

Pilot's are always whinning about costs but, when I've made threads about ASF's online, and FREE courses that you mentioned above, they rarely even get an acknowdgement, much less a discussion of any kind.

 

[poadeleted20]

1. Buy a portable GPS. They're so cheap now that $500 on ebay could get you something pretty good.

I just bought a brand new Lowrance 500 for my temporarily GPS-less Cheeger for $370 at AirWays in Lancaster.

2. Better training earlier in the process. CFI could start talking about airspace much sooner then they do now.

There's a limit to how much we can move up that sort of stuff. Obviously, instructors around here cover this stuff early and often. But there are problems with trying to teach too much too soon.

3. Make flight following mandatory around Washington. What I mean is ATC can't refuse VFR following in certain airspace.

For all practical purposes, it already is mandatory, what with the ADIZ and the Bravo airspace. This pilot just wasn't smart enough to use it, and given his statements, had to have been using an outdated sectional. Beyond that, I am dead set opposed to effectively eliminating aircraft without radios or transponders from the sky, and Potomac TRACON just couldn't handle the workload -- it's a resource issue, and ATC is minimally-staffed as it is, with the likelihood of a serious controller shortage over the next five years.

4. Add TFR information to ATIS with a hundred miles radius of any TFR

Overkill. First, ATIS announcements are long enough already. Second, it only helps for folks departing from towered airports. Third, we've had this thing for over two years. Ain't nobody flying legally today who hasn't had a flight review or equivalent since the ADIZ went into effect. As such, there is simply no excuse for not knowing about this.

At this point, it's like drunk drivers -- short of putting sobriety checkpoints at every intersection, there's not much more we can do. FSS briefs everyone going anywhere near DC, it's in every DUATS briefing for a flight anywhere near DC, and every pilot currently flying legally must have taken some sort of checkride since it went into effect and been briefed on it.

The only really effective measure is going to be peer vigilance -- folks who see weak pilots must do something about it. Talk to them. Get them with an instructor. Tell a safety counselor. If necessary, tell the FSDO. You are not a "rat" if you do that because they are not just hurting themselves -- every one of us suffers each time one of them screws up. The government hasn't the resources to police us all, so if we don't police ourselves, they'll just ground us all.

 

[Terry Miller]

1. Buy a portable GPS. They're so cheap now that $500 on ebay could get you something pretty good.

2. Better training earlier in the process. CFI could start talking about airspace much sooner then they do now.

3. Make flight following mandatory around Washington. What I mean is ATC can't refuse VFR following in certain airspace.

4. Add TFR information to ATIS with a hundred miles radius of any TFR[/QUOTE]


1. This is a good idea, just keep in mind it's not a silver bullet. They can go out, they can go bad, and they can disagree with radar.

Lafayette used to consistently tell me that I was inside their airspace when my GPS showed me just out. Lafayette would consistently tell me also that their equipment was crap, but that's beside the point.

I've had my GPS freak out when flying around Fort Polk in and around a flight of A10's. I took off, the A-10's took off behind me and passed off to starboard, and that was about it for the 295. It was unreliable at that point, so I just hit the off switch.

2. One place I see where pilotage training could be improved is altitude. I have yet to see much time spent with students above the 1200' level. Get these guys up to 5 or 6 thousand and let them see how much better you can match landmarks to the sectional and let them get comfortable there.

I see this time and time again. Students train at low altitudes the vast majority of the time, that's where they are comfortable so that's where they fly. You have a much better chance of knowing exactly where you are on the map if you can see more of the world below you.

3. I don't know how practical, or even possible making flight following mandatory would be. I've seen times around New Orleans when the controller would have to tell all the IFR traffic to keep quiet and let him do all the talking. I'd hear no read backs, just an awe inspiring flow of instructions to countless aircraft out there. Not kidding about it being awed by the controller's ability and performance.

VFR traffic had no chance of getting in on the action.

Flight following is not going to be responsible for keeping you out of restricted airspace anyway. They probably will, but it's not a sure thing. I've been forgotten more times than you would think.

4. TFR information is posted a lot of places. Not a bad place to start is AOPA Flight Planner. They show up right there on the map, and usually a day or two in advance. Check multiple sources. I've seen the TFR posted in one place while not another. I've had the FSS fail to advise of existing TFR's. I make it a point to ask as I leave the brief, 'Any TFR's or unpublished NOTAMS?'

I've had the FSS, 'oh yeh', me TFR's after I ask. On one occasion I met another pilot in the air around a TFR, and he told me on an off band that the FSS didn't mention the TFR to him in the brief. So, watch your own topknot.

I'd like to see instructors and the general aviation public take these a little more serious. Most people take a defiant, and a 'why am I being so inconvenienced?', attitude. I don't see how that can help new pilots operate or the public have any sympathy for em when they bust.

Either these areas are secure, or they are not. You can cooperate, be sure where you are, be clear that you are not a threat, or you can make a difficult job worse for whoever has to do it.

 

[corjulo]

Um, Maybe the mandatory flight following isn't such a good idea. Any other ideas?

 

[MSmith]

Instead of mandatory flight following, monitor 121.5. At least that way you'll know you've strayed before you get to "shoot me down" areas.

Or at least listen to the correct controller - they'll generally give a shout out to somebody if they see that they're close, even if they're squawking 1200.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Um, Maybe the mandatory flight following isn't such a good idea. Any other ideas?

Get one of those ah, what are they called... ? ...a current sectional chart & use it properly.
Yeah, that's the ticket.

 

[Richard]

Um, Maybe the mandatory flight following isn't such a good idea. Any other ideas?

You can't legislate morality and so it goes for stupidity. You can load your cockpit with all kinds of whiz bang gadgetry but if you left your brain back on the ramp it's all useless. As Ron said, it's like drunk drivers; has happened and will happen again and again and again.

Making people more aware is not the problem, they are already aware, as Ron succintly pointed out. They know, but they don't seem to care. And you can bet he's gonna' fly like Al Hayes on his 709 ride.

Just like CFIT or any other boneheaded move, if you're not thinking faster than the airplane is moving you're just a passenger. In this case, a doomed passenger.

Throwing the book at him won't be effective at curbing future stupidity by others.

 

[Richard]

Um, Maybe the mandatory flight following isn't such a good idea. Any other ideas?

Here's a thought: better than silly lasers. Your transponder will now carry Mode X--which flashes big red warnings that you are about to become the transgressor into ADIZ/TFR. Maybe it even provides an RA.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

You can't legislate morality and so it goes for stupidity. You can load your cockpit with all kinds of whiz bang gadgetry but if you left your brain back on the ramp it's all useless. As Ron said, it's like drunk drivers; has happened and will happen again and again and again.

Making people more aware is not the problem, they are already aware, as Ron succintly pointed out. They know, but they don't seem to care. And you can bet he's gonna' fly like Al Hayes on his 709 ride.

Just like CFIT or any other boneheaded move, if you're not thinking faster than the airplane is moving you're just a passenger. In this case, a doomed passenger.

Throwing the book at him won't be effective at curbing future stupidity by others.

Stupidity should be painful. And, if it's painful enough, it will effect future behavoir in a positive way in many cases.

 

[Brian Austin]

Here's a thought: better than silly lasers. Your transponder will now carry Mode X--which flashes big red warnings that you are about to become the transgressor into ADIZ/TFR. Maybe it even provides an RA.

This is an interesting idea.

We have transponders with Mode S that will show where we are, including altitude, to ATC. We have GPS's that can tell us where we are within a few meters. We have GPS's that will also warn when coming up on different airspaces.

New transponder (since it's required for the most part): Richard's "Mode X" with GPS locator built-in and local queries to the ATC. Like Mode S, the transponder responds with the current location but doesn't necessarily reflect it back to other planes. Instead, it compares it to local TFRs or airspace boundaries and sends a warning back to the transponder.

Yeah, it would be expensive at first. But the base technologies are all there, just not in the same spot.

 

[wsuffa]

This is an interesting idea.

We have transponders with Mode S that will show where we are, including altitude, to ATC. We have GPS's that can tell us where we are within a few meters. We have GPS's that will also warn when coming up on different airspaces.

New transponder (since it's required for the most part): Richard's "Mode X" with GPS locator built-in and local queries to the ATC. Like Mode S, the transponder responds with the current location but doesn't necessarily reflect it back to other planes. Instead, it compares it to local TFRs or airspace boundaries and sends a warning back to the transponder.

Yeah, it would be expensive at first. But the base technologies are all there, just not in the same spot.

You've essentially described ADS-B.

 

[Brian Austin]

You've essentially described ADS-B.

Kind of but not quite. I think Richard (and myself) aren't talking about adding anything outside of a transponder but simply adding the warning feature TO the transponder.

From my brief search, I couldn't find the delivery component required for ADS-B. Is it via transponder then shared on the data bus? Or a different receiver? Or is the receiver and GPS required to be tied together? I'm talking about a single, standalone unit here, although ADS-B could be used as the comm protocol.

 

[wsuffa]

For all practical purposes, it already is mandatory, what with the ADIZ and the Bravo airspace. This pilot just wasn't smart enough to use it, and given his statements, had to have been using an outdated sectional. Beyond that, I am dead set opposed to effectively eliminating aircraft without radios or transponders from the sky, and Potomac TRACON just couldn't handle the workload -- it's a resource issue, and ATC is minimally-staffed as it is, with the likelihood of a serious controller shortage over the next five years.

Any truth to the rumor that ADS-B will be MANDATORY for all aircraft based in the ADIZ, and possibly for ones authorized to go to the DC-3?

Third, we've had this thing for over two years. Ain't nobody flying legally today who hasn't had a flight review or equivalent since the ADIZ went into effect.

Beg to differ. Lots of CFI's - especially ones far removed from the ADIZ - don't have a clue. The DE I recently used down here asked me after the exam about the DC ADIZ procedures (since I indicated that I get up there several times a year). He simply has no occasion to use them regularly. I'm venturing a guess that a bunch of CFIs from outside the area never have to deal with it, nor do they know the procedures.

Wrong? Maybe. Come down this way, and you'll get a dose of instruction about P-49. I bet you don't get that in the DC area.

Also, under the Wings program, you really are not obligated to cover that. The ground seminar can be something else entirely, and the flight portion might well not touch on the ADIZ.

Now, having said that, Smoketown is close enough to DC that this should have been topic A on a flight review or CFI briefing.

At this point, it's like drunk drivers -- short of putting sobriety checkpoints at every intersection, there's not much more we can do. FSS briefs everyone going anywhere near DC, it's in every DUATS briefing for a flight anywhere near DC, and every pilot currently flying legally must have taken some sort of checkride since it went into effect and been briefed on it.

The only really effective measure is going to be peer vigilance -- folks who see weak pilots must do something about it. Talk to them. Get them with an instructor. Tell a safety counselor. If necessary, tell the FSDO. You are not a "rat" if you do that because they are not just hurting themselves -- every one of us suffers each time one of them screws up. The government hasn't the resources to police us all, so if we don't police ourselves, they'll just ground us all.

On this, we agree fully.

 

[azure]

I see this time and time again. Students train at low altitudes the vast majority of the time, that's where they are comfortable so that's where they fly. You have a much better chance of knowing exactly where you are on the map if you can see more of the world below you.

On my first student dual XC (DET-BAX), we stayed at 2000 feet AGL the whole time. I asked my CFI why we couldn't go a little higher to get a better view of the terrain and he just implied that that would make it too easy. So I always assumed the whole idea of staying low was to make it more challenging.

I've had the FSS, 'oh yeh', me TFR's after I ask. On one occasion I met another pilot in the air around a TFR, and he told me on an off band that the FSS didn't mention the TFR to him in the brief. So, watch your own topknot.

In the case of sporting event TFRs, I think the briefers in general don't even know whether or not there is anything taking place that qualifies for a TFR. At least I've found that to be true of Lansing FSS. When you ask about TFRs, they will ask if you have Security Information whatever (India at last check) and then list only those that are not covered in that NOTAM. A couple of weeks ago I was to be flying to DET soon after a Tigers home game in Comerica Park. The briefer said he was unaware of any TFRs in effect. But there was a Comerica Park TFR and the controllers at DET knew about it - the announcement was on the ATIS as I made my first call from out over the Lake. Thankfully it had expired 30 minutes earlier.

Liz

 

[Terry Miller]

I can buy into the make it more difficult when training. I just think you can mix in a little, make it efficient, at the same time. Train tough, but train with what works best also.

I've seen one tower know of a TFR and another not also. I usually check every resource I have at hand. If I get the briefing at home, I'll plug the TFR into my GPS.

Along with 121.5 while in flight, I've monitored and have recieved pop up TFR's broadcast in the blind by the FSS. I also pass on that info to other aircraft if I hear them on one of the non tower frequencies. I'll sometimes hear them passing it on, so if you start the ball, the word will spread.

I don't remember if I copied this from here or not, but here's one place.

http://tfr.faa.gov/tfr/list.jsp

 

[PoAdeleted5]

Technology is not the solution. Planes without so much as electrical systems easily navigate clear of ADIZ and class B everyday. I wonder how they do that?

I cranked up my 296c, with current database loaded. I can't find the ADIZ on it.

 

[Brian Austin]

Technology is not the solution. Planes without so much as electrical systems easily navigate clear of ADIZ and class B everyday. I wonder how they do that?

I cranked up my 296c, with current database loaded. I can't find the ADIZ on it.

I didn't say it was the solution, just a tool. And planes without an electrical system have to navigate clear of both the ADIZ and Class B since transponders are required.

Is the ADIZ on the sectionals? My understanding was that, since it wasn't "permanently assigned" it was handled like a TFR, albeit a long one.

 

[poadeleted20]

Any truth to the rumor that ADS-B will be MANDATORY for all aircraft based in the ADIZ, and possibly for ones authorized to go to the DC-3?

It's a variation on the truth. The FAA is now equipping select aircraft based inside the ADIZ, including the fleet at Freeway Aviation at Freeway Airport (W00, in a cutout in the edge of the FRZ) with GDL90 data link units and MX20 displays so everyone (in the cockpit and on the ground) can see where they are at all times, and they can communicate via data link. This may expand further based on initial testing. I'm on the list as a potential tester down the line since I'm based just outside the ADIZ at SBY, they're putting in an ADS-B ground station here, and I'm on the FRZ access list. So far, the plan is for the government is providing the GDL90's, but the owner has to buy the display equipment and the installation. Still, a free $7K box would be nice -- I hope they keep doing it that way.

 

[MSmith]

The ADIZ is on the Washington sectional. It's easy to spot - white background (rather than terrain colored) with a field of dots in the white section (not lined up - patterned polka dots). It roughly but not completely corresponds to the Class B boundaries, which are also easy to spot.

 

[poadeleted3]

I didn't say it was the solution, just a tool. And planes without an electrical system have to navigate clear of both the ADIZ and Class B since transponders are required.

Is the ADIZ on the sectionals? My understanding was that, since it wasn't "permanently assigned" it was handled like a TFR, albeit a long one.

It's on the sectionals. A huge, thick white line with little purple dots in it around the whole ADIZ is kind of what it looks like. It's not exactly subtle.

 

[Iceman]

So far, the plan is for the government is providing the GDL90's, but the owner has to buy the display equipment and the installation. Still, a free $7K box would be nice -- I hope they keep doing it that way.

Sign me up! That's the way to get technology out there. They are effectively splitting the cost with the pilot.

 

[CFIse]

Get one of those ah, what are they called... ? ...a current sectional chart & use it properly.
Yeah, that's the ticket.

It's all mostly conjecture - but if I had to guess the two buffons (OK, the one buffon and the student) knew exactly where they were. They were trying pass between Dulles and National below 3,000 feet - which pre-ADIZ was a sort of VFR corridor so you didn't have to traipse all the way around to the West or East. I have used that before coming out north of DC to get south and then pickup an IFR clearance. But, obviously since I still have a certificate, not since 9/11.

If they'd had, for example, a GPS they'd have been dead on track for that corridor, but still blissfully unaware of the ADIZ. I don't think they were lost, I think they knew where they were - just didn't know they weren't supposed to be there.

 

[SkyHog]

It's on the sectionals. A huge, thick white line with little purple dots in it around the whole ADIZ is kind of what it looks like. It's not exactly subtle.

So it looks like the ADIZ we have down south for Mexico then? There's no way one can miss that. Even with the sectional handing up on the wall, from across the room I can read "Conti.... US ADIZ"

 

[poadeleted20]

The ADIZ is on the Washington sectional. It's easy to spot - white background (rather than terrain colored) with a field of dots in the white section (not lined up - patterned polka dots). It roughly but not completely corresponds to the Class B boundaries, which are also easy to spot.

Lest anyone be confused, the "white background" referred to above is just the thickness of the ADIZ boundary line -- the regular terrain coloring shows throughout the ADIZ other than in the FRZ. The completely whited out zone is the FRZ, and you're in the ADIZ long before you're in the FRZ. In addition, keep in mind on the south and southeast edges, the ADIZ sticks out well beyond the Class B outer boundary -- that has snagged folks who thought that staying outside the B-space outar boundary also kept them out of the ADIZ.

 

[SkyHog]

So - why bother having the Class B airspace in the area, if the entire area requires that one talk to the controllers? If you're within the ADIZ (legally), but not in Class B, what visibility requirements exist?

 

[poadeleted20]

So - why bother having the Class B airspace in the area, if the entire area requires that one talk to the controllers?

The ADIZ merely requires that you be assigned a discrete transponder code and be in radar contact. That's it. You can be in the ADIZ and be under, over, or in a small area on the south/southeast side, outside, the Class B airspace. Generally speaking, when I go to Tipton, Freeway, or College Park VFR, I'm told to remain clear of the B-space. That means slipping in underneath the 1500-foot shelf between Dulles/National and BWI. In that case, you are entirely on your own -- no clearance, no separation, and maybe no radar advisories.

The whole idea of the ADIZ is that you are positively identified via your squawk, and Huntress (the AWACS overhead watching everything) knows you're a friendly. Any code not on their uplinked list of assigned squawks, any 1200 squawk, or any non-squawking primary target (they can paint and track you even on the ground taxiing back to your hangar so they know exactly who you are and where you went -- and they have taped replay to tell where you came from) is a bogey and they react accordingly. FAA radar is not involved in any of that. That's why if you accidentally squawk 1200, there's nothing the FAA controller can do to save you -- the alarm goes off aboard Huntress, and you are toast.

If you're within the ADIZ (legally), but not in Class B, what visibility requirements exist?

The 91.155 rules for whatever type of space you're in, which could be D, E, or G, depending on where you are.